1973-11-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table an exchange of notes that took place a few moments ago in New York between the Secretary General of the United Nations and the Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations by which the government of Canada has agreed to augment its contingent to the United Nations Emergency Force.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today the policies and principles approved by the government which will govern the international operations of Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines, and which clarify a number of other issues relating to international air policy.
At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress that as a country we have to get our fair share of the international market, but at the same time we must ensure that an adequate domestic service is provided for the Canadian public.
In examining this new policy statement, I believe it important that the House should recall the history of air policy in Canada. The development of air policy is a continuing process in which the government must establish guidelines for all domestic services as well as for international operations. The objectives of air policy must be threefold. The first task is to ensure safe, efficient and convenient air services to meet the travelling needs of Canadians; the second is to contribute to the economic and social well-being of the country, and the third is to ensure that air transportation services are reasonably balanced to create an adequate atmosphere in which the airline industry of Canada can continue to develop in an efficient and profitable manner without imposing undue burdens on the taxpayer at large.

Prior to the statements of policy made in 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967 on international and domestic operations, air policy had largely developed as a result of initiatives of Air Canada and the commercial decisions of other carriers, notably Canadian Pacific Airlines.
In 1965, the Minister of Transport announced guidelines for international air policy and indicated those geographic areas which would be allocated to Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines respectively. They did not take into account all parts of the world which might eventually be served, nor was it at that time possible to make a clear cut geographic distribution without disturbing the pattern of existing services which had been developed by both airlines.
In 1966 a policy to recognize the special role of five regional carriers with defined spheres of interest was announced and was later defined more precisely by my predecessor, Mr. Jamieson, in 1969. This policy remains basically unchanged. It has permitted the orderly growth of five regional carriers, and has at the same time permitted them a wide measure of freedom in operating international charter services. The government does not wish to encourage regional carriers to expect the type of growth which would make them directly competitive with the two major carriers. Such a development could only lead to a breakdown in the existing pattern of viable growth, and the risk of the emergence of undesirable, highly subsidized operations. A number of routes were transferred from mainline to regional carriers in accordance with this policy.
[ English]
In 1967 a transcontinental policy was developed for domestic air services which confirmed that both Air Canada and Canadian Pacific would operate transcontinental services but based on a formula which maintained the pre-eminence of Air Canada. This was based on the assumption that Air Canada's major role was to serve the needs of the Canadian public and that it could be called upon from time to time to undertake certain services in the public interest which would not necessarily be justified on purely commercial grounds.
In addition, of course, the government expects Air Canada to perform a special role as a model corporation in such fields as decentralization, bilingualism, and labour and technological change. This transcontinental policy is basically to be retained, although I have asked for a report on the feasibility of relaxing certain restrictions in CP operations which now oblige them to originate and terminate all flights in Vancouver and Montreal.
In terms of profitability, long-haul domestic services and certain international operations have proven to be the profitable underpinnings of both airlines. The importance of international routes can change substantially with the
November 23, 1973

Air Transport Policy
travelling habits of Canadians or sometimes through factors beyond the control of either the Canadian government or the carriers.
In announcing adjustments to the international air policy today, we are endeavouring to create a framework which will permit both airlines to engage in reasonably long-range planning. It also permits the government to undertake a methodical negotiation of new bilateral agreements or the renegotiation of some existing ones.
A significant development in the new air policy is the recognition that an increasing number of Canadian cities must now be regarded as international gateways. The statement of principles indicates in greater detail how this policy will work, but is based essentially on the progressive changes in the needs of the travelling public and for the movement of freight.
Although the international travel market can be subject to new pressures such as the rapidly growing charter operations, I am confident that the policy stated today provides a framework in which both airlines can develop their international operations on a healthy and profitable basis. While Air Canada remains the pre-eminent carrier, both in terms of its very significant domestic role as well as its international role, there is room for a substantial expansion of the second, privately-owned airline. As a principle, no route that has been developed has to be taken away from either airline and there is room for the rational expansion of both.
Another fundamental principle is the stated desire of the government that the two airlines should co-operate as fully as possible to ensure that Canadian interests are not damaged by separate arrangements which favour foreign airlines. Guidelines are needed, and I am asking the Canadian Transport Commission to review the level of co-operation and to report to me regularly. If the guidelines are not followed, the government will feel free to take necessary steps to correct the situation including the withdrawal, if necessary, of rights conferred under the existing policy.

Today's announcement is the first of three announcements which will complete the over-all review of air policy. If a new agreement can be reached with the United States it will provide Canadians with significantly better service to the United States.
Finally, it is my intention to announce in the future a new policy for third level carriers whose importance and whose scope of operation is increasing rapidly. Related to this policy will be an announcement of a new air policy with respect to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories which is being developed jointly by the Ministry and the Canadian Transport Commission in consultation with the Territorial Governments and other interests in the North. We have discussed with the provinces at regional conferences how their views may be best taken into account.
Hon. members will thus see that while international air policy must be based on practical and well defined guidelines, it must also be related closely to continental air

policy and to domestic air policy, including both the mainline services and the regional services.
Hon. members will also realize that decisions on the implementation of these policies are more urgent than ever, and I am expecting all departments and agencies to be even more responsive and prompt in their role in regulating and administering the government's policies. Other measures to strengthen the Government's organizational capacity to deal with air policy and bilateral negotiations will also be taken.
The implementation of our new international air policies can of course be seriously affected by current fuel shortages and we are discussing solutions with other countries.
[ English]


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to thank the minister for providing our party with an advance copy of the statement he has just made. I must say I welcome the statement to the extent that it represents a first step in the filling of the policy void in the important area of air transport policy, a void which has been detrimental not only to the air transport industry but to the economy of the country as a whole.
For a year, now, the absence of a government decision respecting landing rights to serve the city of Milan has caused intense frustration to Canadian airlines; a buoyant market was within reach but they were deprived of the opportunity to take advantage of it because of government inaction.
I cannot expect that the regional air carriers will be overjoyed by the announcement which the minister has made as far as it affects them, since it represents nothing more than the maintenance of the status quo. I would have expected some clarification with respect to the role they might play in connection with Ottawa's proposed air route agreement with the United States. It must be pointed out that while U.S. carriers are being granted concessions to operate into Canada the same does not apply to equally valuable transport routes for Canadian regional carriers. We must also recognize the growing need and demand for improved services in the Prairie and Atlantic regions. Certainly we should examine closely the interconnection of routes involving the various regions and services which can be provided by regional carriers.
With regard to the minister's announcement respecting transcontinental air policy, while this policy has basically been retained the minister indicated that a review will take place in regard to the origin and termination of all Canadian Pacific flights at Vancouver or Montreal. I hope the minister will reconsider this policy and broaden the review to include an over-all analysis and study of the 75 per cent/25 per cent formula in the allocation of domestic-routes in Canada, with 75 per cent being allocated to Air Canada and 25 per cent to CP Air.
It must be pointed out here that the growth of the transcontinental air industry is predicated upon the growth of Air Canada, as is the frequency and the quality of service. The minister indicated in his statement that there is certainly room for growth of the private air line but in effect contradicts that by restricting the growth of CP Air under the 75 per cent/25 per cent formula. As I say,
November 23, 1973

I think the minister would do well to broaden the terms of reference of this review or feasibility study to include study of this formula.
I also expected a statement to be forthcoming this morning in connection with the policy announcement that was made in regard to the current status of Air Canada. I expected the minister to comment on the current power play going on at the senior management level of Air Canada, the departure of a number of vice-presidents and, indeed, the departure of the president. The minister might have enlightened us on the future senior management structure of the organization, which I understand is being placed under review. In addition, he might also have indicated the ways and means in which, as a result of his discussions with Mr. Pratte to which he referred in the House yesterday, the government and indeed the management of Air Canada would see fit to take steps to improve morale within the organization, the need for which is apparent to every person who uses the facilities of Air Canada.
We on this side of the House contend there is a genuine lack of leadership in the operations of Air Canada. We think the government should take heed of this and look into the matter immediately-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -if, as the minister has suggested, the role of Air Canada is to be pre-eminent. The minister might also have elaborated upon, or cleared the air with respect to, the chairman's suggestion that competition in the airline industry is bad and that good service and profitable operations cannot be achieved in unison.
All of these matters are of concern to the Canadian people. They are of concern to those who in the past have supported Air Canada and those who continue to support the role of Air Canada but are desirous of supporting it only if Air Canada does a little housecleaning and makes up its mind whether it is going to be an airline serving the needs of Canadian passengers or an operation which is going to diversify into the aerospace and allied industries. We should point out here and now that Air Canada must soon recognize that its prime concern in Canada is to serve the travelling needs of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Second, I believe the time has come when it must recognize that its employees must be treated as people and not as machines. Certainly we can do a lot to rectify the low morale in the corporation if this fundamental principle is taken into consideration.
The minister said in his statement:
In addition, of course, the government expects Air Canada to perform a special role as a model corporation in such fields as decentralization, bilingualism, and labour and technological change.
As for decentralization, I would ask the minister to talk to the people in Winnipeg about this and explain it to them. Having regard to labour, the minister should talk to the employees of Air Canada. In respect of technological
Air Transport Policy
change, if the minister is referring to Comstock International-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member to remind him that the provisions of the Standing Order state that comments made in response to ministerial statements ought to be brief. I appreciate the importance of the matter but I hope the hon. member will give some thought to coming to the end of his statement.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have almost completed my statement, but I should say to you and the House that the minister's statement is of grave importance to Canada and was rather lengthy. In order to cover all the areas touched upon in the statement I find I must deal with the various points relative to the matters presented. Nevertheless, I am almost finished.
I suggest there is very little in the statement that is new in regard to policy. The only new thing of importance today is the designation of landing rights at Milan for Canadian Pacific Airlines and the designation of Yugoslavia for Air Canada, which we have long awaited.
The minister pointed out that the success of the airline industry is dependent upon co-operation and it will only be developed and strengthened through such co-operation. I believe it is fair to say that the growth of the airline industry and its success in Canada has been achieved through co-operation. I only hope that in the future we can count on the co-operation of the government because the future growth of the industry is dependent upon government policy. It is my hope that the minister will be making further announcements in respect of his three-part policy in the very near future.


Mr. Lies Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank the minister for kindly sending a copy of his statement to this party an hour or more in advance of the House sitting, but I am afraid that is about all for which I can thank him.
I offered to make bets with the minister as long as two or three years ago on where some of these routes would go and I know now why he did not call me on them.
The New Democratic Party still believes that because of Canada's geography, its thinly scattered population and the overriding fact that transportation is an essential public service, this industry should be a public utility and publicly owned. The Canadian Pacific Railway system in our opinion has no business in this entire scheme of things, but we will have to leave that until another day when we have an NDP government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the noises I hear to my right and the noises I heard from the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) as to the glories of private enterprise airlines, I should like to ask the hon. member and the minister where private enterprise and the Canadian Pacific were in the 1930's when the people of Canada, through their own air service, built up the airline system of this country. As soon as Air Canada became viable and profitable, private enterprise decided it wanted some of the gravy. Ever since then private carriers, in particular Canadian Pacific, have been handed lucrative

November 23, 1973
Air Transport Policy
routes developed by Air Canada and new routes that should have gone to Air Canada. It seems to me that the thrust of the minister's statement is: If there is a route that will not make a profit or only a marginal profit, give it to Air Canada, but if it is a lead-pipe cinch it will be lucrative be sure CP Air or one of those friendly regional carriers gets it.
Air Canada has been allowed to develop only at a rate that ensures that its so-called pre-eminence is steadily decreased. For example, in the recent agreement signed with the United States, Air Canada did not receive the consideration it should have. The other thing the minister should be reminded about in regard to the agreement with the United States is that Saskatchewan was left out completely. It was given no routes. Manitoba made representations to the government and to the minister at the economic conference in Calgary for routes serving Winnipeg-Minneapolis, Winnipeg-Denver and Winnipeg-Grand Falls. None of these can be in effect before 1976 and there is no guarantee there.
I will make another little bet now, if anybody would like to call me on it, that if and when routes are awarded out of Manitoba to the central and north central United States they will go to TransAir. If anybody would care to call me on that bet I will be glad to take it. This airline was handed a lucrative Air Canada route to Toronto in order to subsidize it indirectly so it would serve the people of Brandon, Dauphin and Yorkton. No sooner had it got the route than it quit going to Yorkton. Now an application has been made to quit going to Dauphin and Brandon. That is your private enterprise regional carrier, Mr. Speaker.
The minister talks about decentralization. The ears of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) perked up and he even grinned. Air Canada-head office in Montreal; overhaul base, Montreal; major computer centre, Montreal. At the moment there are minor computer centres in Winnipeg and Toronto and the one at Winnipeg is to disappear. Compare that with four of the major airlines in the United States. American Airlines-head office, New York; major overhaul base, Tulsa, Oklahoma; major computer centre, Tulsa, Oklahoma. United Air Lines-head office, Chicago-


Some hon. Members:: Private enterprise!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is having a difficult time. I think the House owes it to the hon. member to give him an opportunity to make his statement without interruption.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, United Air Lines-head office, Chicago; major overhaul base, San Francisco; major computer centre, Denver, and other computer centres in Chicago and San Francisco. The minister talks about Air Canada serving as a model for decentralization. I suspect that even the Air Canada finance group at Winnipeg will be slated to disappear once the computer operation is further enlarged at Montreal. I will make a little bet with the minister on that, too. Air Canada can and should be setting an example for the private airlines I just mentioned but has been prevented from doing so by the policies of the government. Anything that will

enhance the prestige of private enterprise, particularly Canadian Pacific, has met with approval.
May I briefly mention the international routes about which the minister spoke. He reminds me of the Pope in the Middle Ages who divided up the world between Spain and Portugal. There is no real change in the thrust or objective which is to provide more of the best to Canadian Pacific. The division has been made in such a way as to provide CP Air with most of the new areas that will afford the largest growth in international traffic. Air Canada gets Yugoslavia. Very good; I am glad. But CP Air gets the countries from which there has been massive immigration to Canada-Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece.


An hon. Member:: And they pay taxes on every flight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Air Canada is to get northern Europe, but the minister says CP Air will keep Amsterdam. Why? We do not know what the rationale is. Air Canada is to have all of Africa except Morocco and a few other north African countries. I will make another bet with the minister that eventually CP Air will get Egypt and Libya as well. Israel could not get them but CP Air will.
The entire thrust of the statement of the minister is an extension of the bad policy that has been carried on since the early 1950s. The NDP will continue to propose fundamental changes in air policy and the way in which it serves the people of this country.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, what surprises me about the policy statements of the Minister of Transport (Mr. March) and as indeed those of the other ministers is that they always in substance express wishes, but their application never does stand up to the statement. This morning once again wishes have been expressed when it was stated that transport must first ensure adequate domestic service to the Canadian people.
In my opinion, the Minister of Transport knows as well as I do, especially as regards transport between Quebec City and Ottawa, all the difficulties incurred on that flight. We have to fight to obtain direct flights and the Minister of Transport, who travels as often as I do, is yet unaware of the ineffectiveness of his policy statements on transport.
Further on, the minister states three important points of that policy. First, to ensure safe, efficient and convenient air services. Once more one can realize the problems confronting small domestic airlines almost everywhere. We do not mind speaking about international airlines but we often forget to implement the guidelines mentioned in the minister's speech which are aimed at providing efficient service to Canadians.
Second, the problem is to contribute to the economic and social growth of our country, a contribution which unfortunately comes in late in most cases.
Third, the program is to see to it that the various air transportation services are reasonably balanced so as, and I now quote the minister's own words:
November 23, 1973

-to create an adequate atmosphere in which the airline industry of Canada can continue to develop-
But when the minister is requested to enlarge an airport or to create a new service in a particular region, and I would offer my own constituency as an example, when the tourist industry is to be developed and the Minister of Transport is requested to take the first steps for an airport expansion, he contents himself with political speeches and in fact nothing is done for the development of a region. This applies to all regions of Canada.
Further on, we are again told by the minister, and I wonder what the NDP had to complain about this morning in this field-


An hon. Member:: They are always complaining!


