1973-11-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report in both official languages of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Trudel.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous concurrence of the House to move a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the continual delay in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in returning certain lands to a particular band of Indian people in Nova Scotia. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That this House authorize the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development to inquire into the reasons why the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is not taking steps to have certain Indian reserve land which was improperly alienated returned to the domain and authority of the Middle River Indian Band in Nova Scotia.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The matter of urgent and pressing necessity arises from events that took place this morning in the Supplementary Estimates Committee. At that committee a majority accepted a motion expressing the desire to request the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to inquire immediately into the operations of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as they relate to social housing policy, native housing policy and the dismissal of Mr. Walter Rudnicki. For procedural reasons the matter was not fully resolved in the committee this morning. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs be instructed to inquire immediately into the above-mentioned matters and that such an inquiry request the appearance as a witness of Mr. Walter Rudnicki.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Paddy Neale (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the very serious world-wide shortage of bunker oil for international merchant shipping and the threat this shortage poses to all Canadian industry, including merchant shipping, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That this House instruct the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to table immediately in the House the contingency plans at his disposal to minimize the increase in unemployment which will surely result this winter in many parts of the country from the scarcity of this crucial energy resource.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.

November 29, 1973
Unemployment Insurance



PROPOSED OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION

Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion of extremely urgent necessity.
Since the energy crisis entails serious problems, the government should give first consideration to the extension of the pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal. In addition, the House should specially examine the most efficient means to finance the project. Since it is a collective project, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That this project be carried out.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such a consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the revelations by the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Committee that overzealous activities on the part of benefit control officers resulted in large numbers of claimants being unjustly disqualified from benefits to which they were rightly entitled, and in view of the minister's admission to the House yesterday that he is aware of the occurrence of such excesses on the part of the benefit control officers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Neale):
That this House instruct the minister to undertake, with his department, a case by case review of all disentitlements and disqualifications imposed by benefit control officers between January 1, 1973 and November 1, 1973, with a view to ensuring that all improperly disqualified claimants receive their just entitlement.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in the House on November 16 I expressed my concern on the matter of recent leaks of confidential government communications. I should like to stress that this is indeed an extremely serious matter. If allowed to continue, such practices could impair our relations with other countries and undermine the effective conduct of government business with foreign governments. Here in Ottawa, it would also interfere with exchanges of information essential to the conduct of business among government departments and agencies. It is therefore imperative that the matter be dealt with without delay.
What is involved, I suggest, is not our attitude toward this or that government of Chile. What is involved is also not a matter of whether we feel concern over the hardships or dangers for a good many people arising from the events in Chile. On this matter, I would have thought there would be little or no disagreement among most Canadians.
What is involved is simply a question of whether confidential communications are to be secure. On this matter, too, I would hope that most, if not all, Canadians would agree.
I am very much aware of the concern of this House on this matter. On November 16, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) inquired whether there had been an investigation with a view to a possible dismissal for the divulgence of classified documents from my department. At that time, I replied that an investigation was under way. This investigation has been a very thorough one and has necessarily taken a little time and a good deal of effort. As a result of these inquiries, I am confident that we have identified the person responsible for the leaks. That person is being informed. The long established procedures for dealing with such cases will now be followed.
I am hopeful that the action we are now taking will ensure that a breach of trust of this kind will not recur. I see no need to identify publicly the person responsible. Since there has been some suggestion that the telegrams may have come from someone in the Department of External Affairs and since that might give the worrying impression that those who are regularly handling the country's most sensitive diplomatic communications are not to be trusted with them, I should say immediately and categorically that these telegrams were not leaked by anyone in that department or at any of our missions abroad. It would not be in the public interest to go further regarding the source of the leak.
I should inform the House that one of the messages to which public reference has been made is not a genuine telegram. It is in fact a message specially prepared by the security services of my department to help in identifying the location of the leaks.
November 29, 1973



CANADA LABOUR CODE


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-234, to amend the Canada Labour Code.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Duncan M. Beattie: The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to amend the industrial relations part of the Canada Labour Code to provide that, where a strike or lockout is against the national or public interest, the government may appoint an Industrial Inquiry Commission to make a final and binding settlement subject to government variation and adoption. Forthwith upon the appointment of the commission the strike or lockout, apprehended or occurring in respect of such dispute or difference, is prohibited; no employee shall strike and no employer shall lock out his employees-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but we had a similar incident a few days ago when I thought a member went a little too far in giving the brief explanation that is allowed under the terms of Standing Order 68(2). I would hope hon. members would not depart from that well-established practice.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There seems to be unanimity. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Nelson:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the motion was not seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Nelson).


An hon. Member:: Thank God.


Mr. Speaker:: By the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds).


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

Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to draw to your attention and to the attention of the House that we have with us in the gallery today Mrs. Salvador Allende, widow of the late president of Chile.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who said in the House on November 27, as found on page 8171 of Hansard, with regard to suppliers of oil who are now making reference to force majeure.
I am not sure whether they have done so specifically so far or merely indicated their intention to do so.
I ask the minister whether he has now had an opportunity to make inquiries as to what supplying companies have indicated an intention to resort to a force majeure clause with regard to the cutting back, or possible cutting back, of deliveries of oil to Canada from non-Arab countries?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will have seen a number of rather categorical statements by some of the Canadian refiners as to the present situation, although their remarks were also hedged with regard to the future. At the moment we do not have any definite indication, except perhaps an indication in the Globe and Mail, of a specific interruption for the future. But as I pointed out to the hon. gentleman several days ago, and repeated yesterday, we have through the technical liaison committee the indication that if the trend of international interruption continues this is a condition which may be invoked.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the minister every opportunity to tell the House what inquiries he has made this week since making his statement on Monday night to determine what supplying companies have indicated they may resort to invoking a force majeure clause with regard to deliveries to Canada, because this is a matter of the greatest importance and the minister has made a public statement as well as statements in the House. I am sure the House wants to give the minister every opportunity to indicate whether or not he had any basis in fact for the assertion he made.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, to repeat again, the basis was on the advice received from the industry through the technical liaison committee.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As the minister is the responsible minister with regard to this matter and as he has indicated to the Canadian people that they may be confronted by shortages, and particularly as certain major companies in Canada have indicated they know nothing about this, has he made any inquiries himself with regard to what companies in Canada might be affected by a force majeure clause and what companies supplying Canada from nonArabian sources might be affected, or is the minister simply trying to hide behind some technical committee he has established, failing to get the information himself and

November 29, 1973
Oral Questions
refusing to indicate to the House whether in fact there is any substance to his statement?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can make what assertions he likes, but I would point out to him again, and to the House, that the express purpose of the technical advisory committee on petroleum supply and demand is to provide that kind of liaison between agencies of government and the industry for the purpose of determining what the supply and demand situation is at the present time, and will be through this coming winter, with regard to petroleum. On that basis my officials have been meeting regularly with representatives of the companies. This is the vehicle in the first place for keeping in touch with the supply situation as it may be now and as it may be in the future, specifically the vehicle for the information we receive from the industry at a time when we wanted to determine the greatest possible exposure for Canadians in the winter to come to determine what the possible risk was-


An hon. Member:: Why don't you answer the question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: [DOT]-and that is the figure I gave to the House. I am sure the hon. member would be the first member of the House to take exception if we had not made it clear what we thought the exposure was and at a later date it turned out to be much greater than anticipated.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: After all his delays and his refusal to give the House information may I ask the minister whether, even at this date, he will make inquiries to ascertain what substance in fact there is to this allegation that supplying companies from non-Arab sources have indicated an intention to resort to a force majeure clause, and what this amounts to in fact in terms of barrels of oil per day? Will the minister now undertake these inquiries and give this information to the House?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake that we will continue to use the technical committee for the purpose of keeping in touch with the industry, and this, on any sensible basis, is the way to handle it, by continuing liaison with the industry.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. On this saga of the force majeure clause may I put the following question to the minister, and perhaps we can get a simple and straightforward answer.