Gilles Caouette: And I will say as my hon. friend did, they always complain. The NDP members are telling us about nationalization whereas all the examples they give us are private companies. There again I would emphasize that, according to the minister's speech, the government does not want small companies to hope they will progress or grow and compete with the two major companies. If this isn't state control as advocated by the New Democratic Party, I wonder what the minister means by that.
Yet we speak of highly subsidized routes. Let me give one more example, which should satisfy the New Democratic Party. Each year, we grant subsidies to Air Canada for a rotten service within Canada. I emphasize that it is a national company.
This government also expects Air Canda to be a leader in the area of bilingualism and there again how many times did we have to rise in this House precisely to point out to the minister that his statements of principles or policies are far from being actually implemented in airports as well as on aircraft, even by air hostesses.
He went on to say that agreements must be reached with the United States to ensure security, adequate service to Canadians going to the United States but how many times will we have to repeat to the minister that if we want to bring Americans to Canada, mainly to develop the tourist industry, there should also be agreements favouring Canadian airline companies.
In a last gasp in his statement of good wishes the minister said that perhaps because of the shortage in fuel we may have problems with those air carriers. Once again, practical suggestions were made to the minister but no action was taken. I remember quite well, not too long ago, at the very beginning of the discussions on the oil crisis, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) suggested to the Minister of Transport that he inform Air Canada with respect to its Montreal-Rouyn flight making a stop at Val-d'Or, then returning to Rouyn for another stop and coming back to Val-d'Or for a further stop before returning to Montreal, to eliminate the second stop at Val-d'Or thus making a saving of fuel for Air Canada and all of Canada. But once again in spite of the policy statements valid suggestions are not yet implemented.
As a rule, Mr. Speaker, it is again evident that the government is content, as usual, to make statements of principles but is never ready to put into practice what it
Railway Grade Crossing Fund has said. The Minister of Transport has made an effort this morning, unlike his colleagues, in making available copy of his declaration before the House met. I hope that for once, he will go further than his colleagues in putting into practice this morning's statement.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise to seek leave of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the fact that an agreement exists between the government of Canada and the James Bay Development Corporation whereby the James Bay Development Corporation has the power of veto over joint Canada-Corporation activities in the area of environmental studies and whereunder the government of Canada has agreed to limit its activity and expenditures in such studies even though they are in the national interest. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That the agreement dated November 24, 1972, between Her Majesty in right of Canada and the James Bay Development Corporation be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development for examination and report.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the commitment made by both the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and the Minister of Transport in October, 1972, to double federal grants under the railway grade crossing fund and to provide funds to move railroads out of core urban areas, and in view of the government's failure to present any legislation to the House to that effect for over a year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Nelson):
That this House immediately double the current federal share available under the federal railway grade crossing fund and forthwith provide funds to assist in relocation of rail lines in core urban areas.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 23, 1973
House Business


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not. The motion cannot be put.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise again under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. Inasmuch as the agreement between the government of Canada and the James Bay Development Corporation of November 24, 1972, constitutes a declaration that the government sides with the James Bay Development Corporation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskam-ing (Mr. Peters):
That this House disapproves of the government action in making an agreement with the James Bay Development Corporation that has effectively prevented it from publicly taking a stand on behalf of the Indian people in their struggle with that corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member appreciates that a motion put in those terms, with that kind of preamble, is hardly in order. I have indicated to hon. members on numerous occasions that, in view of the fact there is no debate on these motions under Standing Order 43, members should try not to introduce argument in the preamble to motions. However, I will ask whether there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources proposes to make a statement in the House on Monday. I have had some consultations and I understand it might be possible to agree to a House order that we revert to motions at five o'clock on Monday for the purpose of hearing the statement and the replies, and that, if it is regarded as desirable, we could split the question period as we did on the last occasion. I will urge the minister, and I am sure he will agree, that copies of the statement be placed in the hands of opposition spokesmen at a reasonable period before five o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Mr. Bell:: We agree.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: We agree, Mr. Speaker, and we hope the minister will have something to say.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my understanding, therefore, there is agreement that there will be an order that on Monday next the House will revert to motions at five o'clock in the afternoon, and that there be a 20-minute question period earlier in the day and a 20-minute supplementary question period after the minister's statement under the terms of Standing Order 43.

[Transla tion]


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-00, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to change the name of my constituency to Ottawa-Vanier. As you know, the whole city of Vanier lies within my constituency. Vanier has been named after a great Canadian, a former governor general and I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to introduce this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister arising out of his statement last evening that unless the supply picture improves very considerably there will be allocation of oil at the wholesale level in the country this winter. I rise not to raise the question of whether this constituted a policy statement that should have been made in the House but simply to ask the Prime Minister whether it is envisaged that this allocation at the wholesale level will apply to the whole of Canada or simply to certain regions of the country?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr,
Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I made the statement in fairly general terms for two reasons. The first is that I did
November 23, 1973

not want to be overly specific by presenting policy announcements which more properly would be made in the House. The second is that these very matters are being discussed in Toronto today by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with his provincial counterparts, and we would not want to make a specific announcement until he has spoken to the provinces and we hear their response.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, of course I am always delighted to see the leader of any party get a lot of applause, but I would like to see what the right hon. gentleman's followers would do for him if he really did something.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister having indicated to the country last night that there would be allocations at the wholesale level, I would like to ask him in the House of Commons, where it is appropriate that such a statement be made, in what regions of the country does he anticipate the necessity of resorting to wholesale allocation of oil?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member reads the answer I just gave to the same question which he is repeating, he will find the answer there. I indicated that this problem of regions was being discussed in Toronto by the minister, and we do not want to make a formal decision on that until we have given the provincial governments a chance to react to our proposals.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but wonder why the Prime Minister made a statement like this on a national network if he did not wish to go further until there was consultation with the provinces. Let me ask my right hon. friend this question. In view of the indication by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that the supply of oil may fall off by as much as 30 per cent in the Montreal area following the freeze-up, which I assume is related to the possibility of oil from Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi being cut off to the Portland-Montreal line, what steps is he taking personally, in view of the importance of this, to make certain that the governments of those two countries appreciate that this oil comes directly from Portland, Maine, to Canada and that there is no possibility of leakage into the United States? What measures is he taking, in view of the importance of this to the people of Quebec, to ascertain that those two countries take the same position as other Arabia countries seem to be taking at the present time in permitting deliveries through the pipeline to Montreal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that through the Department of External Affairs and the minister they are well informed of our position.


METHOD OF ALLOCATING OIL AT WHOLESALE LEVEL THIS WINTER-POSSIBLE LEGISLATION
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister some questions arising out of the policies he announced last night.
Oral Questions


Mr. Nielsen:: What policies?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will inform the House and the people of Canada on Monday about the machinery for the allocation of petroleum products at the wholesale level? Will there be legislation covering that suggestion in the near future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that depends very much on the results of his talks with the provincial ministers in Toronto these days, and the question of legislation follows, obviously, from the results of those talks.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in order to clarify the situation, am I to understand from the present answer of the Prime Minister that his statement last night to the effect that there would be allocation at the wholesale level was not a firm statement, that the decision has not yet been taken and depends on the conference with the provincial ministers, or is it the form of the allocation about which he is now talking?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the decision has been taken that allocation at the wholesale level is necessary. There are various ways of doing it and there are various regions to which it might apply. It is this mechanism which we are discussing with the provinces and which will be the object of the announcement of the minister next week.


MECHANISM TO CONTROL OIL PRICES AFTER EXPIRATION OF FREEZE
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question on a second subject. He said something to the effect that the price freeze in its present form-I think those were his words-would be lifted on January 31 but the government would not allow Canadian prices to go quite as high as world prices of oil. He used the term "world prices". May I ask the Prime Minister whether legislation is ready and, if so, what kind of mechanism is intended, and to what level is the price to be allowed to rise after January 31?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if I may correct the misunderstanding, what I did say is that we would not permit the price to rise to world levels no matter how high prices went. The minister has said this before. The sky is not the limit as far as we are concerned, and this is what I indicated last night. So far as the other part of the question is concerned the answer is yes, we will have to introduce legislation, certainly before the year's end, to indicate the way in which these prices will be determined.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will return to the hon. member for York South and others for supplementaries but for the moment we will hear the supplementary question of the hon. member for Temiscamingue.
8082

November 23, 1973
Oral Questions


QUEBEC-NECESSITY FOR RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF OIL-NEED FOR MERCHANT MARINE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Quebec Premier Bourassa stated only a week ago that there would be no oil or energy shortage in Quebec. Therefore, why did the Prime Minister bring up the scarecrow of voluntary restrictions to scare the population last night, and what was the purpose of such action?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is a difference between what the government of Quebec said and what the hon. member says.
About a week ago, I had the opportunity to talk with Mr. Bourassa and I can assure the hon. member that the Quebec premier does not want to promise to the population of Quebec that there will be enough oil next winter. Maybe the hon. member is referring to a statement made much earlier by another minister before he knew all the facts. I should like to add, Mr. Speaker, that the Toronto meeting is precisely aimed at acquainting the provincial ministers, including those from Quebec, with all the facts, with the present situation and with the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) about the Portland pipeline, all of which Quebec will have to know before it can promise its population that it has nothing to worry about next winter.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Last night, the right hon. Prime Minister said that we have sufficient oil supplies and that there will be no shortage in that regard, but that transportation, the pipeline, etc., were the most important problems at the present time. Then, last night, during the CBC television news, we saw that a Greek tanker, with oil on board from Vancouver, will use the Panama Canal on its way to Montreal or Portland. Did the right hon. Prime Minister realize then the importance for Canada to possess its own merchant marine for the transportation of our goods in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will refer to the statement made by the Minister of Transport, he will realize which direction the government is taking concerning a merchant marine. He will find that it is also important to have a pipeline, for the distance is shorter from Toronto-Sarnia to Montreal through a pipeline than from the west coast to Portland via the Panama Canal.


METHOD OF CONTROLLING OIL PRICES AFTER FREEZE LIFTED-POSITION OF PROPOSED PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister two questions arising out of the statement he made last night and what he has said today. I should like something to be clarified. Will the price freeze on petroleum products be lifted at the end of January, as set out by himself and the minister? The

Prime Minister said that the price would not be identical with the world price. What mechanism has the government in mind, or what alternative measures does it have to control prices for the protection of the consumer? If he cannot tell us today, when will the wraps come off this unknown policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I just answered a similar question by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I indicated that on Monday we will be giving part of the answer to that, but I think the rest of the answer will come when we introduce legislation relative to the question of the export tax and the pricing of oil.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a further question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Prime Minister dealt with the Montreal pipeline and said it had been announced. We have had various announcements about this pipeline. As the pipeline is important to ensure supply, how far has the pipeline project gone? Who is going to build it? When is the project going to commence, and is the government assured of enough steel so that the project can go ahead?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the pipeline was announced on September 4. Following that announcement the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have been putting together the answers to the questions asked by the hon. member and they will be announced in the House in the usual way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North, but there are so many members seeking supplementaries on this subject that I think perhaps we should try to limit them.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that this is an unknown policy. Nobody knows the policy. It is something like Alice in Wonderland. When will the wraps come off this project so that the people of Canada will know instead of having to listen to the kind of drivel to which they listened last night?


INQUIRY AS TO DECISION ON WHETHER NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION IS TO BE ESTABLISHED
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated to the committee and to the House that he would be making an announcement before the end of this month on the government's position with regard to a national petroleum corporation, does the Prime Minister's statement last night mean that there will not be an announcement this month?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not understand whether the member said that the minister had said he would announce this on Monday. If that is what the member understood-


Erik Nielsen: This month.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Certainly there will be an announcement on that question some time soon.
November 23, 1973


TAR SANDS OIL-POSSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN DEVELOPMENT-EXPLORATION INCENTIVES TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister clarify his position with regard to the oil sands? He indicated he wants to see rapid development. Is it the position of the government that they want to become directly involved by way of direct investment in this development? Second, what incentives to exploration-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that they should ask only one question at a time. I think it complicates matters to ask a series of questions. I suggest the hon. member might ask the first question and the second as a supplementary.


Paul Yewchuk: Is the government planning direct investment in the Alberta oil sands?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government is determined to see that those oil sands are brought into full production for the benefit of the Canadian people. The form this will take will be discussed this weekend after the meeting with the provincial ministers. The federal minister intends to spend some time with the Alberta minister discussing this very question.


Paul Yewchuk: My supplementary question pertains to encouragement of exploration. The Prime Minister did not make any reference to this in his statement last night. Can he clarify what incentives to exploration by private enterprise his policy will include?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if I did not make any reference to that last night it was because I did not want to make the program any longer. The hon. member and the industry know there are already incentives being given to the industry for exploration in the form of depletion allowances.


OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL-REASONS FOR DELAY OF DECISION TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION- DEADLINE FOR DECISION BY INTERPROVINCIAL PIPE LINE COMPANY
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question regarding extension of the oil pipeline to Montreal to which he committed the government on September 4. In view of the fact the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has repeatedly said that no decision has been reached because of some problems in financing the construction of this pipeline, will the Prime Minister state whether these financial problems have been settled? If not, what is the nature of these problems that are preventing a decision to begin the construction of the pipeline, which must be done within the next two years if the problems of eastern Canada are to be resolved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the conclusion of the question. That
Oral Questions
is why I said we had enough information to enable me to say it would be terminated by the end of 1975. As to the other part of the question, we are determined that the pipeline will be built, whether it be with private or public financing or a combination of both.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What deadline has the Prime Minister set for Interprovincial Pipe Line Company to make a decision and can he assure the House that, if Interprovincial Pipe Line Company is not prepared to proceed by that deadline, the government will undertake the construction itself inasmuch as the whole inter-provincial pipeline ought to be brought under public ownership in view of the present situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think I just indicated the answer to that. We are determined that it be built. If the private sector, either completely or in part, does not see reasons for building it, we will make sure it is built with public funds. I hope the House of Commons will co-operate and set a deadline so there will not be the kind of filibuster that will prevent the pipeline going through on time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mrs. Albanie Morin (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Could he tell the House if Quebec ex-Minister of Social Affairs Claude Castonguay has been approached with a view to retaining his services as special adviser to the department?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm that Mr. Claude Castonguay has agreed to act as adviser to the planning group charged with the task of reviewing the Canadian social security plan. I am quite happy, as are all my provincial colleagues to be able to rely on the great ability and experience of Mr. Castonguay.
[ English]


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do so hesitantly because I do not want to appear ungallant to the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin).


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


Erik Nielsen: That last question was clearly a put-up job and an abuse of the question period that has already been cut in half because of the non-policy, grumbling and bumbling of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
26635-81}

November 23, 1973
Oral Questions


Albanie Morin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Louis-Hebert is rising on a question of privilege.


Albanie Morin: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the comments of the hon. member for Yukon. I think it was my duty to ask that question because the Quebec ex-Minister of Social Affairs was also representing the Louis-Hebert constituency. Besides, it had already been suggested that he might act as adviser to the Department of National Health and Welfare and I simply wanted to clear up the matter. The minister did not draft my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member for Temis-camingue wish to ask a supplementary question?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Would the minister have in his department a position of assistant adviser for Mr. Yvon Dupuis, for instance?


AIR TRANSPORT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the amount of cheering on the other side indicates that none of them listened to the Prime Minister last night or they would not be cheering. My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the announcement he made this morning. What consideration was given to the request of the cities of Prince Albert, Saskatoon and Regina, supported by the government of Saskatchewan, that the province of Saskatchewan should have a route into the United States?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the statement I made this morning was aimed at defining a new international policy, excluding the United States. We are negotiating with the United States for a bilateral agreement. This is where this problem should be solved, if it is possible to solve it.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to ask the minister this question. In view of the situation in Saskatchewan where there are no routes into the north except by private plane, in consequence of which employees of mining corporations, prospectors and the like have to go into northern Saskatchewan by way of Alberta or Manitoba, could the minister secure the support of the Minister of Justice so that Saskatchewan will not be discriminated against and get justice?


REGIONAL CARRIER POLICY-REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Transport. In view of the disappointing statement he made this morning to the House with respect to the 1966 regional air carrier policy, which the minister says he intends to continue and which is obviously inadequate, will the hon. gentleman reconsider the whole regional air carrier policy, taking into account the active interest, participation and opinions of the provincial governments?


Jean Marchand: This is what we are doing in concert with the provincial governments in the west, following the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. We are in constant consultation concerning air services in the northern part of the provinces and all regional services, too. This is something we are already doing.


WELFARE
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister also prompted by his television performance last night which pre-empted a full-length show called "The Man Who Ran Away .


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: It refers to his assurance that needy Canadians would have enough money to pay for higher priced winter fuels. Can the right hon. gentleman advise us how this aid is to be given, whether by way of new legislation, greater federal generosity under the Canada Assistance Plan, or how?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I indicated in my statement that this was the direction agreed on between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and myself, and he will be able to announce in due course the way in which this will be done.


FUEL COST ASSISTANCE TO NEEDY-REQUEST THAT PROVINCES BE INFORMED OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S WILLINGNESS TO PAY
Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: My question is supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It arises from the Prime Minister's statement: "I have asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare to make sure that payments to people in need are sufficient to meet winter fuel costs. Will the minister undertake to inform his provincial counterparts of his concern about this matter and tell them that the federal government is willing to pay extra fuel costs resulting from the current round of increases in petroleum prices?
November 23, 1973


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am getting in touch with my provincial colleagues. As a matter of fact, a telegram is being sent to them this morning on this subject.


AIR CANADA
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of his statement this morning that the government expects Air Canada to perform a special role as a model corporation. Is the minister satisfied with the performance of Air Canada in discharging this obligation and, if not, can he advise the House in what areas-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member asks whether the minister will indicate whether he is satisfied. The hon. member is really inviting an expression of opinion on the part of the minister and a question in those terms is not in order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the question was directed to the minister to ascertain the performance of Air Canada in carrying out this obligation referred to in the statement made this morning. I simply want to ask the minister whether this role of the corporation is being performed by it in accordance with government policy under which it is stated that Air Canada should perform a very special role as a model corporation. I am simply asking the minister whether this is being done by Air Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I still have serious doubts whether the question is in order. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply briefly, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West.


INDUSTRY
Hon.. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the commitment in principle to extend the pipeline to Montreal or farther east, has the ministry taken the appropriate steps to ascertain that there is sufficient steel available to carry out this undertaking, bearing in mind the very tight supply situation in Canada as far as steel is concerned and the inability of the industry to bring in new steel production before 1976?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The hon. member is quite right. There is a potential shortage of steel. But this is only one of a number of matters which are presently under discussion with the principals involved. Clearly, if there is not suffi-
Oral Questions
cient steel the project might have to be delayed. But there are other alternatives.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MANPOWER
Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Following his statement on the launching of a crash campaign to create jobs this winter, could the minister tell us why this campaign applies to only seven urban centres?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I believe, with respect, that is a misinterpretation of what I said last night before the committee. I announced that manpower counselling facilities would be enhanced in seven major centres, and that other measures, the introduction of job banks, job information centres, are proceeding and being completed in 19 centres, and that we will proceed in all Canada Manpower Centres across the country with a final date in mind of early in 1975.
[ Translation]


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question.
Would not the minister rather think that the best crash campaign would still be one that would aim at tripling votes for the LIP?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is more in the way of a representation than a question.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport arising from his statement this morning. Will the minister tell us whether he has any present intention of implementing the three major pieces of legislation promised by his predecessor on March 14, 1972, in a major speech in the House, including legislation to divorce Air Canada from the CNR?


Jean Marchand: This is something we are still looking into.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Bearing in mind the minister's indication this morning that he will be making policy announcements in the near future, will he undertake to cover this point at that time?

November 23, 1973
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: This is surely something we shall consider.


REQUEST FOR STATISTICS ON WHICH DIVISION OF ROUTES BETWEEN AIR CANADA AND CANADIAN PACIFIC MADE
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my question also arises from the statement the Minister of Transport made this morning. In view of the fears that Canadian Pacific has been assigned regions of the world which have the largest potential for traffic growth in the coming years, would the minister be prepared to provide members of the House with the statistics and other information to which he had access in projecting the potential growth in traffic in those areas?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman's premise is wrong. If he reads the statement of principles which was made in the House he will find that this division of the world relies on the principle that Air Canada is pre-eminent. He says the share of the market enjoyed by CP is much larger than that enjoyed by Air Canada. I think he did not look carefully enough into the division, because when Pakistan and India are added hon. members will see what kind of market that means.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is not quite what I said, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister this: On the basis of his desire to have a rational division of the world between Canada's two major air carriers, would he be good enough to explain, since Air Canada is being assigned northern Europe, the rationale for the continued allocation of Amsterdam to CP Air?


Jean Marchand: The only rationale is that it was already there. It had been allocated before.


WELFARE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare related to a previous question about the steps the minister is going to take to provide additional funds to poor people. On what criteria and conditions will these payments be assessed?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simple. Under the law the provinces have the freedom to set the levels of social assistance. What I will be discussing with my colleagues is that in setting up the levels of social assistance, they take into account the rising cost of fuel.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence and relates to the letters he tabled earlier today. How many men are involved in the eight units and staff that will be making a contribution to the United Nations peace force, and from where are the personnel going to be drawn?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, in the exchange of notes I tabled earlier Canada agreed to supply additional personnel to work with the United Nations Emergency Force. There will be approximately 600 in addition to the 480 personnel who are already there. Therefore, during the next few days our contingent will be growing to more than a thousand. These personnel will come from all regions of Canada and from many bases in Canada, not from any one unit.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State in regard to the dispute between the CBC and the Canadian Wire Service Guild. Is the minister aware of the latest development in this regard in that the union stated today that its members might walk off their jobs during the weekend in an attempt to knock the Grey Cup football game off both Canadian television networks? Will he give the House an assurance that he will see to it that the personnel of his department and those of the Minister of Labour will use all their resources in order that talks are resumed so that this eventuality will not take place? Would he kindly give us that assurance?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, I am not prepared to give that assurance because I am not in a position to give that assurance. I am as concerned as he is about the implications. I have had discussions with the Minister of Labour and I shall be talking to him later about this matter.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact that, as I understand it, talks between the parties to the dispute have been discontinued, can the minister advise what immediate steps he has recommended in order to get the parties back to the bargaining table? Can the minister answer that question?


James Hugh Faulkner: Of course I can, Mr. Speaker, but I am not prepared to.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
November 23, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West is rising on a point of order, following which I will recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to let the minister know that I think that is a stupid and irresponsible statement to make.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF HOPPER CARS-ACTION TO SECURE RETURN OF CARS FROM UNITED STATES- NUMBER OF CARS PROVIDED BY RAILWAYS UNDER COMMITMENT
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of reports that the government is considering the purchase of more hopper cars and rolling stock for the railroads, can the minister tell the House whether he has received any commitment or assurance from the railroads that they will be able to secure the return of some of the thousands of Canadian boxcars which, according to the president of the CNR, are currently being held and used in the United States?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the exact situation on hopper cars is that requests have been made to us to consider additional hopper cars. This, of course, involves the question of the obligations of both the government and the railways in this matter. There are always reasons why a certain number of Canadian cars are in the United States. I understand that, particularly in the case of lumber, some warehousing is going on in railway cars, but I am sure that the railways as well as the government are very interested in getting them back.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: What I asked the minister was whether he had had any assurance from or discussions with the railways in regard to this question. Of course, there is not much use our proceeding if we are going to lose our transportation facilities at the other end. Might I ask the minister whether the railroads have lived up to their commitment under the previous agreement when we purchased boxcars? Have the railways lived up to their commitment at that time to maintain the percentage of rolling stock that they would make available for the movement of grain?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the exact commitment under the agreement is not to allow an acceleration of the manner in which boxcars were being removed from the movement of this product. I have not had a chance to assess in detail how close they are to that exact level, but we will be watching that. They are very close to the commitments they made in discussions with the Canadian Wheat Board in regard to the number of cars they could put into the grain movement, though, of course, the number is not sufficient to satisfy the present need.
Oral Questions ENERGY


EXTENSION OF OIL PIPELINE TO MONTREAL-REASON FOR NOT ACTING EARLIER
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that in 1969 the Prime Minister and his cabinet turned down a strong plea from the Independent Petroleum Association to build a pipeline to Montreal, and as recently as January 29 of this year flatly turned down a proposal from the Alberta government that such a pipeline should be built, would the Prime Minister say whether the government accepts responsibility for these tragic mistakes, and why did the government wait until September 4 before taking action?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that is debate or argument, not a question, and therefore is not in order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there were some allegations made which perhaps should be answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to prevent the Prime Minister from replying to the question, but I would suggest to hon. members that perhaps there is not much to be gained by debating a question which clearly is out of order. I prefer to recognize the hon. member for Vaudreuil.


FINANCE
Mr. H. T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Noting that the Toron-to-Dominion Bank has lent $375 million to Mexico to develop oil wells, can the minister assure us that he will take any measures necessary to guarantee an adequate supply of Canadian capital for resource development in this country?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should not underestimate the fertility of our own capital markets.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have run short of time but I will recognize the hon. member for Victoria.


EXTENSION OF OIL PIPELINE TO MONTREAL-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF STATEMENT ON SEPTEMBER 4
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister stated last night and again today that the decision to construct a pipeline was announced on September 4. In Hansard he is reported as saying that "the government will also hold early consultations with provinces and

November 23, 1973
Oral Questions
industry on the extension of pipeline facilities." The vagueness of his statement in Hansard has apparently deceived both the Minister of Energy and myself. Can the Prime Minister inform me whether a secondary or clarifying statement was made on September 4, and if so, where was it made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check what other words were used following those in regard to the pipeline. It is true that at that time I made a statement in the words quoted, but since that time, as I indicated last night on television, I have had many discussions with my colleagues and with industry and the private sector. We are going ahead with that decision. I agree that those words were perhaps not uttered at that time with the knowledge we have since acquired in regard to ways of going about this.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair might be allowed to recognize briefly the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre before calling orders of the day.


COAL-POSSIBLE OPENING OF NEW MINES IN CAPE BRETON-SUGGESTIONS TO CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could return to the comments of the Prime Minister last night and direct this question to him as he made reference at that time to coal, among other sources of energy. Would the Prime Minister advise whether the government has given any specific advice or made any suggestions to the Cape Breton Development Corporation regarding further research and investigation into the possibility and feasibility of new coal mine openings in the Cape Breton area which, as the right hon. gentleman knows, is a matter that comes directly within the purview of the Cape Breton Development Corporation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that question as notice and discuss it with the minister responsible for the Cape Breton Development Corporation and with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and hope to get a reply.


WELFARE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the peripatetic Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now that he has walked back to his seat, perhaps I can put the question to him. When the minister discusses with the provinces

the federal government's willingness to help Canadians meet the increasing costs of heating their homes this winter, and presumably this is under the Canada Assistance Plan, will he offer to pay out of federal funds more than the 50 per cent provided under the Canada Assistance Plan, preferably 75 per cent or even 100 per cent?


Marc Lalonde: That is not my intention, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a very urgent and important question for the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that the Chair has no objection to allowing a member to ask a question or a minister to reply even after the question period has expired. There has been an extension of a few minutes and there are obviously a number of members who are still anxious to ask what I am sure are important and urgent questions. I would hope the hon. member could obtain the information he is seeking by some other means.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, November 22, consideration of Bill C-176, to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee of Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding of the situation in relation to motions in respect of Bill C-176 is that motion No. 1 was allowed to stand; motion No. 2 was debated and allowed to stand but the debate is to be completed after we have considered motion No. 3, and that motion Nos. 3 and 4 were allowed to stand yesterday on the understanding that motion No. 3 would be debated as the first item today when government orders were called. I would, therefore, call motion No. 3.


John George Diefenbaker: That Bill C-176, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be amended in Clause 2:
(a)	by deleting lines 33 and 34 inclusive at page 2 and substituting therefor:
"authorization or any person"
(b)	by deleting lines 8 to 44 inclusive at page 7, lines 1 to 39 inclusive at page 8, lines 1 to 13 inclusive at page 9, lines 23 to 28 inclusive at page 11, lines 13 to 34 inclusive at page 17, and lines 29 to 32 inclusive at page 18.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by thanking the members of this House who arranged, when this item was called last evening, to have it put over until today. I
November 23, 1973

appreciate what has been done and I want to thank all hon. members who made this possible. Today I am going to discuss in a general way a matter I have dealt with on previous occasions, and in particular on May 8. I emphasize that date because since then a major portion of the revelations in the Watergate investigation has shown the tremendous dangers which are inherent in anything along the line of wiretapping and taping.
To begin, with I should say that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) has apparently not read with care or attention, or probably not all, the speech made by the former Minister of Justice on September 2, 1969. It is a remarkable piece of work and indicates the amount of attention the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), as Minister of Justice, gave to this very serious problem. In the course of his remarks he said, among other things:
The new cybernetics of an increasingly urbanized technetronic environment will surround us. Science and technology will spawn new forms of electronic surveillance, psychological surveillance and data surveillance. Already scientists are experimenting with brainwave analysis to join the more conventional forms of psychological surveillance such as personality testing and polygraphing. National data banks, commercial reporting agencies, computerized transactions and the like are making us the greatest data-gather-ing, privacy-invading society ever known. Indeed, data-generating techniques may well remember what we have chosen to forget.
That is the essence, if you understood what has been said up to the present time. These modern expressions are somewhat difficult unless you have a dictionary with you. He went on to state:
The orbit of privacy will be an ever shrinking one: yet the need for privacy will be more paramount than ever. The law must ensure that the right to privacy remains sacrosanct.
I pass that on to the present Minister of Justice from one who is an experienced parliamentarian and has never endeavoured to force his own ideas on the House of Commons, regardless of the arguments advanced in this institution. He then went on to say:
-there is another side to the right to privacy which has not received the prominence it deserves but whose dimensions cannot be ignored. There is a tendency in governments to refuse information to its citizens under the guise of privacy which is disguised as the public interest.
That is an amazing prophesy of what has actually happened today. Secrecy is sometimes legitimized as the state's right to privacy, but it may well be a denial of the public right to know. I do not know how this might be summed up more succinctly than it was in that speech. What has happened here is that the minister has not trusted the committee, and in view of the way the system of committees has been set up that will not work.


Otto Emil Lang: The committee left in this section.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman wants to interrupt he can stand up, and I will listen with the attention I normally give him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The committee system would not be effective because committees would become dominated by the minister, and would be permitted to do that which the government wanted done. The minister did not succeed in the committee because there were outstanding representa-
Protection of Privacy
tives on that committee who would not be pushed around by him. Amendments were made and the minister now comes before the House and asks that those amendments be further amended in accordance with his wishes. That is the first step along the road to the complete domination of a committee by a minister who refuses to listen to arguments, even from members of his own party on that committee. He determines the course he will follow and then, with a determination that would be highly considered in other courses of action, he proceeds to endeavour, having not been able to intimidate the committee, to bring about in this House of Commons a series of amendments.
I made clear on second reading that through the years I had been totally opposed to wiretapping and that I believed there must be some control. In Canada there has been none. I looked on this legislation when it was introduced as a step in the direction of preventing injustices that exist today through unlawful wiretapping. Now, we know something of how dangerous it is since the revelations of Watergate. I want to point out at this moment that, despite all the wiretapping done at Watergate and despite the tapes still available that have not been lost in transit or in consequence of indifferent reproduction, that none of the convictions that have been registered had anything to do with wiretapping. This is a very important consequence. The tapes neither helped nor hindered in the pursuit of the Watergate case. The tapes had never been heard of when the seven original Watergate defendants were convicted or pleaded guilty to bugging the Democratic National Headquarters. Neither the public nor the prosecutors knew the recordings existed when two former ministers, John Mitchell and Maurice Stans were indicted for perjury. No court had ever listened to a taped conversation when John W. Dean pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy. The tapes were not a factor whatsoever in the results that had been attained there.
That is a matter of great importance. It has always been the same through history, that when anyone decides to do something that is unjust there is always the explanation that it is for the benefit of the people. The minister has simply embraced that argument. I am not comparing the two, but the tragic irony of the French Revolution was that it was said to be for the good of humanity or the general good. The prosecutions that are taking place in the U.S.S.R., in the Ukraine and in other freedom-loving countries under the domination of the U.S.S.R. are explained by the U.S.S.R. in these words, "for the good, the general good". That type of humanitarian mentality has always been a jumping off place for those who would bring about injustice.
I said when I spoke on May 8 I was prepared to support the bill provided that sections were removed which have to do with temporary and emergency occasions. That to me completely destroys the entire bill. It places in the hands of an individual, an agent, the right to wiretap for 36 hours without the order of a judge. To me, there is nothing more dangerous to freedom within our country than that particular item. Why not leave the matter with the judges? There are 600 judges available. The minister said they might not be available at the moment. Will the agent be available; will the Attorney General of the particular
8090

November 23, 1973
Protection of Privacy
province in which the alleged offence is being committed be available; will the Solicitor General be available? No. The fact remains, that however assiduous they are in the discharge of their duties they will not be present, if not in all the cases certainly in many of them. So we get down to the position-it is of that I intend to speak today-where so far as the administration of justice is concerned the section that will be used, as has been said by a number of members, will be the one to provide for the appointment of an agent.
Sir, I have been concerned about the way this government has acted on matters connected with freedom in this land. When Joe Dry bones won his case in the Yukon on the Bill of Rights, who was it that appealed? It was the Department of Justice and its counsel who was instructed to oppose the Bill of Rights to the limit and have a declaration of the Supreme Court of Canada that it was in no way more than a grandiloquent declaration of freedom. Oh, how they love the Bill of Rights, but when they had an opportunity not to appeal the case of that Indian who had been successful under the Bill of Rights who was it that appealed? The Department of Justice. The same thing happened in respect of the Lavell case of which I shall speak on another occasion. What is the idea in this? Tell me where else such a provision exists? Where else can agents be appointed who have the right to take away many civil rights for 36 hours. Who are these agents to be-incognito? Will they be chosen as a result of consultation with the police? How will they be named? Will they be named in advance? How does the minister expect the agent will be available if 600 judges all across this country will not be available?
To me that explanation is simply hairsplitting on the part of the minister. Suppose a difficulty arises suddenly and action is necessary in an emergency, for example, in the province of Saskatchewan? How do they get in touch with the Attorney General of Saskatchewan to name an agent? Why is the minister so certain that that agent, if named in advance will be available? I am amazed that one incognito would be available but 600 judges would not be available. But the minister pushes ahead. He has what I describe in the kindest of good feelings, a bullheaded astigmatism. He just simply decides it will be done, and now he is trying to intimidate the committee. He is trying to have a second bite at the cherry because the cherries they produced to him were not the ones he wanted.