An hon. Member:: I doubt it.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no!


Mr. Bell:: It will be simple.


David Lewis: Do his answers amount to this, Mr. Speaker, that he had no indication of any intention from any source to use the force majeure clause, that his attention was brought to the fact that such a clause existed in the contracts between Canadian companies and supplying companies and if it were invoked the result he indicated would be the result to come? Is that the kind of hypotheti-

cal position that he found it necessary to frighten the Canadian people with?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we sought to find out from the industry the kind of risk for the balance of this winter that Canadians could be exposed to. It was for that purpose that we made inquiries, and we received an indication that with a continuation of the deterioration of the international supply situation this interruption could take place, and on the basis of this interruption we made a calculation of what the drop in supply would be. That is the simple, straightforward situation.


David Lewis: Do I also understand from the minister's answers over the days that this so-called information came to him through the industry members on the advisory committee? If so, has he gone back to those industry members since these questions have been asked beginning on Monday to inquire whether they have any harder information than the information on which he has spoken before or is the situation the same, that there is no actual intention expressed by any company to cut back?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, all indications are that there is no actual intention, certainly not as expressed by the companies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We are indeed keeping in continuing liaison through the committee, and this seems to be the most sensible administrative way to keep in touch with the industry on a continuing basis.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South for a last supplementary at this point, followed by the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


David Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Everyone will approve of the minister keeping in touch with the situation but a lot of us would not approve of frightening the Canadian people if it is not necessary to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, will the minister now undertake to the House that he will report on a regular basis on whether or not any direct intention has been expressed by any supplying company and the extent to which that might affect the supply of oil, and who these companies are, so that the Canadian people and members of the House can be informed on a regular, daily basis as to whether or not the fear he has created is justified?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, I am sure, would want me to make perfectly clear to Canadians the kind of risk we face. If the hon. gentleman will not accuse me of frightening Canadians each time a fresh development occurs of trying to create fear, I will do my best to keep him informed.
November 29, 1973


OIL-POSITION OF GOVERNMENT RESPECTING &quot;FORCE MAJEURE&quot; CLAUSE IN CONTRACTS
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In view of the fact that, by invoking the force majeure clause which has been mentioned in the past few days, some countries seem not to want to live up to agreements previously signed with Canada and that this has provoked no reaction, does the Canadian government have to comply with the signed contracts and can this force majeure clause be invoked to protect our Canadian citizens?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that these contracts were the result of negotiations between foreign companies and Canadian refineries. If we had a different system in Canada, such as a national oil corporation, then the Canadian government could perhaps negotiate direct commitments from the exporting countries. However, we have had now for many years a system whereby crude oil deliveries are the result of transactions concluded between two companies. We depend on Canadian companies to keep us informed about developments on the crude oil market, and if there is a crisis, we keep them informed in order to minimize interruption of supplies to Canadians.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the hon. member for Yukon is rising on a question of privilege.

The hon. member for Yukon rises on a question of privilege.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege having to do with the answers of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and affecting all members of the House. We all heard the minister say a moment ago he had received no indication from any of the supplying companies of an intention to invoke the force majeure clause. Yesterday, as recorded on page 8227 of Hansard, I questioned the minister on this score and quoted from page 8172 of Hansard his reply to a question put by the hon. member for Calgary South. The minister had given this answer:
-my understanding is that it has been a decision of the supplying companies, and it may be related under the conditions of the contracts they have with other countries to other supply obligations.
The language used today by the minister, as well as that on page 8172 which I have just quoted, was in both cases, in the past tense, leaving a clear indication that he had received an indication from supplying companies of an invention to invoke a force majeure clause. However, it got worse later. Yesterday, as recorded on page 8227 of Hansard, in response to my question the minister quoted
Oral Questions
his own words from page 8179 of Hansard, where he had said with respect to the application of force majeure.
My understanding at the moment is that this redistribution has not taken place but the companies have indicated there is a prospective interruption under the force majeure provision of the supplying contracts.
Mr. Speaker, one or the other is true. The minister is not entitled, especially in circumstances as serious as these, to mislead the House to the extent that he has done-not only this House, but all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. I stated on Monday night and I have repeated at least half a dozen times, if not more, that we were talking about the prospective application of the force majeure clause during the course of the present winter. That is the clear context of my remarks. If he chooses to do so, the hon. member may take a sentence or two out of the rather extensive exchange that has occurred in this regard to allege something else. However, if taken in the whole context I think there can be no doubt about it. I just wonder why he seeks to keep twisting the words in this way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It appears to the Chair that the point raised by the hon. member for Yukon is a continuation of the debate which took place yesterday and earlier today during the question period. I really do not think it can be resolved by way of a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the minister has compounded the error and given rise to a further question of privilege on my part. He has accused me of taking his answer out of context.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Members can read what he said. I hear groans from members opposite. In an attempt to extricate himself from his difficulties the minister, not the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the New Democratic Party, is the one twisting matters here. It is the minister. I quoted him precisely and wholly from answers he gave the day before yesterday, yesterday and today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, before asking a supplementary, I would like to rise on a question of privilege. I thank the hon. member for Yukon for his lack of courtesy. In fact, as I was going to ask a supplementary he rose on a question of privilege, something we

November 29, 1973
Oral Questions
from the Social Credit Party do not do when the hon. member's leader asks up to five questions in a row. I do not know if children are badly brought up in the Yukon, but the hon. member for Yukon is certainly uncouth to act in this fashion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know how that was translated, but in French I am not sure whether it was entirely parliamentary.
[ Translation]
I ask for the co-operation of the hon. member for Temis-camingue as well as on all other hon. members to come back to the oral questions period and to forget for a moment about questions of privilege.


REFUSAL OF GOLDEN EAGLE CANADA LIMITED TO DELIVER FUEL OIL IN RIMOUSKI AND MONT-JOLI
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Yesterday I asked a question with regard to the Golden Eagle Canada Limited. I was advised once again this morning that this company has set quotas for retailers and that, since November 26, it has told gas and heating fuel retailers in Mont-Joli and Rimouski that it will be unable to deliver any heating fuel before the December 1 price increase. Has the minister looked into the matter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. I had hoped to get an answer to his question this afternoon. As I have not received it, I shall inquire into it. It seems to me that, if such is the case, it is unfair and that steps should be taken to ensure that the company put a stop to that practice. I apologize once again and assure the hon. member that I shall look into the matter.

[ English]


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: As
always, Mr. Speaker, I will try to pour oil on troubled waters. I direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In the minister's position of looking after matters of inflation in our country, did he agree to the increase of five cents a gallon for gasoline commencing December 1?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern about the matter the right hon. member has mentioned, not only with other members of the cabinet but hopefully with him and all other members of the House. I can only say that I take part in formulating and sharing decisions of cabinet like all other ministers.