Otto Emil Lang: The committee did not agree with you.


John George Diefenbaker: That type of interruption indicates that the hon. gentleman has not had many cases in his life in the courts. As I have said, the minister does not trust committees. I shall not go further into that except to say that if committees are to be effective they should not be made a pet's plaything, no matter how you spell "pet". Backbenchers should have the opportunity to strike for views they believe to be right. I think that this committee has been one that deserves the commendation of the House of Commons, not the unbridled condemnation that the minister apparently will pile on it because he did not get what he wanted. I sometimes think that if he had had a little more experience at the Bar, he would not be so certain that he is right in everything when he tries to push these things through.

I ask him this question, because I know he will be anxious to answer it. In the last year the government of Canada has been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on available buildings and rooms for the accommodation of visitors to Canada. Some $750,000 were spent over the year for rooms for the visiting members of the Commonwealth. Why were those rooms not used the other day in this exhibition of cabinet movability? Was there any danger that they were being bugged? Was that the reason they were not used? The cabinet members went out into the country, to that place known as O'Brien's Castle, at a cost of $260,000. The place had not been used for the last couple of years. It is far removed from the spying eyes of those who might see the cabinet in action-I mean moving in the direction of action.
What happened? It was just like a great callithumpian parade. All the ministers were off to the country to this hideout. Thousands of dollars were spent to renovate the place. There were secret servicemen and mounted police around to guard the secrecy of this cabinet meeting. Was the minister afraid of bugging? There is no danger of bugging out there because no one ever knew that the place would be used, even by the cabinet. But this indicates that the government is very concerned that there is danger that someone may be bugging the two cabinet rooms. You do not have to worry about that. But I would like the minister to explain this pilgrimage. Off to the country-away they go with mounted police, outriders, secret service. Why all these precautions? I will repeat, was the government afraid that it was being bugged? I do not know what you call those people who do bugging, but were they afraid of such people?


Erik Nielsen: They were all inside the cabinet.


John George Diefenbaker: Now, I come back to this: why does the minister want this? What is the purpose of pretending that this is a bill to control privacy, when as a matter of fact, it is a licence to an unknown agent to practice the very converse of privacy. What is the purpose of it? An agent must be specially designated in writing for the purposes of the section. When he gets this designation, how long does it exist? Will the agent simply go ahead at the end of 36 hours and get another extension? This is the most dangerous provision that has ever been incorporated in the law of this country; it is dangerous to freedom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: What were the explanations? The explanation is that there is an emergency. The reason is that this government wants to be in a position where it can do as it pleases. So far as I am concerned, I will oppose this bill to the limit, unless the minister withdraws this portion thereof. There are other amendments on which members will have their views, but it is unbelievable that any minister could produce this thing which is of the essence of tyranny and capable of being used to destroy political opponents or others with whom the government is in disagreement.
That is what happened at Watergate. My 20 minutes are up, Mr. Speaker, but I want the minister to know that this
November 23, 1973

thing must end. After the experience of Watergate we do not want to give to the government of this country, to the Attorney General or to the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) the power to do that which is destructive of the essence of freedom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was allowed only 20 minutes, but having concluded may I just say that I will have some more to say later on when we reach third reading. May I emphasize once more that there will be no pussyfooting about this. The minister is not going to push this through the way he did the LIFT program which lost the western farmers hundreds of millions of dollars.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate as a layman, although it seems to me it is one that suits lawyers better, and it is particularly difficult following the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who has made a major part of his career the defence of human rights and individual rights.
My instincts oppose wiretapping in any form-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: And in this way my instincts would support the amendments of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). I consider the whole question of privacy of the individual to be of the utmost importance to us, particularly in this highly technological world were, with electronic surveillance, the opportunities for wiretapping become greater and more insidious. The whole question of the invasion of an individual's privacy is insidious, and wiretapping is a particularly insidious type of intrusion that can grow. We did not seem to take this very seriously in years past, but as we have seen what happened in other nations, and the possibilities in our own nation, we are now taking it very seriously indeed. We have genuine reason for concern, and the experience of our friends to the south has highlighted this concern, and shows how cancerous the whole process can be.
Some of us have been to other nations where it has been a way of life for many years, and we know the discomfort it can cause. The sheer discomfort of knowing that you cannot talk in privacy with your friends, even with your own wife, and to feel you cannot express your views freely and openly, is overwhelming. But I think we should not forget that the main intent of this bill is to make wiretapping, electronic surveillance, illegal for the first time. It is
Protection of Privacy
the first time this parliament has come to grips with this problem. There are some exceptions allowed by the bill, and I think it is the exceptions that worry us most of all. If these are unchecked and not scrutinized very thoroughly, I think we would have further reason for concern.
The most encouraging part of this debate and the proceedings in committee has been the scrutiny to which the bill itself has been put because of the concern of members in all parties. We well realize that in a society where organized crime and crimes of violence are increasing, the police deserve the utmost legitimate support that we can provide them. I think we are fortunate in this country to have the quality of policemen and police forces that we have. They do some very dirty jobs on our behalf, some very dangerous jobs, and in our striving for the protection of individual human rights we have not made their job easier. But I think it is important that we have stood on these principles, and I am sure the forces have adapted to them.
Yet there still remain opportunities and temptations for abuse, not because police are inhuman, but indeed because they are very human. Like you and I they have wives and families, concerns and consciences, but at the same time I think we should not be naive and fool ourselves, because there are exceptions, and these exceptions are those which we must guard against. They can, and indeed have, endangered the respect which most of us have for our policemen and police forces. What I find discouraging is that while the vast majority of law officers do not engage in practices which are not within the law, or within the spirit of the law, I am disturbed by the fact that some practices of this type are overlooked by the colleagues of police officers, by men of the highest calibre, who would not engage in such practices themselves. In addition, they are winked at by lawyers who go along with them in courts because they have to get along with the police. Indeed, the judges themselves know about such practices, and so do many politicians. We must make certain that our laws are so framed that the public is protected against these abuses which do take place.
I am particularly concerned about the admissibility of evidence obtained by illegal means. I am not sure that my interpretation is correct, but it seems to me incongruous that illegally acquired information could be admissible in a court. It is even more curious that if a police officer obtained information illegally himself, used it in court, and the prosecution was successful in having a defendant convicted and sent to jail, the policeman in turn may be found guilty of the illegal acquisition of information and be liable to a fine of up to $5,000 and five years in jail. In the end, he might find himself in the same cell as the fellow he had prosecuted. Those would be a most uncomfortable five years.
This sort of thing makes a mockery of the law, and that is what we are trying to avoid here. I particularly welcome the requirement for control by the attorney general of each province, or his agent, and I think these agency slips should not be given out quite as freely as the authorizations we give to check the returns at polls during an election campaign. I further welcome the requirement for an ultimate authority, for a decision by a judge. The 36-hour provision is one which disturbs many of us; I
26635-82!

November 23, 1973
Protection of Privacy
know it disturbs particularly the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert. This seems to be a reasonable provision which will give the officers of the law an opportunity to do their job. They know full well that, first, they must obtain approval from the Attorney General or his agent and, after that, obtain approval from a judge. That will be a reasonable check on the process.
The provision regarding admissibility of direct evidence obtained from legally sanctioned wiretaps is one which I find difficult to accept. I hope the minister will rectify this provision before we complete consideration of the bill. I do not like using distasteful measures in our society, even to achieve ends which may be highly desirable; so, it is with some reluctance that I support the measure before the House and speak against the amendment before the House at this time.
I am prepared to accept reasonable exceptions, well controlled and properly spelled out, which will achieve the broader goals and realistic concerns we all have. We want to allow the police to do their job with efficiency, fairness and compassion, provided at all times they work within the law. They should be required to do their duty with sensitivity, sincerity and a high degree of balance.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, in his foreword to La loi et l'ordre dans la democratic canadienne, Mr. Wilfrid Bovey stated the following, and I quote;
Crime is a constant threat to individual freedom. The citizen of a democracy cannot use this freedom when criminals are allowed to throw obstacles in his way. This is why, as the task of our armed forces is to protect our freedom against threats from without, that of the police is to protect it against threats from within.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, the legislator wants to give our police forces all possible means to control crime, especially organized crime.
I remember reading once that our police forces were vying with criminals in an organization race or a research contest, the latter to devise ways of committing crimes, the former to find means of controlling criminals.
A similar situation can be found, for example, between the world's two super-powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, both vying for the lead in the arms race. Each of them would try to develop the most sophisticated weapons to defeat the other in a conflict. The same can be said of police forces as regards criminals. However, it happens frequently that funds made available to police for crime prevention research are much less than the monies used by criminals to contrive ways of evading our laws to reach their ends.
I think therefore that we must praise each new piece of legislation introduced to help police fight crime in a more effective way. There are however limits to be respected.
Let me quote from Charles Reith's The Police Idea:
Our world's basic problem is to find a way to give authorities the power to make sure that their laws are adhered to, without which, as history has largely demonstrated, failure is often inevitable.
However, until now, at least until recent years, our police forces, while doing an effective and heroic job in

the circumstances, have had to face very well established criminal organizations often well protected, in high places sometimes.
I believe that our police forces want as many means as possible to detect and combat crime and criminals.
On June 26, 1973, in Sherbrooke, a meeting was held between police forces and Quebec Justice Minister Cho-quette. At that time, Mr. Choquette said that last year, the police were able to detect 80 per cent of all major crimes, make 658 arrests and lay 1,353 charges thanks to wiretapping.
Mr. Speaker, these figures speak for themselves and we may well wonder if the police could have had such brilliant results without wiretapping.
The purpose of this bill is to prevent the use of bugging devices by anyone, but it includes a few exceptions in the case of authorizations given by some people in authority. We must give our police forces the right to use wiretapping devices to fight crime.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the purpose of the amendment moved by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) is to restrict to as few people as possible the authority to grant permits for the use of wiretapping devices. I am in favour of this amendment because the greater the number of people allowed to grant such permits, the bigger the risk of seeing wiretapping used for other ends.
I think it is the wish of members of the House and all other Canadians that only our police forces be allowed to wiretap, for the specific purpose of fighting crime. We must do everything we can to avoid that electronic espionage be available to any political or economic system whatever. Such is not the purpose. The objective is to prevent as much as possible too many persons from having the authority to issue these permits.
And as the right hon. member from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) suggested at noon today, I think that judges-there are enough of them in Canada and they are readily available-should be the only ones with the power to issue these permits, thereby preventing the possibility of these permits being issued to political figures. This does not mean that I do not trust the Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Allmand) or his provincial counterparts, far from it; but we are aware that temptation is sometimes strong and that people change. Therefore, we must take the necessary steps to prevent abuses, and I feel that is exactly the purpose of the amendment introduced by the hon. member for New Westminster and I intend to support it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. As I understand it, the present motion, moved by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), is for the removal of the emergency provisions. Later in the set of motions I have a similar amendment. I was most interested in the remarks made last night by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). In his comments, the minister referred to the point I made that relying on these techniques or methods of surveillance
November 23, 1973

the police may avoid other investigative procedures and, therefore, we are not necessarily improving the quality of police performance.
Knowing the minister's vast experience as a law professor and a person very knowledgeable in these matters, I took his advice and had another look at the bill. I wanted to find those things that were going to protect us from general surveillance or abuses of the use of wiretapping. I looked at clause 178.13(1). That provides that a judge must be satisfied that, and I quote:
other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed;
It does not say all other investigative procedures. It is entirely feasible that if someone walks up to a front door, knocks and asks if Joe Blow is in, then is told no, he can say that other procedures have failed and request a wiretap. There is enough room in most of the provisions of this bill which attempt to protect us for the police to easily avoid them. I am not saying they would do that deliberately. However, I do say that in an emergency situation the police, for honest reasons, will attempt to use the provisions of this bill. In the process of so doing, they will of necessity violate privacy in an unnecessary way.
I have made the point before that the restriction in this bill is minimal. The report from the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) was that of the 663 wiretaps by the RCMP in 1972-73, only 129 came within the provisions of the bill. This would result in a reduction of only about 24 per cent.
I went through the bill a little further. I thought there may be some protection in the person and place provision. This is under the clause "application for authorization". The police have to set down certain provisions before they can get permission to use it. One is to state the identity of the person. This is in clause 178.12(c). If they do not know the identity of the person, they must identify the place they are going to tap. If you do not know where the place is, you cannot state where you are going to tap. The last part of that provision gives the police the right to general surveillance.
In the city of Vancouver, there is obviously a thriving heroine trade. If the police do not know who is involved or where it is happening, they can say they suspect a particular apartment block and make an application for wiretapping the whole block. I realize the decision is in the hands of the judge, but the possibility is there.
At the minister's suggestion, I looked further at the bill in order to see how broad the protection is and how it protects civil liberties. I looked at the emergency clause which many of us would like to see removed. According to that clause, and I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong, where an emergency situation arises and it is inconvenient or impractical to get a judge, the agent who is authorized to do this can authorize the tap without court approval. The police officer can come back before the 36 hours are up, and thereupon the attorney general may do a number of things. He may direct an application for an authorization to intercept. In other words, he can approve something that has already happened or he can approve the permit or revoke the permit. This is what I want to emphasize.
The clause provides that the Solicitor General or attorney general can revoke the permit that is given for emer-
Protection of Privacy
gency purposes. Let us assume that a tap that has not received court approval has been going on for 20 hours. The attorney general can at that time revoke the permit. However, any evidence that is obtained from the wiretap is legal and admissible. If I am wrong, I will be happy to be corrected. That seems to be the plain meaning of the clause which I re-read at the suggestion of the minister. I say the emergency permit clause has enough holes in it now.
I support entirely the position taken by the right hon. member that it is a completely unnecessary provision. In his address, he pointed out that there are approximately 600 judges available. In terms of getting that kind of approval, it would be practical to have a judge authorized to receive a telephone call in an emergency situation to approve the tap by telephone. The authorization does not have to be in writing. It could be done by telephone and subsequently confirmed in writing.
From a practical point of view, there is no reason why we need the emergency clause. I do not think it is beyond the mind of man to permit a judge to approve an emergency wiretap. However, in his remarkably inflexible way, the minister continues to insist on this provision. He pointed out that the committee, although very narrowly, decided to leave in this provision. I hope the House will have another look at these emergency provisions because they are unnecessary to the working of the bill. They can certainly lead to the kind of severe abuse all of us worry about in the operation of this immoral device.
I very much appreciated the remarks of the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) who indicated he intends to support the amendment. I am glad to see there are some small "1" liberals left in the House. It is interesting to note that back in the 14th century the English had a law which prevented this. This is not a new problem. The only difference is that we now have the electronic equipment to make it such a pervasive and overwhelming one. I should like to read into the record a paragraph from Blackstone's Commentaries:
Eavesdroppers or such as listen under walls or windows to harken after discourse and thereupon to form slanderous and mischievous tales are a common nuisance and presentable at the court or are indictable at the sentence and punishable by fine and finding sureties for their good behaviour.
They were really ahead of us. I might say that British Columbia has a privacy act which deals only with the civil area. I welcome the provisions of this bill dealing with civil privacy. I think they are vital and necessary. But I do urge the minister not to be inflexible with regard to the amendments the committee brought forward. The committee system must work in a minority parliament. The minister cannot continue to conduct his office as if he were immune to the criticisms and suggestions of the opposition. Many of them are practical. Many will improve the bill. The attempt to bring back the amendments the minister lost certainly hints of arrogance.
These amendments are connected. As these things are examined-and here I mention the "person and place" amendment-we reach the position all of us are trying to avoid, that is, the use of this device by the police for the purpose of general surveillance rather than to obtain evi-

November 23, 1973
Protection of Privacy
dence about a specific offence. The rule of law is founded on the proposition that governments can protect their people without acting unfairly or immorally themselves in any way. We shall not bring about a lawful society until people have respect for the law, respect for those who enforce the law, and, most important, respect for the means by which they enforce the law.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I must begin by saying I find it a little strange to hear a couple of speakers talk about inflexibility and the position of a minister when a bill comes back to the House. Other members have spoken about the flexibility of the way in which this bill has generally been handled. The bill, as it developed, followed very largely the outlines of the recommendations of the parliamentary committee, a committee which was not divided but which was mainly in agreement.
I found it amusing that, while the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is proposing an amendment on a subject which the committee decided to include in the bill, he and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) should accuse me of being wrong in proposing any amendment at all to the work of the committee. I take it the position is that in the House we can discuss these matters in a final way amid a full gathering of all members. I do not challenge the right of the hon. member for Prince Albert to seek to reverse the decision of the committee, a committee in a minority government, which sustained the emergency power in the bill, nor do I question the propriety of his doing so.
The emergency power provision represents a very small area of the bill's operation. I should like to emphasize what a small area it covers, bearing in mind the tone of voice which alone among hon. members of this House the right hon. member for Prince Albert can achieve. That made it look monumental. The fact is that in this area of emergency permits we have in play two extremely important forms of protection in relation to the use of wiretapping devices. There is the full political responsibility of the Attorney General who must himself, or by a person specially designated for the purpose of the section, authorize the use of an electronic device in case of an emergency. In addition, the person authorized by the Attorney General must be satisfied that the other provisions related to wiretapping are complied with, namely, that other investigative procedures would be unlikely to succeed, that others had failed, and that the urgency of the situation required this kind of procedure to be used. He must be satisfied about all those things. In addition, he has to be satisfied that there is not sufficient time for an application to be made to a judge to obtain authorization, the normal method by which law enforcement officers may obtain authorization under the bill.
I find it difficult to understand how some members can come down so hard against relying on the authority of the Attorney General in this instance while arguing, at the same time, that a judge should not be involved in the process. On second reading of this bill, members in both the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party took such a position. I think the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) was consistent. Here, the full responsibility of the Attorney General is involved in the issue of these

emergency permits. They are valid for 36 hours only and they are designed to be used in a situation where the nature of an emergency will not allow for a judge being approached in time. In addition to authorizing the application, the Attorney General is obliged to report on what he has done. If hon. members will look at the reporting provisions, they will find they are very full indeed. The reports must be made public, disclosing to public view and political debate what has been done.
In the case of emergency permits-the hon. member for New Westminster seems to have missed this point-the Attorney General must indicate that the permit was either followed by an application or that he revoked it. The act provides that the agent who authorized such a permit must promptly report to the Attorney General so that further action can be taken by him with regard to it. He has to say whether he has revoked that permit and, obviously, this will provide an opportunity for political questioning about the use made of any such permits which may have been revoked. If an application is made, the Attorney General must indicate whether he approved or did not approve of the issue of an emergency permit. Again, the exact nature of the use of the permit can be made the subject of political debate. We have been concerned about caring for the circumstances which would arise in case of abuse, although it must be recognized that the fundamental responsibility for good operation in this area will depend upon the integrity and attitude of the responsible elected person and the way in which our elective process holds them responsible for their action. That is recognized, throughout, in the bill before us.
Why are these provisions needed? The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert asked that question. He asked it on second reading. In the committee, a number of examples were cited of the situations we can envisage in which permits of this kind might be needed. I referred to an actual case which was brought to our attention by the police. A known counterfeiter had boarded an aircraft travelling between two eastern cities 50 minutes apart. The police had 50 minutes in order to prepare for his arrival in such a way that they might obtain evidence of what they suspected to be conspiracy in connection with that counterfeiting. They had 50 minutes, because the aircraft was due to arrive at the other city at two o'clock in the morning. It would be difficult even to get the necessary detection equipment in place in time.
I can refer to another situation which was not indicated to the committee but reported to us by the police. A known drug trafficker was on board an aircraft. At its arrival at destination a police dog verified the presence of marijuana in the luggage of the trafficker. To obtain evidence of conspiracy rather than simply possession, it was necessary to follow the suspect to a meeting place. The installation of a device in the luggage was necessary for monitoring the conspiratorial conversation. The air line crew was able to hold the luggage only for a few brief moments, in which time the installation was completed.
That indicates the kind of situation contemplated. A person designated for this emergency purpose by an attorney general might be in a position where a warrant or an application to a judge at two o'clock in the morning could
November 23, 1973

not be completed in time to handle such a matter. For example, it might be the head investigative officer in a drug squad who would have authority in certain circumstances to accomplish this kind of detection.
Hon. members may say that it is not so important that one or two persons involved in drug crimes get away undetected. Once again I put to them the proposition that we ought to help our law enforcement officers and give them equipment they can use to detect crime on our behalf, rather than tie their hands in cases where we do not have to do so essentially for our very liberties. It seems to me that the responsibility of the officers and of the attorney general in this operation is a complete answer to the question whether we ought to have this extension in the area of emergency permits.
I repeat that this is a relatively small area operationally in the bill. It is a minor area but one where the investigative officers feel that in certain significant cases of crime, drug trafficking to which I have referred being one example, they may be impeded in bringing to justice persons who have come to their attention if they cannot obtain a permit to use this kind of device. Please let us all remember, Mr. Speaker, that persons involved in the worst of organized crime will themselves put no equipment out of reach. They will use all equipment available to detect even the use of electronic devices to which the police on occasion may resort.
The bill has been written in an attempt to protect in every way against the misuse of its provisions. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) said that if a permit were taken out to meet an emergency situation and then never followed up in its application, he foresaw that evidence obtained might none the less be used as evidence. For the purpose of that provision of the bill, any evidence obtained under a permit which is revoked is treated as unlawful, so I suggest that contingency is covered in the bill.
We have endeavoured in every way to provide similar protection. I therefore appeal to the individual members of this House, as I did the members of the committee, to look at the balance between protection and privacy, which is the fundamental thrust of the major offences in the bill, and the need for legitimate use by our law enforcement officers of electronic equipment in carrying out their job on our behalf. It is not their job alone; they are doing their job on our behalf, apprehending persons involved in serious crime and bringing them to justice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, before commencing my remarks, last evening there was before the House motion No. 2 which was stood at my request. I should like to say a few words about that and then discuss the amendment moved by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). So, with your leave, I will speak to the one amendment which was moved yesterday in regard to which I filed a caveat which was agreed to by the Deputy Speaker. This is why I thought I would bring it to Your Honour's attention since you were not in the chair at the time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lianiel):: Order. The hon. member is asking the House to allow him to speak on the other amendment which stood over with consent. I do not
Protection of Privacy
know why the hon. member wishes to speak to two amendments at the same time, but if hon. members have no objection the hon. member may do so. I would not want this to be taken as an opportunity for other members to take advantage of this permission and speak to all amendments while they are debating one of the many amendments.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Actually I am not going ahead of the game but addressing myself only to the motion stood. I appreciate your generosity.
First of all, I should like to endorse what the right hon. member for Prince Albert said in regard to his amendment dealing with the question of emergency. There has to be a happy balance between the protection of privacy and the administration of law. I want to be fair to all sides of the House, so let me say that whether we belong to the legal profession or to some other profession we would all want to see a happy balance struck in this regard.
I do not want to be offensive in any way to the minister, but I hope he will be very flexible at this stage. I was not on the standing committee in this session, though I was when it had a similar bill before it before the last election and therefore have a pretty good knowledge as to what was attempted at that time. Some of the compromises made by this committee were similar to those made by the other committee.
When the bill first came before the committee in its original form, the Solicitor General or the attorneys general of the provinces were given the right to grant permission. I, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweath-er) and others, took the view that permission should be granted by a judge to protect the privacy of the citizen. The former minister of justice, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), who presented that bill, finally introduced that particular phrase when the bill went back to committee, but I was glad to see the change made to the effect that consent of a judge is required.
I hope the minister will accept the amendment moved by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. He has had wide experience in the practice of law as a counsel in the great councils of this country. He is well aware of the problems of the Crown in obtaining evidence, as well as the problems of the defence. Obviously, he has given an amendment of this substance a lot of thought and weighed the question of civil right to privacy against the administration of law. I hope all members of the House will be in accord with this amendment because it would ensure privacy.
Someone said there were 600 judges available, but there are times when it is difficult to find a judge. Indeed, I have had that experience myself. I agree with the right hon. member that even if an agent were appointed, the Minister of Justice or an attorney general cannot always be located. If the amendment is accepted, many of the other amendments may prove to be more academic than they appear to be at the moment. If the amendment were accepted, I would think there was very wide protection. Whoever applies for an order to bug one's telephone has to swear certain things in an affidavit as prescribed by a certain formula. If the order is granted, the judge would

which appear to fall within this category. One can readily see the difficulty involved in listing these offences. Let me refer to the two pertinent parts of the Code. Section 212 reads:
212. Culpable homicide is murder
(a)	where the person who causes the death of a human being
(i)	means to cause his death, or
(ii)	means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;
(b)	where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being-
There is a very difficult formula or criterion under section 212. Section 213 contains an entirely different definition. I want to emphasize that I am dealing with both sections. Under the other it is a question of knowledge or that death ensues. There are some learned cases on this subject. Section 213 of the Code, at page 168, states:
Culpable homicide is murder where a person causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit treason or an offence mentioned in section 52, piracy, escape or rescue from prison or lawful custody, resisting lawful arrest, rape, indecent assault, forcible abduction, robbery, burglary or arson.
A number of offences are listed. But there is a serious difficulty here. Let us take robbery with violence. Two people go into a bank to rob it. They are armed to the teeth. In the act of robbing the bank and in the act of their violence they shoot somebody or use a weapon by which someone is killed. There are cases in the Supreme Court of Canada which state that once you prove that, that is murder per se. But under the other section the finding of manslaughter is always open.
It is interesting to examine the Trinneer case in which the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert and Davie Fulton were engaged. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled, in spite of that section, that in a charge of murder manslaughter is always an included offence. Where there is an included offence of manslaughter and you do not list the section which covers or mentions manslaughter, it is possible that after the evidence went in and you obtained a conviction for murder, and then appeared before the appeal court, it would be noted that manslaughter was available and the court might have to declare that evidence inadmissible because of the definition. That is a possible interpretation.
If we are to legislate, let us at least clarify the situation as much as possible. I dealt with this question. In this case there were 13 young men involved. I did not take the trial but I took the appeal. It was alleged that the 13 young men went out to assault, with weapons such as crowbars, tire wrenches, and so on, another group of about the same number. They were cyclists. They were charged under the tougher section 213, under which basically there would be murder proceedings. All 13 were convicted. The court of appeal took the position that it had to be murder or nothing. I alleged that that was wrong. The case referred to by me was that of Regina v. Trinneer, 11 C.R. (1970) at pages 116 and 117. This decision can be distinguished, as
Protection of Privacy
the charge was under section 202, which is now section 213, with section 21(2) being applied, whereas Emkeit et al, the group to which I referred, were charged under section 201, now section 212, and section 21(2). The chief justice now retired, Cartwright, said this:
At the risk of repetition, it is my opinion that on the true construction of sections 202 and 21(2) as applied to the circumstances of this case ... It was not necessary for the Crown to establish that the respondent knew or ought to have known that it was probable that Mrs. Vollet's death would ensue.
In brief, the accused can and may be found guilty of murder when sections 202 and 21(2) are applied, whether the Crown establishes that the accused knew or ought to have known or not; whereas when sections 201 and 21(a) are involved, in order to get a verdict of murder the main ingredient, that is, knowledge must be proven to obtain a verdict of murder, otherwise the verdict may be manslaughter or nothing. What I am saying is that I think we must be very careful to include the crime of manslaughter.
There are other anomalies which might be mentioned. In the definition of "offence" it states that "offence" means offences under certain sections. This is followed by the enumeration of specific sections in the Criminal Code including section 247, immediately after which appears the word "Kidnapping".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but if he wishes to continue his remarks he would need the unanimous consent of the House because his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, a number of these offences are names in the definition clause in the motion moved by my good and respected friend from St. Paul's. I might give the minister the example of the Narcotics Act where there is the intent to traffic, or the act of trafficking. In both cases there is a penalty of life imprisonment. There could be some ambiguity here. What the hon. member for St. Paul's is trying to do-and I hope the minister considers this in good faith-is to confine public officers or police officers when wiretapping so they will be able to do so after obtaining an order from a judge with all the formulae and criteria laid down where the offence is a serious one.
I would ask the Minister of Justice to consider what the hon. member for St. Paul's is trying to do. He is trying to improve the bill by adding a few words in order to avoid ambiguity. I discussed earlier the ambiguity in respect of the definition of murder under the Code and murder with the possible finding of manslaughter, one being ordinary murder where it is easy for a jury or a judge to find manslaughter. Whether one appears as defence counsel or as Crown counsel, one becomes involved in great difficulty when there is ambiguity. Not only is the private citizen being charged involved in an expense, but there is also an expense to the court. Also, the ambiguity creates anxiety for both counsel and the court.
There are several other cases to which I could refer the minister but I do not wish to take time to place them on the record now. There are several other sections which concern me which might not be included in a definition of "offence". I would hope that this section could be stream-

November 23, 1973
Protection of Privacy
lined or rewritten so that it would contain no ambiguity. I believe the hon. member is trying to narrow it down. There may be a simpler way to do it. Perhaps the Minister of Justice, through his officials, who have had more experience, certainly, than I have may be able to come up with a formula to do what the hon. member is trying to do, that is, ensure that there is no ambiguity and that justice not only will be done but will appear to be done.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise first of all on a point of order. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) reverted to motion No. 2, and I am not sure whether that is the end of the debate on that motion so far as the official opposition is concerned. They might want to call the question. As I understood it, the vote was to be deferred.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Perhaps I should intervene at this time to inform the hon. member of the situation. I do not know whether he was in the House at the time, but unanimous consent was given to the hon. member for Calgary North to allow him to deal with the two amendments. The Chair was very cautious at the time and indicated to hon. members that this should not be considered as permission to everyone to enter into the debate on both amendments at the same time.
I do not know why the hon. member was asking for this permission, but he received it with the consent of the House. I would hope, however, that hon. members would now come back to the debate on motion No. 3, which is to be followed by the debate on motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey).


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I was in the House last night and had the impression that the hon. member for Calgary North was the last speaker. That is why I thought there might be consensus to winding up the debate on the motion. However, I do not wish to speak on that particular motion. I heard the "no" from the deputy House leader and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), so I will now proceed to the amendment of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).
First, I might say-this has been reiterated over and over again in the House-that there is really no objection to this bill and that which it seeks to do. Last night when the hon. member for St. Paul's was introducing his motion he carefully catalogued all the reasons, or a good number of them, for our needing a bill of this nature, particularly at this time as highlighted by the unfortunate experience of our good friends to the south. In addition to the cataloguing that the hon. member did then, just this morning I received a communication from a lady in my riding who says in her letter:
Having had wiretapping and bugging done to us, I know what it means.
She goes on to explain the circumstances. Her husband was involved in a car accident. The case that was made against him turned out to be as the result of private conversations they had had in their living room; that was the only place where the particular evidence had been

discussed. She was satisfied that they had probably been investigated by a private investigator, that their home had been bugged and their private conversations listened to. This is the tragic part of it. She writes:
You don't know what it means that they lived your private life with you. This is more than three years ago we found out that this was done, and I still have nightmares. If we want to talk something confidential, we walk the street, for I don't trust anything any more.
This is the kind of impact that wiretapping or bugging has on individual citizens in this country, and we know that it is taking place. So 1 welcomed it when the minister indicated that he would be bringing in a bill to control this kind of abuse of our civil liberties.
Having said that, I should now like to turn to the kinds of problems that have been raised by the hon. member for St. Paul's, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), and today the right hon. member for Prince Albert in the amendment that he is suggesting. I must say, as one who is more than a little concerned about the invasion of privacy, that this is an area that has caused me to do some soul-searching to decide what position I would take with regard to these amendments.
I resented the implication by the right hon. member for Prince Albert that pressure had been brought to bear, or that we had an overbearing Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), because in point of fact the position taken by the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) yesterday was indicative of the fact that the Minister of Justice does not take an overbearing or inflexible position, that he recognizes that the hon. member for Matane as a matter of conscience, felt it was necessary to take the position that he took on the amendments introduced by the hon. member for New Westminster.