John George Diefenbaker: Was the minister advised by his department that as far back as August increases in the price of gasoline were taking place that were difficult to explain on the basis of cost? Did he have any investigation made under the Combines Investigation Act with regard to those gasoline price increases before the difficulties began in the Middle East?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, parliament has given me authority to have increases in prices looked into only to the extent they may indicate possible breaches of the Combines Investigation Act. As has been reported to the House on several occasions, as a result of a complaint by six citizens, made public by them, a formal inquiry under the act has been under way for the past several months covering the whole range of activities of the petroleum industry.


John George Diefenbaker: Has it been brought to the minister's attention that the Mount Royal Liberal Association at the convention of the Liberal Party here in September brought forth a resolution calling on the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, under the Combines Investigation Act, to look into the operation of the increase in the cost of gasoline? Did he receive that resolution and did he act on it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver South.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it was a resolution of the Liberal Party of Canada from the Prime Minister's constituency. Surely that would receive the attention of the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


KIND OF POSSIBLE OIL SHORTAGES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In his statement Monday night the minister said that "Eastern Canada and, to a lesser extent, British Columbia, will feel the shortages most." In view of information recently received from the B.C. Energy Commission that to the best of their knowledge there is no cause for concern and there will be sufficient gasoline and home heating oil in British Columbia this winter, can the minister advise what shortages he was referring to in British Columbia?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Anticipated shortages of middle distillate and residual oil, both of which come from the United States.


John Allen Fraser: Can the minister advise upon what facts he bases his concern regarding possible shortages of other oils for industrial purposes and whether these facts have been communicated to the B.C. Energy Commission?
November 29, 1973


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I could not be sure on the latter point. The source of the information would be the National Energy Board and my own officials.


OIL-INTENTION OF SUPPLYING COMPANIES REGARDING RESORT TO &quot;FORCE MAJEURE&quot; CLAUSE RESPECTING DELIVERIES TO CANADA
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the statement made yesterday in a speech in Toronto by Mr. L. J. Bolger, general manager of Shell Canada, and I quote-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member will appreciate that the question should be asked directly. If hon. members quote resolutions passed outside the House, speeches and reports in newspapers in support of questions, I think we get away from good practice. I would hope the hon. member would find a way to ask the question without referring specifically to a statement made outside the House.


George Harris Hees: Further to this statement that the minister's department was long ago made aware of the intention of these companies to invoke the force majeure clause, does the minister still claim he was given this information only a few days ago? If that is the case, will he undertake to make better use of information which was made available to his department a long time ago?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I thank the hon. member for his counsel.


George Harris Hees: Well, for heaven's sake, use it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, although the Minister of Manpower and Immigration may wish to deal with it. The Secretary of State for External Affairs told the House on Monday that he had received, or was receiving, reports from the teams sent to Chile to look into the question of expediting the admission to Canada of refugees. He said he would report to the House. Has the cabinet looked into these recommendations and is the hon. gentleman prepared to report to the House?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: With the hon. member's indulgence, I should like to answer the question. The missions have returned from South America. We have been talking to them and I expect to make a statement on this matter in the House tomorrow.
Oral Questions ENERGY


INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF CABINET COMMITTEE TO DEAL WITH CRISIS
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he appointed a cabinet committee to deal with the general subject of the energy crisis in all its phases and the effects it may have on the economy in a great number of ways if not properly met?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the subject is being discussed within the present structure of cabinet.


John Angus MacLean: Would the Prime Minister tell us briefly what are the guidelines drawn up for this committee within cabinet, if I understand him properly, and who is the minister in over-all charge of this responsibility?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is mainly responsible for bringing documentation and proposals to cabinet, and the situation is being discussed by his colleagues.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Will he make a detailed statement on motions concerning the Canadian supply situation with respect to fertilizer and agricultural chemicals, bearing in mind that any shortage could seriously affect production and bring about a drastic increase in food prices? I ask this question because of the minister's optimism when replying to questions in the House on the subject, an optimism which is not shared by his provincial counterparts.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: I will certainly consider the hon. member's request. We are compiling all the facts. Reports are coming in from the fertilizer manufacturers and as soon as they are in suitable form I will give the hon. member's suggestion serious consideration.

[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the fact that persons who receive unemployment insurance benefits sometimes make mistakes in their statements, they are penalized and often have to reimburse the benefits they received, can the minister tell the

November 29, 1973
Oral Questions
House what penalties will be imposed on the civil servants who are being zealous and misuse the rules; can he also tell us whether the fines unjustly imposed on persons who received benefits will be reimbursed with interest?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the question.
[Transla tion]


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Does the minister recall the statement he made yesterday and the story reported in La Presse recapitulating what I just said?

[ English]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday in the House, in reply to a question put to him with respect to the imprisonment in Tanzania of a Canadian citizen, Thomas Serjeant, the minister indicated that the Canadian consulate in that country was informed of the imprisonment on October 6 and that the family of the imprisoned man was notified shortly thereafter. In fact, however, the family of the imprisoned man was not informed until November 6. I am sure the minister did not intend to mislead the House, but perhaps he would wish to correct the record and, in doing so, explain the time lapse between the date the Canadian consulate knew about the imprisonmeftt and the date when his family was informed?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the events followed in this order. As the hon. member has said, Mr. Serjeant was placed in detention on September 26. On October 6 we were informed and applied immediately for consular access, which was obtained on October 15. At that time, at Mr. Serjeant's request, the embassy informed his brother in England of the incident and contacted a British lawyer.


Walter C. Carter: I am sure the hon. gentleman is not trying to mislead the House, but obviously there is some conflict between the statement he has made and information I have received from the Serjeant family. I have a telegram here which I received this morning from the brother of the imprisoned man. It states: "Received first notice of brother's imprisonment on November 6, not October 15". This is a very serious matter and I think the minister should explain it.


Mitchell William Sharp: I regret if I have misled the House in any way, but this is the information I have obtained from my officials.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Has the
ambassador of Tanzania been asked for an explanation of

this extraordinary, extra-legal procedure which has been perpetrated against a citizen of this country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The High Commissioner of Tanzania has been asked to call.


Mr. Fairweather:: Has he been asked to call, or has he called? What is the explanation for this?


Mitchell William Sharp: The explanation, as I said to the House yesterday, is that Mr. Serjeant is being detained in connection with what are called matters of state security. Like the hon. member, I regret this kind of procedure. It is not the sort of thing to which we are accustomed in this country. We have made strong representations on a number of occasions directly in Tanzania and we are now asking the High Commissioner to call so as to reinforce those representations.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I thought this question might come up so I gave notice to his office. In view of the fact that President Nyerere is head of a country which is a member of the Commonwealth, will the Prime Minister intervene personally following what, on the face of it, is a most illiberal and extra-legal action against a citizen of this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: At this stage I wish to identify myself with the feelings expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Detaining people for a long period of time without laying charges is a procedure for which I have great distaste; it is one against which the government has been protesting assiduously. I am sure the exchanges of these past days, and of today, will be brought to the attention of the government of Tanzania.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for St. John's West, but hon. members will appreciate that there are only a few minutes left before the end of the question period and that if we allow three or four supplementaries on each question, as we are doing in relation to this important matter, the number of members the Chair will be able to recognize will be limited.