Erik Nielsen: The minister is just stubborn.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I listened with as much courtesy as I could muster to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather), and I think he could extend the same courtesy to me. If he has something to say, he might rise and say it because it is difficult for me to make a speech and to answer his questions at the same time. The hon. member has the respect of all members of the House, and if he has something to say I would be happy to sit down and listen to him.
First of all, dealing with the decision that has to be made and the one we are debating at this time in the amendment that has been moved by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, I understand his reason in bringing in this particular motion. It is something that I have considered very carefully. Although I did not serve on the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, I read all the evidence very carefully, not only the evidence of the former attorney general of the United States but also the evidence of the police. It seems to me that we concentrate too much on this particular section which gives emergency powers to the police. I think the right hon. member has used hyperbole and ridicule to try to downgrade the necessity for having this section in the bill.
November 23, 1973

Personally, I think there are enough safeguards. I also feel that it will seldom be used. The minister has indicated two examples, although I suspect he could have given others. But I think what is significant is that there are not many occasions when that power would be used. If we find through experience that it is being abused, then it will be a very simple matter to bring in the amendment of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. But I think it would be premature to do so at this time. It seems to me that by taking away this weapon from the police we are putting handcuffs on the policeman rather than on the criminal.
We have heard it said that it is immoral to wiretap. I agree with that; I think it is immoral. I also think it is immoral for a person to hit another person; yet we know that our police do that in self-defence or when they must use their fists possibly in the interest of protecting another person. It is immoral to use a billy, yet sometimes policemen are called upon to do so. I think it is immoral to carry a gun with the knowledge that at some time it might be necessary to use it. I think it is immoral to speed on a city street, but sometimes a policeman has to do this.
What we have to recognize is that there are situations in which a policeman finds himself when he has to do something that is immoral but which is in the interest of the general public. If we take this emergency weapon away from him, we are saying to him that this is just the first step in a series of steps that will make it much easier for the criminal element to operate in our community. I say this with the following caveat: if our experience shows that attorneys general across the country report that this particular section is being abused, it will be a very simple matter to bring in an amendment to have the law changed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It will be too late then.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It would be interesting to know the position of those who are in favour of this section if the Minister of Justice had gone along with this amendment contrary to all the attorneys general across the country, because the information I have is that they are in favour of it. They see the need for it; they see the need to give this weapon to the police. As I said before, it concerns me that this emergency power is there, but I can see the need for it. However, if it is abused, then I suggest it will be a simple matter to delete it from the law.
How many times is it going to be used? That is the criterion on which it can be decided whether this power is abused by the police. Second, what are the safeguards? I think the Minister of Justice has carefully catalogued all the procedures that must be gone through before this particular emergency section can be used.
With the spotlight of publicity on the attorney general of a province, who has to get up in a provincial legislature and defend the fact that he allowed the police to use this emergency power, I have the feeling that it will be used very little and there will be little room for abuse by the people who will use it, if in fact it should ever be necessary. The right hon. gentleman, with all his skill and ability, endeavours to kill the bill as a whole by saying that if this particular clause is in it, then it defeats the
Protection of Privacy
whole purpose of the bill. I say it does not. The protection is there, but this emergency power is necessary.
What we have discovered is that there is difficulty in drafting the kind of bill that will give the general public the protection we feel it must have. The hon. member for St. Paul's has found that out. With all due respect, after listening to the hon. member for Calgary North I say that if this amendment is carried, and spokesmen for the NDP seem to indicate they will support it, then it will become a defence counsel's dream. It will not be necessary to know the facts but just to argue in law that this clause cannot be made to work.
The hon. member talked about patterns and organized crime and, as he indicated, there is a big enough loophole through which to drive a truck. After this kind of legislation is drafted it is very easy to hold it up to ridicule, as the right hon. member for Prince Albert has done. There is difficulty in drafting anything, Mr. Speaker. I remember that on one occasion I was going to send my son to camp, and a letter came to me from the camp officials spelling out all the things campers could not do and all the restrictions that were placed upon them. I thought the letter could have been better drafted and that possibly my son should not go to that camp because of the number of restrictions.
In this instance we have the draftsmen attempting to do something very difficult, knowing the result is susceptible to the kind of criticism offered by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. With these comments, and the caveat I have filed on my own behalf and on behalf of all hon. members, I conclude that if the clause is abused then the amendment introduced by the right hon. member for Prince Albert would probably be passed by the House; but it is premature to do it at this time.


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of incurring your wrath I want to take a few minutes to refer to the points raised by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). I agree with his suggestion that perhaps the Minister of Justice and the law officers of the Crown might, within the confines of the principle which I have attempted to put forward in motion No. 2, consider the list of offences; and I would certainly be amenable to an amendment of that list if it were found to be advisable to expand it, or indeed to restrict it, to cover some of the problems raised by the hon. member for Calgary North. So I would indicate, for the purpose of the record, my agreement to that particular approach which I believe to be a responsible one.
With respect to motion No. 3 standing in the name of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), I think we have to look very closely at the words of the clause to the extent that powers are given to agents designated by the Attorneys General or by the Solicitor General, and examine the scope of those powers and the extremes of those powers as they may be exercised within the definition of the words of the subclause.
The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) has suggested, notwithstanding some difficulties which he has acknowledged, that we would be wise to proceed with the clause and if, as a result of the reporting clauses, the annual reports of the Attorneys General and the Solicitor
November 23, 1973

Protection of Privacy
General disclosed gross abuses, then of course we could come back and amend the clause to correct the abuses which had occurred.
There are two problems with that approach. The first is that when you are dealing with such a fundamental principle of individual rights, particularly the protection of privacy, sometimes there is too great a price to be paid in saying, "Let us try it. If it does not work, we can come back and correct it." Perhaps the onus should be the other way-let us protect individual rights first, and if there are abuses the other way, we can then correct those. But more important, as I read the words of the proposed new section
178.15,	I am concerned that the reports of the Attorneys General and the Solicitor General, made after the event, may not even disclose some of the actions taken by so-called agents under this section, because as I read it the agents who are designated may grant an emergency permit.
There is a requirement that the person granting that permit must forthwith report the full details to the Attorney General or to the Solicitor General. But what does the term "forthwith" really mean? Would it be compliance if the agent reported next day to the Attorney General that he had granted an emergency permit? Indeed, as may be the case, could the agent grant the emergency permit, the tap go on that evening, and it be taken off next morning by virtue of a revocation not by the Attorney General but by the agent himself? And if he were to revoke it after allowing it to be put on for 12 hours, 21 hours, or 35 hours, who would ever know, Mr. Speaker? Is there any guarantee other than the honesty of the particular agent; and there may be hundreds in each province so named by the Attorneys General? Who would ever know that the emergency permit had even been granted? Would that ever find its way into the report of the Attorney General? I have my suspicions, and for that reason alone I am skeptical of the approach suggested by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lamb-ton.
There is one other problem with proposed new section
178.15.	We have all talked in terms of the emergency permit being a maximum 36-hour permit. As I read proposed new subsection (3)(b), the time limit is either for 36 hours or, "if, within that time an application for authorization to intercept private communications in the circumstances to which the permit relates is made, until that application is finally disposed of." Take this sequence of events. The agent gives an emergency permit. That lasts for, say, 20 hours. Then, through the agent, an application for authorization is made to a judge. Then that application is adjourned. It may be adjourned for 24 hours, it may be adjourned for 48 hours. Or is it possible that under the terms of this legislation it could be adjourned for two weeks?
It seems to me that under the words in (3)(b) the emergency permit could continue in existence in perpetuity as long as the application for full authorization to the judge is subject to continual adjournments. That is a danger the draftsmen may not have seen when they put this legislation together, but it is yet another difficulty which has incurred the wrath and the scorn of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert.

We must seriously ask the question: Do we really need the emergency permits at all? The section providing for a regular authorization provides that the application to a judge need only be ex parte. There is no question of notice to the other side. Of course, the application must be made in writing, but there is nothing to prevent the Attorney General or his agent telephoning the judge and following that conversation up with something in writing. Such document might take the form of a telegram. A written copy could be delivered to the judge.
Certain requirements are set out in the bill; however, if one examines them closely one will find that, as in section 178.12, they are not that onerous. One has to show what is the type of private communication which is proposed to be intercepted. Usually that involves the telephone. One has to show the name and address of the person whose communications it is believed, on reasonable and probable grounds, may assist in the investigation of an offence. If the address is not known, a general description of the place will do; a general description of the manner of interception proposed to be used is all that is necessary. That requirement is not onerous and it could be followed in all cases instead of merely in some cases.
Some members raised the argument about the difficulty of getting to a judge. The right hon. member for Prince Albert told us that under this legislation there will be in excess of 600 judges in Canada who will be permitted to grant authorization. One of the wise amendments put forward and accepted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in the previous parliament was one which changed the definition of the term "judge", so that the term would include superior court judges as well as county court judges. That included; in Quebec, all general sessions judges or provincial judges as they are sometimes called.
The amendment would mean that in Ontario, my province, we would have available some 32 supreme court judges, some 105 county or district court judges, and ten judges of the Court of Appeal. In Quebec there are, I understand, in excess of 100 provincial court or sessions judges and at present 91 superior court judges. There are close to 200 judges in Quebec alone.
We may have a particular notion about the duties, obligations and responsibilities of a judge. We may think that the dignity of a judge's office requires him to perform his duties only from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The office of judge is an office of dignity and tradition. Those of us who have had experience with the bar of our provinces know there are many precedents to show that a judge has signed emergency types of orders at odd hours of the day and night and in odd locations.
Speaking of my province, I know of cases in which judges have signed injunction orders on the docks of their summer resorts on a Saturday afternoon, or have signed search warrant orders at two o'clock in the morning. I have known of injunction applications signed at four o'clock Sunday morning. Judges know full well that when they accept their responsibilities they are not to be judges from nine to five, five days a week; they are to be judges 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
November 23, 1973

Judges, like any professional group in society, are able to organize their affairs under some sort of roster system, so that a duty judge would be available at odd hours to perform the sort of task which this legislation contemplates. In the normal course, authorization could be granted at odd hours. In our system in Canada there is at least one county or district court judge within easy travelling or communication distance from virtually any part of Canada, and it would not be hard to obtain the sort of legal authorization for wiretapping which this bill contemplates.
Some concern has also been expressed about the emergency 36-hour permit section. Members of the opposition in this House have spoken about it, as well as persons who have had a great deal of experience with the law, with wiretapping and with law enforcement as carried out by the police. In this connection it is interesting to note that on June 8, 1972, the bar association of the province of Quebec expressed concern about this particular section. Indeed, so strongly felt was that concern that the batonni-er of Quebec bar, Mr. Jean Moisan, sent an emergency telegram to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I want to read part of that telegram, which expresses his views and those of members of the Quebec bar whom he represented. The communication is in telegraph form. I will read the English version, in part, as follows:
-request the removal of clause 178.15. Recommend prior authorization by a judge in all cases.
That, I believe, was an official communication from the Quebec bar association and should be treated with a great deal of seriousness, particularly in view of what has happened in the province in the last year. The concern expressed by the Quebec bar association reflects on the sort of invidious activities which are being carried on by private investigators and police in that province through the use of wiretaps and other means of electronic surveillance. The expression of such concern is not uncoincidental with such activities.
One of the difficulties we shall encounter with the emergency permit section was alluded to this morning by the right hon. gentleman. It will be difficult to determine who is an "agent." The bill provides that an agent is a person so designated by the Attorney General of a province or the Solicitor General of Canada. There is no limitation as to number, as to quality, as to competence or as to location. In other words, the section is wide open. Every police officer, every chief of police, every customs officer, every excise tax officer and every combines investigator could possibly be named as an agent for the purpose of granting an emergency permit under this bill.
You might say that no responsible Attorney General, no responsible Solicitor General, would ever give such wide scope to what is contemplated by the term "agent" in this bill. The only protection provided in this b'ill was provided by the committee. The opposition moved an amendment under which agents who are named by the Attorney General or the Solicitor General have to be identified and named in the annual reports of the Attorneys General or the Solicitor General. Although this gives us some protection, because at some point we will know who these people are who will be capable of granting an emergency permit
Protection of Privacy
or seeking authorization from a judge, it will be after the event, Mr. Speaker, perhaps after the horse has gone and the barn door has been closed-and that may be too late.
It will be of interest to quote from a brief submitted by the Montreal Urban Community Police Department. This brief, which did not find its way onto the record, was nevertheless distributed to members of the committee. It sets out the sort of procedures followed now for the control and conservation of information gathered by electronic surveillance. It speaks of the present practices of the Montreal police and of practices as the Montreal police would like to see them in the future. In part, the brief says:
Any request for a project must be accepted by the assistant chief inspector of each division involved before being submitted to one of the two inspectors who control the use of wiretaps and the routing of the information intercepted. These two inspectors report directly to the Director of the Montreal Urban Community Police.
In addition to them, two captains and a detective-lieutenant have access to this information, along with the carefully selected operators.
There is a system in existence in Montreal. It is not as wide open as I suggest could possibly exist under the terms of this bill. However, it is certainly much more wide open than I would like to see in terms of an Attorney General in his province carefully naming highly qualified, honest, carefully selected agents who would have rather large powers under this bill.
The solution to the dilemma of the term "agent" is to cut down the powers which they can exercise. As the right hon. member for Prince Albert pointed out, the most dangerous power they could exercise would be to grant an emergency permit. An emergency permit could conceivably go beyond the 36 hours if accompanied by an application for authorization to a judge which was adjourned sine die or in perpetuity, whatever the case may be.
The Minister of Justice attempted to point out there is some inconsistency in the position taken by a number of members in the justice committee and on second reading in this House. In particular he referred to a number of us, and I include myself, who spoke rather strongly about whether there should be judicial authorization as the primary controlling mechanism for legalized wiretapping under this bill. I admit I was one who suggested the ultimate responsibility for wiretapping should be with the politically elected person, that is, the Solicitor General or the Attorney General. However, I made it very clear that that was the Solicitor General personally or the Attorney General personally, and certainly not his agents as this bill would permit under the emergency clause.
I listened to the arguments on second reading and in committee. I was able to accept the position of the majority of the members of the committee that perhaps judicial authorization, on balance, was the best form of safeguard that we have. Having accepted that, I do not think you can have it both ways. Once having accepted judicial authorization as the ultimate controlling device, you have to go with it 100 per cent. You cannot say we will have a judge in some instances and in other instances we will have the attorney general as the controlling mechanism. It has to be