Walter C. Carter: I have a very short supplementary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he tell the House when the High Commissioner for Tanzania was first called in by his department to discuss this very important matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we always consider it more effective to deal directly with the government concerned rather than with their representative here, but in order to reinforce the representations we have made directly in Dar es Salaam we are calling in the High Commissioner.
November 29, 1973


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the particularly disappointing performance of the economy in the third quarter, as demonstrated by the recent GNP statistics, a performance which from the minister's statement he apparently did not expect, will he tell the House and the nation when the government is going to bring in new monetary and fiscal policies so the economy will not slide into a serious recession?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated when a similar question was asked about the fact that the gross domestic product was weak in the third quarter that that was a reflection of the loss in man-days because of strikes, particularly the railway strike. I also indicated that it reflected not a shortage in demand but a shortage in supply related particularly to unskilled labour, skilled labour and materials.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Statistics Canada indicates that we have now reached record levels of unfilled orders and there is a continuing strong demand by business for investment goods indicating the underlying strength of the economy.


James McPhail Gillies: Is it the position of the government that, when Canada has the highest unemployment rate of any industrialized country in the world and the third fastest rate of inflation, the economy is operating well?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have said, and I repeat, that the economy is operating at very close to capacity and that the problem on both the price side and the unemployment side reflects not a shortage of demand but a shortage of supply.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact a majority of the members of the miscellaneous estimates committee this morning requested a full investigation of the dismissal of Mr. Walter Rudnicki and the policy questions connected therewith, and in view of the minister's own assurance following the meeting that he was interested in having the matter aired, would he undertake to make a statement in the House tomorrow?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will not be in the House tomorrow. I will be in Regina and Edmonton talking to the ministers
Oral Questions
of housing in an attempt to further the implementation of Bill C-133. I was at the miscellaneous estimates committee meeting this morning with Mr. Teron-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I might be allowed to take exception both to the question and the answer being given by the minister in that they refer to a proceedings in a committee. I think the question can be asked directly without bringing in matters relating to the proceedings of a committee, which is out of order.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact the supplementary estimates of the minister's department were mot voted upon this morning, would he make a request of the steering committee that one of the time periods still remaining for discussion of supplementary estimates be allocated to the estimates of his department in order that we can clear up this matter which, according to his expressed desire, he has an interest in doing?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I am not on the committee or the steering committee I do not know what times are still available, but I would be happy to co-operate with the steering committee as much as possible.


AIR CANADA
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the extra special need for a healthy passenger transportation system during the upcoming Christmas period, would the minister indicate whether he was informed that earlier this afternoon the Canadian Airline Employees Association broke off negotiations with Air Canada? Can he also indicate the core of the problem and whether he plans to do anything about it?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: This is the first news I have had of this, Mr. Speaker. As usual, they get in touch with you before they get in touch with me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: However, I would suggest that you get in touch with the Minister of Labour who is in charge of labour relations in this government.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact the Chairman of Air Canada is presently in the city of Ottawa, is it the minister's intention to consult with him and discuss this very important matter with the hope of averting a strike during the Christmas rush?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Chairman of Air Canada has been appearing before the committee for two days and I would think that

November 29, 1973
Oral Questions
the hon. member has had a good opportunity to ask him about this.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of the critical energy shortage, would the minister consider having the CBC national news moved ahead one hour to 10 o'clock across the country? A great many people stay up to hear the news, and if this were done it would save a great deal of electricity, gas and oil.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very interesting suggestion.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF DEATH OF TWO LABORATORY TECHNICIANS AT SASKATOON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL AND BLOOD IMPORTED FROM UNITED STATES
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will he conduct an inquiry, as requested by the Saskatoon University Hospital laboratory technicians, into the deaths of two fellow workers that have been linked with hepatitis due to infected American blood samples used for testing?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this matter falls under the purview of the Saskatchewan government since it deals with an incident which occurred in an hospital under provincial jurisdiction. Obviously, the department will be pleased to co-operate as much as possible in the inquiry which the Saskatchewan government will want to make in that connection.


A. Daniel McKenzie: As requested earlier, will the minister conduct an inquiry into the export of blood from the United States used for testing in Canada that carries infectious hepatitis which has caused two deaths?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there is no need for a special inquiry in that connection. We have looked into this situation and taken the usual precautions regarding the importation of blood into Canada. It seems impossible right now to make a complete and thorough check in order to detect the presence of the problem raised by the hon. member before such blood enters Canada and before we had the time to make very elaborate tests.


STUDY OF CANADA'S FUTURE URANIUM REQUIREMENTS IN LIGHT OF PROPOSED SALE BY DENISON MINES TO JAPAN
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the inaccurate predictions to date of Canada's energy reserves, has the minister's department conducted a thorough study to determine Canada's future needs for uranium, and will he reveal such details to the House in order to satisfy members that the $800 million sale of uranium to Japan by Denison Mines is surplus to Canada's future nuclear energy requirements?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, uranium reserves have been estimated by my department in connection with the preparation of phase one of the energy analysis. I might say in regard to the sale that it would require an application by the vendor to the Atomic Energy Control Board for permission to export the commodity. It is my intention to see what the terms of the application are and then consider what further action we might take with regard to it.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared, if necessary, to impose export and price controls on uranium so that Canadian energy interests are protected?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there are already those controls under the law.

[ Translation]


THE ARTS
Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafontaine: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, and perhaps you will be indulgent enough to let me ask the supplementary question that I wanted to ask yesterday.
Can the Prime Minister say whether he has received a letter from the directors of the Montreal Symphony Orchestra stating that it will cease its activities as of December 20 if it is not helped by federal, provincial, or municipal governments? It is an extremely important matter for it is the oldest orchestra in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Prime Minister would perhaps answer the question, after which I will recognize the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed received such a letter some time ago. I do think that it is a most important matter, especially for the future of this orchestra and of the cultural life of Montreal and of the province. I have answered and my answer is in the hands of the directors. I hope that we
November 29, 1973

could somehow be of help under certain conditions. I think that it is up to them to determine their future directions.
[ English]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will appreciate that we have gone beyond the time allotted to the question period. It expired a few minutes ago. Would the member resume his seat?
[ Translation]
The hon. member will be allowed to ask his supplementary question and afterwards, as I said a moment ago, the Chair will recognize the hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker, the supplementary question I wanted to ask yesterday relates to the statement of the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources . . .


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has been recognized for one question, but it seems to me he could ask his other question tomorrow.


OIL-POSITION OF GOVERNMENT ON RIGHT OF COMPANIES TO REALLOCATE CANADIAN SUPPLIES FROM NON-ARAB SOURCES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Does he know of any occurrence which would justify any companies supplying Canada with petroleum from non-Arab sources cutting back unilaterally or reallocating Canadian supplies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if there is a general interruption of international supplies this would be the basis for cutting back.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of hon. members are seeking supplementaries on this subject. Obviously, we could go on for quite a while on the same subject. The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition but when he is finished I will have to call orders of the day. The supplementaries could be asked tomorrow, including that of the hon. member for Lafontaine.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the position of his government that international companies supplying oil to Canada from non-Arab sources have the right to reallocate these supplies on the ground of sharing cutbacks on an equitable basis, or is it the position of the government that any such reallocation should be based upon the decisions of governments, including the government of Canada, rather than on decisions of international oil companies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, referring to the rights of those companies in legal terms, I expect this is a contractual matter; it would be a
Oral Questions
question of seeing whether such a right does exist in contractual law. But insofar as the question of whether they have a political or moral right to do so is concerned, I would refer the Leader of the Opposition to my answer yesterday in the House. I am glad to hear that his party would support our party if we had to use non-legal means to ensure security of supply to the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. I believe the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster is rising on the usual point of order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the government House leader about the business for the next few days and as far into December as the minister is able to go.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, we will continue with Bill C-176, the wiretapping bill, and when it is completed we will begin the second reading of Bill C-233, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and following that Bill C-191, the Parole Act, and Bill C-190, the Canada Pension Plan.
I should mention to hon. members that it is my hope to give notice of a bill affecting the oil situation which might be given first reading on Monday. If that should happen I would want to call it early in the week.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Speaker, considering the fact that two weeks ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that unless Bill C-211 was passed by the House by November 30 the cheques would not be available by January 1, why has this measure not been put before the House?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am keeping in close touch with my colleague and I should say to my hon. friend that the bill will be brought forward in time to meet the needs of the beneficiaries of the bill.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the family allowances bill, which requires only third reading, I wonder whether the government House leader would consult with the opposition parties in the House to see whether there would be agreement to give that bill third reading without debate. My question implies that we would be willing to do so this afternoon. Would he also bring on the Canada Pension Plan Bill No. 2, for third reading since it also is supposed to come into effect in January?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to consult with the House leaders and, if possible, reach similar agreements on other measures of importance.


Mr. Ritchie:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the President of the Privy Council would indicate when the matter of

November 29, 1973
Protection of Privacy
redistribution will be referred to the appropriate House committee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have done research on this subject and I hope to have it brought forward and the subject matter sent to the committee on privileges and elections the moment its work is finished on the Election Expenses Act.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, in order to expedite the proceedings I should like to restate that our party is prepared to move at once on Bill C-211 if the minister is prepared to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Now!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, November 28, consideration of Bill 176, to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; motion No. 3 (Mr. Diefen-baker) and the amendment thereto of Mr. Guay (Levis).
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. When the House adjourned yesterday we were considering motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and I believe he still has the floor. I am not clear on whether or not his remarks were completed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on a question of order. I am not now speaking to the motion. I understood that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) had decided on another amendment, and that that amendment would be brought forward now, so we would really start all over again. I do not know what he has to say about that. My information was that the amendment moved yesterday has been found lacking in certain particulars, and therefore the government would find it necessary to have a new amendment brought before the House.


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, there are some amendments of a technical nature which I would propose to bring forward if the amendment moved by my parliamentary secretary were indeed adopted by the House. There has been some discussion about the omission in the amendment which was put forward of subsection (5) which had been contained in the original section. I think it would be quite in ordei for an hon. member to move that that subsection be added in one form or another, and I think the hon. member for St. Paul's is prepared to do that in a moment.


John George Diefenbaker: With your leave, Sir, that amendment could be moved now so we deal with the problem instead of doing it section by section or in a series.


Otto Emil Lang: The specific words that would be required to be added to the amendment by the parliamentary secretary would be the deletion of the words in the original amendment of the right hon. gentleman in subparagraph (b) reading "lines 1 to 13 inclusive at page 9". If those words in the original motion were also deleted by the amendment, then if there were agreement to add those words to the amendment, it would complete the picture for the amendment now before the House.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask that the amendment be completed so that I would know what I was dealing with, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I started on the original amendment to my motion, and now we have the additional amendment. In so far as the latter is concerned, it will be dealt with by the hon. member for St. Paul's who will also refer to certain further particulars that should be incorporated in the amendment to my motion. With that in mind, I will proceed to deal with this matter in a general way.
It will be recalled that last May-I think it was on May 8-I spoke on this matter and pointed out the serious danger to freedom within our country in view of the area that was covered in the motion in respect of emergencies. Indeed, the door was left wide open to taking two positions: one, that the House was abolishing wiretapping, was preventing anyone from dealing in wiretapping devices or being in possession thereof, and two, there was this wide open section whereby in an emergency there was no need to appeal for the support and authorization of a member of the judiciary. I took a strong stand against this.
The judiciary constitutes the only defence of our freedom within this country, and without the judiciary giving the authority to invade privacy, the idea of freedom of speech, of association, and all the other freedoms under the law would be meaningless. Indeed, I found a very interesting article only last evening while reading among the vital speeches of the day a speech made by the Hon. John N. Mitchell, Attorney General of the United States, delivered in Dallas, Taxas on August 13, 1969. It was in my file. It deals with wiretapping, and in the light of what has happened at Watergate it is particularly appropriate to make a reference to it. He said:
As you know, the Attorney General is the President's lawyer and takes presidential guidance as to the type of America-the type of "ordered liberty under law" that this administration wants for our citizens.
Thus, permit me to remind you of some of the principles enunciated by President Nixon in his inaugural address, and I quote.
"The laws have caught up with our conscience. What remains is to give life to what is the law."
That was in 1969. Then, he deals with the problem of wiretapping and he says:
Most recognized law enforcement experts have repeatedly stated that wiretapping is our most useful tool in obtaining information about this organized criminal syndicate.
Because wiretapping is an invasion of privacy, a judgment must be made as to whether it is "reasonable" to wiretap in a particular case in order to obtain information that is necessary to combat organized crime.
November 29, 1973

Congress addressed itself to this issue in Title III of the Omnibus Crime bill of 1968. It authorized the Department of Justice to instal electronic eavesdropping devices on organized racketeers by application to a court and upon a showing of probable cause.
Up to that point the United States legislation is similar to the legislation that we have before us. Then he went on: -I also insisted-and continue to insist-that each application and full supporting papers be personally presented to me for my evaluation.
So, the Attorney General of the United States in the pre-Watergate days believed that wiretapping was dangerous, and that not only should there be judicial approval by an authorization given but in addition there should be the careful perusal and consideration by the Attorney General of the U.S. to the end that injustice should not be permitted to be legalized.
When I raised this matter first, I met quite a reaction. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGui-gan) is not here so I will not refer to him, although he did to me in my absence. But the argument advanced went across this country. People began to realize the danger and there was a flood of complaint and condemnation of this emergency section in every part of Canada, making due allowance for the hon. member who said that in one province it was regarded as necessary.
On Friday I spoke and reiterated the strongest objection, not based upon a desire to preserve and protect wrongdoers but to ensure that a law that applies to wrongdoers cannot be used against other Canadians who have committed no crime. That is what happened in the United States in connection with Watergate, where a coterie of individuals decided that they had a God given right by the propinquity they enjoyed to the president to destroy or endeavour to destroy those who did not see eye to eye politically with the President of the United States.
I will say this for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). He pressed this bill in its original form with all the power at his command, but he listened to argument. And while he brushed aside what I had to say last May, what was heresy in May has become orthodoxy for him in November. That is what happens. If the House of Commons discharges its responsibilities, if the minister is prepared to listen, then ultimately out of a concensus this institution can arrive at legislation beneficial to all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The minister had an amendment moved last evening. He had discussed it with me yesterday morning. He produced what he thought would meet the general tenor of my strong objections, which was that the judiciary shall not be bypassed, no matter what the emergency, in view of the hundreds of judges that we have. I thought we had only 600 judges. The hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) raised the number, I think, to 900. In any event, within the purview of the definition of the judiciary I presume that number is very close to actuality. I pointed out this question: if you cannot find a judge how are you going to find your agent? How are you going to find the Attorney General of the
Protection of Privacy
province within which the offence allegedly has been committed? How are you going to find the Solicitor General?
The amendment that was suggested and moved last evening is one that actually meets in general the whole thrust of the argument I advanced. However, I would make a couple of suggestions.
Provision was made therein that:
Where the judge to whom an application is made pursuant to subsection (1) is satisfied that the urgency of the situation requires that interception of private communications commence before an authorization could, with reasonable diligence, be obtained-
That is pursuant to the judicial portion of the bill.
-he may, on such terms and conditions, if any, as he considers advisable, give an authorization-
I suggested, and the minister accepted the suggestion, that the authorization should not be one of these telephonic authorizations.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. gentleman for a moment, but I must remind him that his time has expired. I have to inquire whether there is unanimous consent to allow the right hon. member to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: My thanks. As I was saying, it should not be one of these telephonic authorizations, nor of the type of the northern outdoor courts that were referred to by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who pointed out yesterday that he was able to get an ex parte order from a judge who was 200 miles away on a fishing trip. That kind of thing cannot be done if this amendment is accepted. There has to be an authorization from a judge, and it must be a written authorization. If there were action taken without a written authorization, action on the part of a police officer would be a nullity, ineffective, and unusable.
Then, there was no provision for a time limit in the draft that the minister brought to my attention, and I urged that the same period of 36 hours should be the limit under the amendment. Sir, I am not one who gloats over changes that are made. Parliament used to operate this way in the days of Mr. King, in the darkest days of war, but I do find that some hon. members do not operate this way, and I do not except the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) who, in my absence the other day, chose to make a personal attack. That does not worry me one bit. He showed how right the original bill was. He gave it his approval. Anyone who might think anything to the contrary belonged outside the purview of those who regard law and order as important, not only in universities but in the law courts. He poured forth ridicule.
I am not going to read all he said because I will have another opportunity on third reading, if he chooses to get into the debate again. However, by the time the minister got through introducing this amendment yesterday, I may say I have never seen a rug pulled from under an hon. gentleman to the extent that one was pulled from under the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville. If the hon. gentleman has any alibis I will be glad to hear them, but I simply point out to him that parliament is a place you