November 23, 1973
Protection of Privacy
one or the other. Under this bill, with the existence of clause 178.15 there is a split responsibility which makes a mockery of the general principle which is intended.
I urge all members to consider the necessity, or lack thereof, of retaining section 178.15 in the bill. To use the argument advanced by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lamb-ton, if the police find themselves unduly hampered in their activities, unable to find a judge when they need one and unable to act quickly under the normal sections under which one gets an authorization, let the Minister of Justice come back to parliament with the evidence and an amendment, and we will consider it then. Until that time we must not deprive the people of Canada of the fundamental protection which they deserve, the fundamental protection of a judicial authorization which is the controlling and principal mechanism of this bill.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the discussion which has taken place today on these amendments, it is a little difficult at this stage to know to which amendment one ought to direct his remarks. We have been discussing several amendments this afternoon. I am afraid too many members have chosen to emulate the unfortunate example of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who, in introducing his amendment this morning, ranged over not only the whole of this bill and its amendments but also, unfortunately, over the whole history of civil liberties and the Bill of Rights. I say "unfortunately" because of the selective character of the references which he used.
Let us turn to one of the problems which he raised, namely the serious accusation that the minister and the government generally are trying to bulldoze the committees. What are the facts in this case? The facts are that on most committees, and certainly on this committee, the largest single group of members is composed of members of the official opposition. This is because members of the government party have to use one of their number for chairman. He votes only in the case of a tie. As hon. members know, the chairmen also try to be impartial in all these matters in committee. In this case, the form of the bill before us was carried not only with the support of government members but members of the official opposition.
Let me just recall the statements which several of those members made in committee. On September 18, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), formerly the attorney general for the province of Ontario, had this to say at page 22:
Just to agree with the minister for a change. . . there is no question that there are occasions when there have to be emergency measures taken by law enforcement agencies in a matter such as this.
On page 24 of the same day's hearings, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) said:
It seems to me that there should be, and I know there will be, occasions where emergency permits will have to be sought.
The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) has confessed his own ambiguity on this question. I do not recall how he voted on this in committee, but the fact is this

form of bill was carried at committee stage only with the support of many members of the official opposition.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member has referred to me confessing my own ambiguity on the question. I do not know where he finds that reference or how he makes that assertion. I find his comment infringes my privileges and it is a misstatement of my position. The hon. member knows that I voted in favour of the amendment in committee.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, obviously that is no question of privilege. Whether the hon. member has been ambiguous is a question of interpretation. I am talking about the various positions he has advanced on this point. The point I was making is that this kind of accusation by the right hon. member for Prince Albert is sheer hypocrisy. He suggested the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) has no right to attempt to overrule what the committee has done in one case, and then he himself, with respect to this very amendment, is proposing to amend what a majority of the committee-a majority which included members of his own party-recommended.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Unfortunately, this is not the end of the hypocrisy of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. He is guilty of double hypocrisy. We know that in discussing the cases under the Canadian Bill of Rights he waxed eloquent on the Drybones case and made some comments about the role of the Minister of Justice with respect to that. I noticed that he did not say anything about the Lavell case. He said he would deal with that on another occasion. Many members will be interested in that "other occasion" because it was that case which revealed the apparent bankruptcy of the Bill of Rights which the right hon. member for Prince Albert passed into law in this House some years ago.
Not only is the Bill of Rights inadequate with respect to the provinces but, as the Lavell case shows, it does not even apply to federal legislation so as to allow the courts to strike down such legislation. It is because of these deficiencies that this government for the past number of years has consistently been trying to persuade the provinces to agree there should be a constitutional Bill of Rights. Perhaps there are not enough provincial Liberal governments! The right hon. member for Prince Albert is guilty of twofold hypocrisy in coming before us to speak on this bill. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The glass of his house has been shattered today by his own stones.
The basic question in this case is whether we ought to recognize emergency cases and whether there should be a mechanism to deal with them. Many members of the House, in all parties, if one takes into account all the statements which have been made on this bill, have admitted that such situations arise and that a provision such as this is necessary. That is the basic question with which we are confronted. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) has persuasively argued that in the absence of a provision of this type the police forces of the country would be on
November 23, 1973

occasions hamstrung in their attempts to deal with criminal elements. That is essentially the case to be made on behalf of the bill in its present form.
The amendment goes much too far. Argument might be advanced as to whether permits should be issued by an agent or not, but should not go as far as the right hon. gentleman has proposed. The arguments he puts forward are nothing but a sham and hypocrisy. There can be no other course but for the House to support the bill as it stands before us.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to remain silent and enjoy the debate this afternoon until an attack was made on the life's work of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbak-er) by a lawyer whose acquaintanceship with the practise of law, as compared with the right hon. member for Prince Albert and his experience of the courts, can only be called scant. It is interesting that with respect to the services of the right hon. gentleman to the people of Canada, the criticism of that service and the criticism of the things he has done in the name of justice should be made by a member of the bar who, if I may put it frankly, in terms of service is not worthy of being a pimple on the neck of the right hon. gentleman.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member is missing the point. I am not relying on my own opinion to attack the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I am saying that the Supreme Court of Canada has made this judgment on his life's work.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I should like to remind hon. members that we are debating motion No. 3. If the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) wishes to speak on that, the Chair will be pleased to hear him.


Walter David Baker: If I may say so, and I will leave the matter at this point, I think it is important that everyone should remember that this attack was made on the right hon. member for Prince Albert while he was not in the chamber.


An hon. Member:: He walked out.


Mark R. MacGuigan: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, when I began speaking the right hon. gentleman was in the House. As I was speaking, he walked out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It is getting close to four o'clock, and no doubt hon. members are anxious to proceed to the private members' hour. However, I think we should remain in order and resume consideration of motion No. 3.


Walter David Baker: I am coming to that. The fact that the right hon. gentleman left the House may be some indication of the quality of the speech made by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). I think it is important we should not allow the spirit of the amendment we are discussing today to be submerged by the catcalls, by the personal attack and, indeed, the personal vendetta-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
National Recreation Policy


Walter David Baker: -being carried on by members of the House who sit opposite, behind a Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) who stands against the principles set forth in the amendment put forward by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. The principle is sound. Perhaps I may state it simply so that even some members on the other side can understand, if they refuse to read.
No person, no organization, no police force, no agency, public or private, shall have the right, in the event of an emergency whether real or imagined, to interfere with the privacy of any citizen unless that interference is sanctioned by the courts and under due process of law. If there is anything wrong with the principle which has been advanced by my right hon. friend, then there are many men and women in the country and in this House who cannot agree with those who find it is wrong in the seventies to live by the rule of law.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it four o'clock?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, there is a question regarding House business which was left undefined. Is it the intention of the government to go ahead with this measure, which seems to be taking on a long-term aspect, or switch back to some other piece of legislation on Monday?


Otto Emil Lang: There have been some discussions, Mr. Speaker. We propose to continue with the Foreign Investment Review Act on Monday in the hope of completing third reading that day, and then continue with the measure presently before the House. We plan to proceed with the protection of privacy bill on Tuesday in any case.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills and private bills.
[ English]



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin) moved:: That in the opinion of this House the government should give consideration to the sponsorship and financing of a national recreation policy, in conjunction with the provinces and municipalities, to the allocation of responsibilities for recreational programming, to the determination of land use and to the encouragement of all aspects of recreational development by local citizens under permanent, federally-assisted programs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged to see so many members in the House this afternoon. Perhaps this is an indication of the way in which hon. members approach the subject of recreation, deeming it to be one of great impor-

November 23, 1973
National Recreation Policy
tance, and perhaps they will join with me in seeking to determine a national recreation policy.
This country is presently in the throes of a national energy crisis, a crisis that did not appear out of nowhere as the government would like us to believe. Had we had a national energy policy some years ago, we would not now face an energy crisis because our plans would have been made a long time ago. The provision and maintenance of recreation requires the same sort of planning. Recreation needs a long-term plan which the federal government should have initiated some time ago. The federal government should establish, in consultation with provincial governments, municipalities, civic officials, and so on, a conference-which we might call a multilevel conference since we have heard of such things as trilevel conferences-to determine ways and means of arriving at a national recreation policy.
I am not exaggerating when I say that the problem of providing recreational facilities in this country has now reached crisis proportions. We as legislators are helping to thrust Canadians into a society of leisure. We are looking forward to 35 or 30-hour work weeks, to working just three or four days in the week. This is why we must be prepared for the dramatic change that this will bring in our lifestyles.
At the local level, whether it be village, town, city or county, the biggest recreational headache is the financing of recreational and leisure projects. The federal government does make available through Recreation Canada grants to various native groups and to other national agencies and associations. However, I have found it virtually impossible to obtain federal grants for my constituents for the purpose of subsidizing the capital cost of a recreational centre, arena or gymnasium in our community. No money is available to them through LIP or OFY, because they find their applications for grants are too capital-oriented and not labour-oriented. This is why, more often than not, applications are rejected. These people are looking for a grant to finance a capital project. In case they are unable to realize the required amount of capital, they want a long-term loan or grant of some sort to help them construct roofs, walls and to buy ice-making equipment.
Having talked to a number of recreation directors in Canada, I find they look for two things. Firstly, they would like a long-term loan at low interest. Secondly, they would like a grant, not simply for capital structures but also to cover the first one or two years' operating expenses. One of the biggest problems when a project gets off the ground is finding money for operating expenses for the first two years until sufficient recreational programs are established to provide the necessary revenue.
I am fortunate to come from a province that is somewhat enlightened now it has a new administration, the Lougheed administration. The province has recognized this problem and is now making available certain capital works programs and grants to communities which would otherwise go without such arenas. However, I have found that they have had to make application to the Department of Agriculture. I recall working very hard this winter for

the town of Spruce Grove which wanted to build an arena and swimming pool, but the only way they could get a long-term loan was to go through the ag society of the Department of Agriculture. In return they have to put on an agricultural fair once a year. They are willing to do this and will do so, but it does not seem fair that they have to go to the Department of Agriculture for a loan to build recreational facilities.
I should also like to point out that in 1971 the federal government provided the provinces with $7.4 billion for education costs. In 1972-73 this figure increased to $8.8 billion. If these funds are used for capital construction of school buildings, surely the federal government should stipulate that the gymnasium be a multipurpose structure. My community of Spruce Grove adopted this policy, and it is a very revolutionary type of project that I hope will be used all across Canada. The townspeople constructed a community hall in the school itself. The school gymnasium is used for recreational purposes and at the same time is a town hall complex. The building is a school from six in the morning until six in the evening, and then from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. it becomes a community building and is used by the townspeople for recreational purposes, dances and what have you. In this way we will not have facilities standing empty all across Canada. I think this is a very important improvement and I hope that in some way this kind of stipulation can be made when granting a loan.
Not included in these selected few are the poor people or the near poor. For them, enforced idleness or meaningless work at low wages or low returns is not recreation. The affluence of contemporary Canadian society may be slowly spreading to more and more Canadians, but it still appears that from 20 per cent to 30 per cent of Canadians find recreation a distant concept. They may have idle time or they may not; but for millions, after providing for food and shelter and for the maintenance of their health there is not enough disposable income to give them even basic satisfaction, let alone any hint of leisure.
I was talking to a recreation director in Nova Scotia, in the town of Yarmouth, who said that they had found the only way to get the poor people in that community into some recreational activity was by personal intervention. But there was only one recreation director in the whole area, and it was virtually impossible for him to establish some kind of personal rapport with the people and encourage them in some recreational activity. I suspect that, again, financing is required to bring more recreation directors to the areas where poor people live.
To my mind, one of the best ways to encourage, not just the poor but all Canadians to make the optimum use of their leisure time is to create a feeling of pride in our outstanding athletes and international competitors. Pride in these athletes will most certainly create an incentive for individuals themselves to become involved. In the past we have been plagued by generally poor standards of performance in international competition. I can think offhand of only two or three athletes, such as Bruce Kidd and a few very good skaters, who have reach world fame in the athletics field. One of the major causes of the problem has been lack of good coaching in this country. John Hudson, one of Canada's few outstanding coaches, recently stated:
November 23, 1973

There is no question that we have many excellent coaches in some sports, but there are usually, at the most, only one or two international-calibre coaches in any one sport. To show significant improvement in the standard of coaching in Canada, we must have an infusion of knowledge and experience into our system. Where do we get it and how? There are many arguments for and against importing coaches. In my opinion we have little choice but to import coaches if we want to turn our system around and start showing some results.
Foreign coaches can provide several immediate benefits which would take us many years to build into our system, and even then it would be difficult without outside help. Most foreign coaches have superior knowledge because they have an education system designed to teach coaches-
That is the important point; they have an education system which is designed to teach their coaches. He goes on to say:
-we have a few scattered courses, but no over-all system at present. In Europe, for example, it is possible to study for a PhD. in sport coaching.
In Canada, our attitude toward athletics in the educational process is simply not adequate. Simon Fraser University stands as the only post-secondary institution in this country which offers athletic scholarships. Many hundreds of our best athletes annually make the trek south to United States universities. These are not aspiring athletes necessarily, but aspiring scholars as well. Because of our inane attitude here in Canada, we have many students going to the United States who never return.
There is a program which has just been started at a few progressive universities in this country which gives people a bachelor's degree in recreation administration. But there are only three universities involved in the program-the University of Alberta, Simon Fraser and Waterloo. Even in respect of this program the administrations must fight for money because this is not a faculty in itself but part of another faculty. This is an area in which I think the federal government should give some encouragement to award either athletic scholarships or to encourage recreational programs in our universities.
Our lack of planning in the past, and perhaps our lack of planning in the future-I hope that will not be the case-puts serious restrictions on the full enjoyment of our leisure time even for the most affluent members of Canadian society. Let me give a few examples. First, space reservations for recreation are generally inadequate for our present population and there is bound to be a serious shortage of space in the more heavily populated regions of Canada. Second, there is no effective, co-ordinated joint federal-provincial regional planning to ensure a concerted and systematic attempt to remedy these problems. Third, it is reasonable to expect that by 1980 the average work time will be 10 per cent less than now-and we have not accepted that possibility. Fourth, in the early 1960s the urban area available for public recreational use such as parks, golf courses, swimming pools and playgrounds ranged below 10 per cent. Looking ahead to the 1980s, it appears that in spite of increased numbers of residences and the possibility of higher population densities in our cities, the land use ratio will be altered little, if at all.
Finally, there is the old problem of a government caught within a jungle of legal and administrative machinery of great complexity, and this is worsened by lack of national appreciation of the real need for a federal recreation
National Recreation Policy
policy. The shortage of adequate parks and recreational resources within urban areas continues to be a serious concern to most urban municipalities. The planner lacks an adequate system with which to justify the acquisition, preservation and retention of recreational areas in face of the pressures from the diverse urban forces seeking and competing for open space. The best use for land is too often dependent upon economics and not on the intangible values of space for the sake of space.
Lands for recreational use are in ever-increasing demand. Probably the best indicator is the tremendous increase shown in all forms of outdoor recreation in the past seven or eight years, along with the great increase in attendance at national and provincial parks. Statistics indicate that in 1952 there were 2.5 million visitors to our parks. In 1962 the figure had more than doubled, to 7.5 million; and the latest figures for 1974 indicate more than 14 million visitors.
The BNA Act gives control of natural resources, hence land, to the provincial governments. At both the provincial and federal levels, legislation has tended to promote a split between park and recreation, thereby interrupting acceptance of the similarities existing among programs, services, planning and development. During the debate on Bill S-4 many members, including myself, made reference to national parks for recreation, or national recreational parks. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale) said in his speech:
I had hoped that long before now there might have been an attempt to implement a definite policy in respect of recreational parks.
I think this is important. This is the way the federal and provincial governments could organize recreational parks close to urban centres, with recreational directors, in order that people could get out and find some breathing space, rather than having to fly to another country or drive hundreds of miles to a national park.
The goals and objectives of leisure and recreation go far beyond the interest and authority of the federal government's Recreation Canada program. Participation in any effective program of recreation will include not only the National Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport and other offices of the Department of National Health and Welfare, but also such agencies as the Canada Council, the CBC, the National Film Board and government departments such as the Department of the Secretary of State, the Department of Urban Affairs, and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I am convinced that at the administration level much of the frustration, the lack of direction and the inability to obtain adequate tax dollars for recreational programs and physical fitness development are linked directly to a serious lack of understanding of the role and function of leisure time and recreation. For a start, I would propose two very inexpensive projects. The first would be that all government departments simply "think recreation". If an attitude of this type were adopted, I am sure we would all be surprised at the number of beneficial changes that would result from small and inexpensive measures. Secondly, I would like to see a recreation co-ordinator appointed to advise and direct a government "think recreation" program. He could consult with the provinces, municipalities, towns and cities in order to co-ordinate

November 23, 1973
National Recreation Policy
recreational programs. Perhaps we should even have a ministry responsible for such things as culture, youth and recreation.
The federal government should make available opportunities for the satisfying use of free time. It should provide and protect environmental resources and sponsor research programs to provide an integrated data bank to assist in planning, and provide trained personnel for leadership. If the federal government were to provide the active resources necessary, then we would be well on our way toward satisfying the leisure requirements of this country. I must emphasize that this could become a crisis situation in the future, and I hope we will immediately get on with such a policy.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why I was chosen to speak on recreation, because I have had very much since becoming a member of parliament. We must realize that there are many kinds of recreation. There are also many opinions about recreation.
I was just telling a brother member and colleague that I thought when we had duty days we should make sure there are plenty of cribbage boards in the lobbies. I am sure the quality of the speeches in the House would improve-certainly it will after I have completed this one.
A recreational policy for the whole of Canada is a very huge project. In fact, the whole question of recreation possibly could be defined into so many aspects that I do not see how in the world a national policy could really be stated. In my opinion, things like petroleum, forests and railways, and so on, are fairly definable. We can outline the objectives and possibilities in respect of them. In the case of recreation, however, except to say generally that everybody should have recreation of some kind it is almost impossible to group the different kinds of desirable recreation, let alone undesirable recreation, in one big basket or bag.
As hon. members know, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has been a great advocate of physical fitness. The Government of Canada, through several departments, has backed projects such as Sports Canada and Recreation Canada. I could give a list of dozens of things that are being done. The objective of the fitness and amateur sport branch is to encourage, develop and promote fitness and amateur sport. Grants are given to national agencies and associations so that they may offer programs and leadership training.
Through this program, assistance is given to the province. There are leadership training clinics and skill development classes. The branch assisted the Indian organization. It brought a group down to Hamilton a year or two ago for a big hockey gathering. There is a fitness program in Canada. Sport Participation in Canada is a private, non-profit organization which attempts to motivate Canadians to perhaps more physical activity. I have more, similar information here but I do not intend to bore hon. members with a list of things that are going on.
From the standpoint of national and international competition, we realize that our athletes are under some handicap in getting into a position where they can compete successfully in worldwide competition. This is the reason

we encourage and support functions like the Canada Games and the summer and winter games. It is the government's policy to support organizations so they can take part in these games. I think this is the only way in which we can develop athletes of a calibre comparable to athletes of other countries. This also applies to the Olympic games. We have had world champion skaters. We have on the opposition benches a well known competitor who was a world champion in figure skating. I think also of the Magnussen girl from the west who carried the laurels of Canada to first place in world competition. We have a few of this type. I remember that some years ago we were so proud of a girl from Fonthill, near Welland-Marlene Stewart, who was a golf champion.