November 29, 1973
Protection of Privacy
have to get used to, and no member in this House, speaking with the authority he endeavoured to impart to his words, ever was figuratively so taken out to the woodshed as he was yesterday afternoon. I will say no more, unless the hon. gentleman makes another speech in my absence. Then, I will operate without anaesthetic.
This is a good amendment. There are shortcomings in it. There are alterations that can be made and that ought to be made. These will be pointed out. It is parliament at its best when we can disagree as strongly as we have on this bill, and yet the government finally recognizes that the opposition has produced views that are worthy of consideration in the interests of the freedom of Canadians.
When this matter originally came up in the committee on the thirteenth day of the sixth month of 1972, the minister explained that there was not any need to worry about it because, as he said, the committee should appreciate that what would very seriously narrow if not practically eliminate the emergency power would be the acceptance of anything along the line I have suggested. He said: The emergency power is put in because there may be times when the circumstances require quick action and a judge is not available in the immediate period to give a warrant.
Then he was asked by a well known member of the bar, the hon. member of Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams):
How are you going to control police and peace officers from always considering everything as an emergency?
The minister replied:
Well, I think there are two controls essentially. One, of course, is the general political one, because the person using the power has to be specially designated by the Attorney General or the Solicitor General and, therefore, there is an immediate political responsibility. In addition, there is a requirement, in the normal course, to follow up with an application to a judge for any of the evidence that is involved to be made use of and that would certainly be an opportunity for judicial comment as well upon the use of the emergency power.
Now, look at what has been accepted by the minister. I presume it will even appeal to the finer sensibilities of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, who took on all the authority of a judge and a jury and who just obliterated anyone who dared to have a view contrary to the views he expressed. There is still hope for him, however, when he comes to vote on this measure on Tuesday, and on third reading, because I will be here to watch him. If he is prepared to get up and vote, I shall relish the dessert of crow of which he will be partaking. There is one thing about the House of Commons: never allow yourself, however attractive the temptation may be, to get out on the end of a limb and then come off that limb. The hon. member will learn with the passing years, that that is a good rule.
To summarize, Mr. Speaker, there is more joy in Heaven than a sinner who returns-the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) cannot help me on that even though he is a member of the clergy!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I can tell the hon. member he is misquoting it.


John George Diefenbaker: His memory is good! There is joy here in this House of Commons. Having advertently, I suppose, supported a course by a committee on this particular item, the government has learned as a result of the argument in this House that what it was about to have enacted would have been dangerous to freedom in our country. Indeed, the organization that was set up by the Department of the Solicitor General known as the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group, in the hands of those unknowns and unidentifieds, would have the power to destroy political opponents by Star Chamber operations. I am glad the government has decided that this was wrong. Indeed, if this measure had been passed in its original form, I feel sure that the Bill of Rights would have been resorted to, and with success.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. MacGuigan:: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the assurance of the right hon. gentleman that he expects me to be here enough years to acquire the experience which he thinks I need. I hesitated to interrupt the right hon. member while he was speaking with a point of privilege because I did not want to interrupt the flow of his oratory. I should like to say, however, that I did not speak in his absence the other day. As a matter of fact, I had hoped that he would be here and he was here when I began. He was sitting right behind the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) but when I first mentioned his name he left, voluntarily. Perhaps he did not hear me, but the fact is that I thought he was going to be here and I had hoped he would be.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in accepting the hon. member's explanation. When he started off so blandly I expected he would continue in that vein.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


Mr. Leggatt:: Mr. Speaker, I defer to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) as I believe he has other commitments.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner).


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and may I thank my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) for this great courtesy. May I also say, Mr. Speaker, that it is always a privilege to speak immediately after the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). It is a privilege and at the same time a challenge to follow such a statesman. [Translation]
I do not think there is anywhere in Canada, today, a former prime minister or a prime minister in office who can hold a candle to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who is known as the father of the Canadian Bill of Rights and who has shown so much wisdom and statesmanship in the administration of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to be very brief because my colleagues and especially the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) and the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-
November 29, 1973

weather) have expounded at length the position of our party.
I am proud to support the amendments introduced by them and designed to make this legislation more meaningful and humane. I am all the more proud that this amended legislation is now in full agreement with the objectives of protecting society and the rights of the citizen.
I am glad I am in the same position as the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) because, like him, I am often away from the House. I smile because whenever I am away my opponents are quick to divert the debates with personal attacks against the member for Saint-Hyacinthe. I am not surprised and even slightly amused. This shows the extent of their interest in me and also their anxiety but, of course, all depends on who throw those accusations.
I am proud today to be in a better company than the two hon. members who, on Tuesday afternoon, took pleasure in abusing me.
I know that it is perhaps a custom for some people, but it is a custom that will soon come to an end.
I read the comments of the hon. member for Louis-Heb-ert (Mrs. Morin), and I am sure it is useless to give her too much publicity, since the editor of Le Devoir took care of that this morning. I could perhaps quote part of Mr. Laplante's article which reads as follows:
Even if Mr. Choquette had already been especially tolerant of police abuse, Mrs. Morin is second to none as regards fearing self-created illusions.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Louis-Hebert has now deserved the fate of her predecessor and that she will soon be appointed consult in Louisiana, provided that she can learn to master every shade of the creole language a little more skilfully than the subtleties of law. It is therefore useless to repeat what the hon. member said in this House, but she seems to think that only the Liberal party respects law and order. Moreover, as reported at page 8182 of Hansard, she said:
So, the two parties across the Chamber .. .
I suppose that she meant the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party.
So, the two parties across the Chamber should not be surprised if they do not find any support in the province of Quebec. They do not stand for law and order.
Mr. Speaker, I am able to match my efforts to maintain social peace and law and order in Quebec against those of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert or any other member of this House.


Mrs. Morin:: Before 1972.


Claude Wagner: Before 1972, says the hon. member for Louis-Hebert, because the fact that I became a Conservative changes everything in her opinion. The principles remain the same, the man also, but the hon. member is attracted by the colour.
Mr. Speaker, I suppose that the hon. member would like me to say something like this:

Perhaps this lady would like me to say for instance, "yes, there is danger from within and without-we need
Protection of Privacy
law and order". Is that what the hon. member would like me to say?
[ Translation]
Is that what you want?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should address the Chair.


Claude Wagner: Of course, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry.
I resume the quotation:

Yes, without law and order our nation cannot survive .. . Elect us and we shall restore law and order.

The hon. member for Louis-Hebert is smiling and heartily accepts a quotation that is to her liking.

We shall by law and order be respected among the nations of the world. Without law and order our republic shall fall.. .

And the lady from Louis-Hebert keeps on smiling. Those are the words she would like to hear-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt whether the hon. member is abiding a well-established parliamentary tradition when he refers to another member as the gentleman or the lady from Louis-Hebert. He may refer to another member, but not in that way.


Claude Wagner: You are absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. Besides, when one reads the remarks of the member for Louis-Hebert, one wonders whether they are those of a lady or a man.


Albanie Morin: I read the speeches you made before 1972.


Claude Wagner: So the member for Louis-Hebert who is now interjecting is very satisfied with the words I have just quoted. I say to her, Mr. Speaker, that they come from an electoral speech made in Hamburg in 1932 by Adolf Hitler.


Mr.   Speaker-Mrs. Morin@: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) rises on a question of privilege.


Albanie Morin: Would the hon. member tell us when he intends to deal with the bill before us?


Claude Wagner: Right now, Mr. Speaker. I am in good company today with the Official Opposition, and I try to improve this legislation. Of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guay). As a matter of fact, I heard a lot about him in Quebec City last Tuesday. They are quite anxious to have the next election called as soon as possible.

November 29, 1973
Protection of Privacy
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I find it very unfortunate that the hon. member for Levis, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice,-of course he is just a parliamentary secretary and as you know, it is not the cowl that makes the monk- had the guts to rise in this House and say certain things. I quote, Mr. Speaker, from page 8193 of Hansard of November 27, 1973. The hon. member for Levis says so many things! I quote:
I can well remember the time when he was minister of justice-
Because, obviously, he speaks about the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.
-in Quebec. I am not asking him to answer for his mandate. What did he do to improve the legislation within his department? What did he do in the field of law or penal reform? This is what I am asking him.
The man asking me those questions is the one who in 1970, at the time of the Liberal party leadership convention in Quebec, travelled through various areas with me praising the Minister of Justice and saying how he could administer the province of Quebec and ensure social peace, how right he was in his interpretation of the Constitution of Canada when my opponent simply wanted to lie flat before the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It is that very same member who asks today where is your record? As he will recall, the record started with the creation of a Department of Justice that did not exist in the province of Quebec. Then there was a judicial reform not only through action but through legislation and internal administration, the creation of a Justice Advisory Board in the province of Quebec, the creation of welfare courts in all ridings of the province, when there were just a few, the extension of legal aid all over the province. Finally and particularly there was the creation across the province of not only a better spirit and belief in a justice equal for all, but also the launching of an active fight against crime and not only inquiries that are witch hunts like those going on now in the province of Quebec. That is what the then Quebec Minister of Justice did.
But Mr. Speaker, the important thing is-


Mr. Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


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


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) involved me quite directly by saying that I had supported him at the leadership convention in 1970. I fully agree with him, but I want to point out that I supported him because he was talking about law and order in the province of Quebec. He is the one who has changed his mind. He is the turncoat, not me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I apologize to the hon. member of Saint-Hyacinthe who has the floor.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, respect for law and order is never an end in itself in a society. Law and order are a condition without which a given society cannot flourish. But those who would have law and order as an ideal, an end, a goal to achieve through any means, any compromise, those people err. In the province of Quebec, at least from 1964 to 1966, the law was respected, and all were

equal before the law, to such an extent that, at one point, when two Liberal members sitting by my side in the legislature were found guilty of having accepted bribes, they were brought before courts, like any other citizen, because justice was the same for all. That is something to be proved by actions, not by speeches.
Today, Mr. Speaker, what is going on in Quebec? That is the very reason for the bill. Barely a few hours ago, the Quebec Bar Association, and I am proud of its action, published a news release which reads as follows:
. . . the Quebec Bar Association seriously censors the Quebec Minister of Justice, Mr. Choquette, for having approved the illegal actions of policemen who installed wiretaps in lawyers' offices in Montreal.
Permit me a digression. The hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) was saying a while back that the police was not involved in what happened in the lawyers' offices. On the other hand, Mr. Choquette said that it was indeed the work of the police. The press release continues:
The Bar finds it aberrant and inadmissible that the Quebec Minister of Justice would care so little for basic democratic principles, such as professional secrecy and the inviolability of offices and private residences.
The Bar is extremely worred about the invasion of privacy suggested by the minister's attitude and considers that, with the authorization of the Minister of Justice, the offices of judges, politicans and senior government officials can now be wiretapped, which is a direct menace to the relations between citizens and these professionals, that were usually protected by the seal of secrecy.
Mr. Speaker, I would rather be in the company of the official opposition, of hon. members from other parties and of members of the Montreal Bar than in the company of the hon. members for Louis-Hebert and for Levis.
It is unfortunate that now, when we discuss this problem, we see in the province of Quebec that wiretapping applies first of course to the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste on the pretext that it is a hazard to national security. This has been done for six months. It is then applied to lawyers and it will soon be applied to judges or notaries, real estate brokers, federal politicians, on the pretext that government security is endangered.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to endanger the security of those who administer the government, of those who fail to do what the people want, who do not give them the great social justice, who cannot find the solutions to unemployment, to the rise in the cost of living-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope that the hon. member will now come to the motion before the House, namely the motion moved by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to the amendment. I think the hon. member is straying a little from the subject.


Claude Wagner: You are quite right, Mr. Speaker.
[ English]


Mr. Muir:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Very rarely do I have occasion to disagree with anything Your Honour might say, but if the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) can spend most of her time castigating individuals in the House on certain matters, surely the hon. member who is now speaking should have an oppor-
November 29, 1973

tunity to reply. If the heat gets too great in the kitchen, to use the old cliche, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert knows what she can do. I think the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) should be allowed to follow that line.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not disagree with the suggestion made by the hon. member. My understanding was that the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe had completed that part of his remarks and had gone on to other subjects.