An hon. Member:: Don't forget the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek).


Samuel Victor Railton: I mentioned him, but had forgotten his riding. We cannot forget when our national hockey group defeated the Russians. There is no doubt, when one looks at the Russians, that they are a wonderful group of skaters, stickhandlers, bodycheckers and are very well trained. Had it not been, I suppose, for the old fashioned chauvinistic spirit that the Canadians achieved, they might have been beaten. We do not need to kid ourselves that it was because of the superior athletic condition of our team. It was because of their spirit. That is one thing I think may still survive a little better in a democracy: people do not regard a hockey game, even if it is a championship game, as a science or a job but as a means of doing something for the people they represent.
I am being diverted by a sign which is exhibited in the House, I believe rather illegally, which attempts to get my support for a certain team from west of the Ottawa line on Sunday. I can only say I have put my money on Ottawa.
To return to the subject of physical fitness, what is being done in respect of the Canada games and Canadian athletes, and what is being done in trying to coach teams in various sports in order to help us in the Olympic games, is a small part of the total over-all Canadian policy in respect of physical fitness. It is the feeling of the government, and I support it, that most Canadians are overweight. I shall not say how much. We have certain nutritional deficiencies. We have improper diets. In most of the improper diets the big thing is that there are too many calories and not sufficient vitamins and special trace elements, and so on. However, there has not been a worldwide, comparative study done and therefore I would venture to say that most Canadians, in spite of some of the deficiencies mentioned, are about as healthy as people in the rest of the world. An attempt to maintain a proper weight level will improve an individual's health. While we are on that subject I should like to point out that this is not the only way in which people can remain healthy. We must remember that we cannot make everybody healthy just because they have the proper exercise and diet. This is only a small part of the total health expenditure we are making. We must maintain our ability to treat disease, because most diseases are not amenable to prevention by this means.
November 23, 1973

On the other side of the coin, we come to the matter of recreation itself. As I said before, I think recreation should be spontaneous. It is almost like charity: it should begin at home. I think that recreation should not only be physical recreation or outdoor recreation but should also include the mind and the emotions. I am not so sure that lack of physical exercise has been as important a component in the mortality of Canadians as has emotional illness due to lack of sensible recreation. I think that most people work too hard, probably drink too hard, and play too hard. Everything they do is with a strong drive; many people never know how to relax.
I am sure there is more heart disease and gastrointestinal disease, such as ulcers, caused by emotional disturbances-this twentieth century syndrome-than by lack of exercise. I can think of people like my grandparents, who both lived to be 85 or 90 and yet they had no set way of exercising. They were farmers and they worked until they could not work any more. But they rather enjoyed it and they had a lot of fun in between their chores. I think it is important that recreation of an emotional nature go hand in hand with recreation of a physical nature. I am not too sure that all the joggers are still jogging.
On the other hand, I think it is important to realize what was brought out by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger). It is by no means something we should throw aside. The value of land management and of our parks, municipal, provincial and federal, cannot be exaggerated. In my city of Welland we are pretty proud of the fact that we have 17 municipal parks. One is known as the Rose City simply because there are some people who are very fond of gardens. Parks should not only have swings, pools and baseball diamonds: I think they should contain, also, a great many quiet and beautiful walks and gardens with flowers and shrubs, because we need the beauty for our souls as much as we need physical exercise.
We have plans also, if we ever get our government to come to a proper conclusion for the city of Welland, to border the three miles on the north side and the three miles on the south side of the old canal with parks and recreational areas. It will probably be one of the most fortunate cities in Canada if this is done, because it had to go through the disruption and misery of a huge construction project when the bypass was built. It took from 1966 until the present year to complete it. Please forgive me for that reference to my own riding, Mr. Speaker. However, what is important about parks is that Canada has a great many of them and they are being used all the time. I will never forget the great recreational and physical enjoyment I say that with tongue in cheek-of going through Algonquin park with my family many years ago, carrying two waterlogged canoes and a great deal of equipment. I am sure this was for my benefit, but if I had had heart disease I am sure it would have got me then.
The other point I should like to make about parks is that although they are wonderful for canoeists and for people who like outdoor recreation, in fact they are being used by a great many Canadians. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin told us how many people are using the parks; the figure is in the millions. But let us not forget that apart from the 30 per cent of Canadians who use them, there are 200 million
National Recreation Policy
people from south of the border who use these parks and are glad to use them because both in our summers and in our winters they can be used for recreation by the Americans as well as by our own people.
The reasons put forward by the hon. member who put forward the motion for the desirability of parks were very good; however, the only thing I would question is the practicability of creating a national policy to cover recreation. I do not see how we can help using all the departments of the government for everything from agriculture to urban affairs-but is there any way in the world in which we can separate all the aspects of this motion and put them under one ministry? It would be much too chaotic if we did so.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to add that it was very good of the sponsor to bring in this motion. It makes us all think. However, I do not think that a national parks policy for recreation is practical at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in my view the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) has placed before the House a good idea. With reference to some of the things just said by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton), I think I could point out that the mover of this motion does not ask that we be programmed to death, that we all find our recreational outlets in the same way. But having in mind the increased importance of what we do with our leisure time and the importance of our resources being made available to meet the need of people of all ages, I think a motion such as this should be passed.
I am the third speaker, and with some reservations on the part of the second speaker we all seem in agreement with the motion before us. So why do we have to indulge in this Friday afternoon recreation of talking the motion out? Why do we not just admit that it is a good idea and that the House would like to express itself in favour of the motion, and let it pass.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I remember that in the last parliament we had many good debates during private members' hour. I think the presence of the hon. member lends a certain amount of prestige to this hour, which I feel is an important hour in the week. Where we do not share the same point of view is that the hon. member in every other debate seems to be quite prepared to talk on and on and have the debate well and fully heard, yet each time he comes into private members' hour we find him trying to limit the time of debate before members who want to speak on important motions have had an opportunity to rise and put their views on the record.
I might say to the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr, Yewchuk) that I heard him on the radio this morning, and I am sorry I did not have the opportunity to cross-examine him on some of the views he was presenting. I think he

November 23, 1973
National Recreation Policy
was carried away by the fact that he was on the radio at 7.30 in the morning. The fact that I was up at that hour may be significant, too.


Paul Yewchuk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: With all respect, the hon. member is not in his own seat. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, the motion presented by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) is an important one. But, like all of us who present motions and bills during private members' hour, he has failed to pinpoint precisely what he wants, to indicate what it would cost the taxpayers and how the money would be distributed if a national recreation policy were implemented.
To defend such a motion it would be necessay to know precisely what the hon. member has in mind and what kind of money he is recommending should be spent. If we went back to our constituents and said, "Yes, I was for that motion. I supported it in private members' hour and I will support it in committee; but I don't really know what it is going to cost," that would be an irresponsible attitude on our part. When presenting such motions hon. members should give some idea of the avenues they are travelling.


Paul Yewchuk: What is the wiretapping bill going to cost? You are supporting it.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes, I am supporting it. The hon. member may be now in his seat, although that is difficult to know.
I say the privacy of the individual should be protected, but there should be emergency provisions. Apparently, this member of the Conservative Party does not seem to think the motion presently before us is an important one when he attempts to sidetrack me like this. I say it is important and should be considered.
Had the hon. member for Wetaskiwin built his motion around one particular point, university athletic scholarships, then we would have a better idea of what he intended. I remember some of my high school colleagues who may have been somewaht mediocre students, just able to get through Latin and English grammar, yet who were whizzes on the football field, the basketball court or in swimming matches. They had no other encouragement than that of trying to make the school team. But when they finished high school they really had no chance to make their living in football because there were no scholarships for that; thus they were denied expert training. Any who wanted to continue in athletics had to go south of the border. I commend Simon Fraser University if it is providing athletic scholarships.
This is an area where the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) should get together with provincial ministers of education and look into the possibility of funding such college scholarships. They would know how many colleges there are in the country and could decide on the criteria for athletes to attend them and receive scholarships.
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin also spoke about importing coaches. I do not know why we seem to be loath to do that. The Canadian Legion showed the way some years ago when it brought an internationally respected 
coach to Canada from Great Britain to coach Canadian teams and assist Canadian athletes to develop. It was just one more indication of the kind of service provided by the Legion that all too often is forgotten. People sometimes think of legionnaires getting together to talk about the war, and do not realize that the Legion is giving leadership on a national basis to develop athletes and improve our showing in international competition. I salute the Legion for that. And the Legion does not simply focus on the national scene. I notice in many leagues the names of teams such as "The Legion" or "The Legionnaires," and we all know where the money to support them originates.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre struck a nerve when he indicated that he did not want to see us programmed to death. This is not unlike going to a summer resort, where you swim when you want to, rest when you want to and read when you want to; but the resort has an athletics director who insists that you go for a swim before breakfast, that you have a run after breakfast, who tells you what you should eat for your meal and in effect tells you how you should be enjoying yourself on a holiday that you yourself selected long before you met him.
I do not want to speak at length because I know there are others who wish to speak on this important motion. But once again I say to the hon. member who sponsored it that I would have been much happier if he had confined himself to a particular area and indicated whether he thought funding should be made available for athletic scholarships and the importation of coaches, or for the establishment of recreational centres in large or small communities, or whether he feels more money should be made available to Sports Canada. There are many such areas in which the federal government is participating at the present time. As a result of the study which he must have made before presenting this motion, the hon. member should have said in which areas he felt the federal government was not going far enough or where he felt some program could be dropped.
Sarnia produces some pretty fair baseball players, Mr. Speaker. This may be because it is close to an international border and local teams compete against Americans who are probably the best baseball players in the world, ahead of the Japanese and the Canadians. As a result, Sarnia produced a team that won two national championships. In this area, the federal government did not make money directly available to the Sarnia team or the Kitchener team, but it did say to the national organization, "We will make 'X' number of dollars available to you and you will spend that money as you see fit, either to send the team from Sarnia to where the championships are held or in some other manner. You will decide whether the money is to be divided among senior and junior competitors." This is the only fair way in which the federal government can become involved in that kind of program.
Mr. Speaker, I see there are members on the edge of their seat anxious to participate in this debate; therefore I will conclude my remarks at this point.


Mr. Judd Buchanan (London West):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague noted the anxiety with which I was sitting on the edge of my seat. To discuss a national recreation policy such as the one proposed by the hon.
November 23, 1973

member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) it is necessary to define "recreation" with some precision, or to qualify it in some way, for example as outdoor recreation. Even that qualified expression is capable of covering snowmobiling to wilderness hiking, active team sports to passive enjoyment of the countryside, urban playgrounds to wilderness parks.
Policies exist for federal involvement in many areas of outdoor recreation, but the diverse and often divergent needs of many of the activities which comprise recreation are not amenable to a single policy statement. Recreation does not result in a service whose goals can be specified, except perhaps in the level of personal satisfaction to each participant. All levels of government have a range of responsibilities in the field of recreation. These responsibilities have been developed in tune with the growth in demand for recreation of all kinds during recent years. Many of them are exercised autonomously by municipal and provincial governments without any involvement of the next senior level of government. These responsibilities and powers and their autonomy must be respected in the development of any federal policy.
In order to meet this primary requirement, a comprehensive policy would probably emerge as being so general as to be without a great deal of value. Recreational programming and the determination of land use are very clearly areas of provincial responsibility. Although several federal departments have developed excellent working relationships with the provinces for recreational activities, there is no evidence that such basic matters as these would be willingly modified by the provinces in the interests of a national policy.
The federal government has a number of policies and programs which apply to specific aspects of recreation and which have been tailored to meet the special needs of each activity. Not only are some of these programs federally assisted but many of them are federally administered. National parks, canals, small craft harbours, historic sites, some wildlife refuges and interpretation centres are among this group.
There are two components to recreation-the allocation of space and resources and the participation in recreational activities as part of our social structure. Assuming that participation will follow Parkinson's law and expand to make maximum use of land made available, the real interest of government is one of space and programs to ensure wise and skilled use of the space by a trained or at least an understanding public. In Canada, the consideration is complicated in the case of those recreational activities which attract tourism. The vast market of 200 million mobile citizens of the United States places powerful demands on Canadian resources. In 1973, slightly more than 30 per cent of the visitors to Canada's national parks were not Canadian residents. This larger market may well contribute tourist dollars to Canada but they also make the resources of a system serving 22 million Canadians distinctly scarce.
The implication of the hon. member's motion, that there is a void where there should be a policy, is only valid if we consider the whole unwieldy package of recreation. There
National Recreation Policy
are a number of policies and agencies of the Government of Canada which have jurisdiction over parts of the proposal. The total of these, properly co-ordinated to have recreation recognized as an integral component of our total land use allocation and social and cultural plans, has the potential for creating a comprehensive response to the variety of recreational demands than a national recreational philosophy requires.
I would like to review the involvement of several federal departments in the development of recreational policies.


Ronald George Atkey: You are against progress.


J. Judd Buchanan: Never. In each department, the thrust is to develop policies which can be used to handle specific issues and involvement of the federal government while giving full recognition to the autonomous roles of both provincial and municipal governments. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Marchand) pointed out in this House when speaking on second reading of Bill S-4 on November 2, 1973, that the philosophy of the National Parks Act is that of conservation and recreation. Conservation takes priority, as it must if Canada is to have special places to recreate.
A co-operative relationship with the provinces has developed to serve Canada's parks' responsibilities. Last year a new dimension was added to those responsibilities when the government approved the byways and special places program which provides for a number of new federal initiatives in the protection of our natural and cultural heritage while providing a whole new series of themes which will serve recreational needs. The introduction of national marine parks, national landmarks, national wild rivers, national historic land routes, national historic waterways and scenic and historic parkways provides a diversity of federal involvement and offers an encouragement to other levels of government to consider the advantages of an integrated, Canada-wide parks network. In announcing this new direction, the minister laid special stress on the need to develop these initiatives with the provinces as part of a truly Canadian parks system. The department is now preparing to enter discussions with all the provinces to explore the potential of the program.
To an increasing degree, Parks Canada is extending its traditional concerns. Its newly assumed responsibilities for the historic canals has led it into negotiations with Ontario to find a means of co-ordinating federal, provincial and municipal programs to develop the tremendous asset of the Rideau and Trent-Severn waterways so that it meets the many and varied needs of a population searching for more recreational opportunities. As a result of a co-ordinated program of development in the Halifax-Dart-mouth waterfront area, several islands which are federally-owned but surplus to current federal needs are to be used for recreational development of benefit to that region.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Paproski:: Question.


J. Judd Buchanan: Appropriate ways are being sought to provide recreational activity in urban population areas.

November 23, 1973
National Recreation Policy


Steve Eugene Paproski: The government is against health and recreation and has no ideas or policies on the subject.


J. Judd Buchanan: Here the byways and special places program may go some of the way to increase the Parks Canada involvement-perhaps by the assumption of responsibility in areas which relieve provincial agencies of high priority programs in rural areas, and give them the opportunity to redirect priorities to the urban centres.


Thomas Miller Bell: You are against the high cost of loving.


J. Judd Buchanan: Against the high cost of loving, that is correct. But the Parks Canada activity is concerned primarily with the provisions of outdoor recreation space and is by no means the only federal program involved. At least four other departments have programs directly relating to the supply or use of recreational open space. Their programs are co-ordinated by interdepartmental committees, and consultation is active. Because of the nature of
land and the nature of recreation, each program needs its own policies and its own means of implementing them.
The Department of the Environment has in the "Canada Land Inventory" classified much of Canada's land mass for its recreational capability. This inventory is widely used for recreational land assessment by both federal and provincial agencies. The department has a component directly related to recreation and open space research with particular concern for the environmental impact of recreational activities. Its fisheries service has a great deal of impact on recreational fishing.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The time provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock Monday afternoon.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



END OF VOLUME VII