Claude Wagner: I appreciate your advice, Mr. Speaker, and it is with pleasure that I shall pursue in a different vein, while pointing out the real danger existing now as regards the rights of the individual, especially in the province of Quebec, where I live and of which I am proud to be a representative. And it is because of the existence of such a danger that I wanted to contribute to this debate. I wanted to say publicly that police officers themselves expect the law to protect them. Besides they are unwilling to lend themselves to such wiretapping for partisan or political purposes. They want to be protected as regards be the inviolability of the citizens' homes and they said so to me themselves.
Last week, I had the opportunity of speaking to officers about an inquiry on organized crime in Montreal. They agreed that we should pass a law strict enough to provide for the protection of all citizens.
Unfortunately when I see in the province of Quebec that Minister of Justice who wears a revolver in a shoulder holster and who would like now to keep both hands on the wiretap, I say to myself: It is about time that members of the federal Parliament say something. And if the only way to improve a bill is by making it worthy of a civilized society, it is by doing what we are doing now, I believe, that we are discharging that duty.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to abuse the time of the House. I note with great pleasure that there is unanimity, not only on this side of the House, but among the members of the press and within the agencies that take a special interest in the political and social life in this country. That brings comfort to us and indicates that we are in the right direction.
Even with the amendments that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) or the parliament will approve we will not have yet attained perfection. Indeed, we will never attain perfection but at least we will have succeeded in reducing to a certain extent serious injustice that will happen if these amendments are not accepted.
I would urge all my colleagues in this House to go beyond that legislation and to become more concerned, in matters of justice for instance, that the decisions of courts be respected, that criminals be rehabilitated in a more realistic and planned way, that our prison guards be better paid and in the complete administration of justice that we have not the impression that the big ones are always winners and the small ones always losers.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we still have a long way to go before we could be proud to have perfect justice in our society; we have already started with my colleagues from Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), St.
Protection of Privacy
Paul's (Mr. Atkey) and Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and also thanks to others as the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) and others we will have gone through an important and historical stage in this House.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, there are two motions on the order paper standing in my name, motions Nos. 4 and 12. With Your Honour's permission and the permission of the House, I should like leave to withdraw those motions. They both deal with the emergency permit section and are substantially similar to the one presented by the right hon. member. With the consent of the House, I would like to withdraw those and then make some remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) that motions Nos. 4 and 12 standing in his name be withdrawn. Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to make this request?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motions are accordingly withdrawn.
Motions Nos. 4 and 12 withdrawn.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I wish to thank the House for its consideration. Dealing with the emergency permit clause we attempted to delete from the bill, I wish to say that although we are not delighted, the amendment does go a very long way toward meeting the objections of many of us on this side of the House. I cannot do too much more than echo some of the remarks of the right hon. member with regard to the amendments which have been presented. I am impressed that this parliament in this minority situation is working extremely well, efficiently and in favour of the citizens in terms of liberty of the people. That is good.
The amendment which has been presented substantially satisfied the objection we have, namely that we should use the judiciary and rely upon the rule of law in this country rather than avoid it. Someone once said that liberty is a very delicate flower. You can take a flower and make it wilt in imperceptible degrees. The emergency permit clause which was included in this bill would have gone in the direction of wilting a little bit more that very delicate flower which we in this country treasure so much. I am pleased we have had an accommodation in this matter. Our party will support the position taken by the right hon. member on this issue. When this amendment comes to a vote, we intend to vote with the right hon. member.
I am still somewhat concerned about a number of other clauses in the bill. I presume I would be out of order to deal with them at this point. However, I want to refer briefly to something I mentioned yesterday on a point of order. In spite of what the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) told the House, the Montreal Gazette reported yesterday that two police officers in Quebec had bugged two lawyers offices. People say this is a lawyers' debate. Lawyers are always involved in this kind of thing. However, the right of every single citizen in this country is involved, as well as the precious right of a lawyer and

November 29, 1973
Protection of Privacy
his client to consult in confidence. If that right is attacked and removed, then we will have witnessed one of the most serious attacks on principle that could take place in this country. The hon. member for Louis-Hebert can shrug her shoulders and say we have to have law and order. Such practices do not fall within the ambit of law and order in the civilized sense that most of with western traditions have been brought up to know and understand. That kind of thing cannot be permitted to continue.
I want to quote one of the more important remarks made by the Quebec Minister of Justice concerning a question he was asked in the House, as reported in the Montreal Gazette. When he was asked about bugging, his answer was-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Louis-Hebert is rising on a question of privilege.
[ Transla tion]


Albanie Morin: Mr. Speaker, according to the hon. member, I said in my speech that lawyers' offices in Montreal had been wiretapped by the police. I do not remember at all saying that in my speech and I would like the hon. member to withdraw his comments.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It was made during an interjection, and not during a speech. I do not think it is any less valid to say that the information given to the House was quite incorrect. It is recorded in Hansard as the hon. member would see if she would check the remarks maae during that day's debate. However, I would certainly accept the point she has made.
I should like to quote the minister of justice of Quebec in reference to the bugging of these law offices. This was his answer: "I cannot control all these systems; I cannot control every police investigation in Quebec, that would be impossible." Now, if the Minister of Justice cannot control the police, if he cannot control investigations in the Province of Quebec, we are in a sad state. This bill needs to be passed. It needs to be tight, because the statement I have just cited is one of the most damaging admissions which any minister of justice could make. I am not singling out Mr. Choquette because he happens to be the minister of justice in Quebec; the same statement could well be made by attorneys General in other provinces throughout the country, since the law is the same in the Province of Quebec as it is in any other province.
When the minister of justice says he cannot control every police investigation in the Province of Quebec it becomes even more pertinent that I remind hon. members of the presence on the order paper of an amendment which attempts to remove the use of the agency procedure for which provision is presently made in the bill. If we pass the bill in its present form so as to allow the use of designated, authorized agents, I submit that the same lack of control about which the minister of justice complained in the Province of Quebec will not be remedied, and on this and other grounds I urge support for that particular amendment.


Otto Emil Lang: In the course of debate on this bill an important point was made by myself and by other members of the House, namely that the inclusion of a judge in the process provided an added degree of protection. In addition to the political responsibility of the Attorney General and the required designation of persons to exercise that responsibility on his behalf, additional protection would be afforded. This approach is, I think, made even more valid by the events of which we have lately learned and gives added reason for the inclusion of a judge in the process. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) does not seem to have been, on the whole, an ardent supporter of the arrangement of the inclusion of the judge, but no doubt he now appreciates that there was a good deal of wisdom in that proposal.
I am pleased indeed that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), my fellow member from Saskatchewan, finds that the amendment now before the House is acceptable. It is well known throughout the country that the right hon. gentleman is outstanding in a number of respects. I may say on the one hand, without hesitation, that he is recognized as one of the most eloquent spokesmen for the cause of civil liberty and freedom in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Without pretending to copy his style, may I say, he is well recognized, too, as one of the foremost tilters at windmills in Canadian history.


John George Diefenbaker: I have had lots of opportunities, looking at the government. Tilting at windbags, also.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: In the political process it is sometimes difficult to know whether he is speaking eloquently for civil liberties or tilting at another windmill. I did make a suggestion earlier that the eloquence he used in the initial stages of this bill was more a tilting at windmills than a defence of liberty because of the protection included in the bill and because of the basic need on occasion to enable swift action to be taken. However, we have managed to bring together the cause of liberty and the attraction of the windmill, and we have been able to find a solution which includes the judge in the process in circumstances where electronic intrusion is required in an urgent situation in the cause of justice, and in the course of law enforcement and investigation.
I appreciate the attitude taken by hon. members in trying to find solutions of this sort in the course of the development of this law. The bill stands, I must say again, as an extremely important measure designed for the protection of privacy in our country. We are creating, for the first time, offences in respect of intrusion into that privacy while at the same time trying to keep a balance which allows for the proper use of electronic devices by law enforcement officers. I am pleased, indeed, that the House is agreeing to the amendment put forward by my parliamentary secretary.
November 29, 1973


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. In his remarks the minister indicated I had somehow changed my views in the course of the study of this bill. I should like to point out that I introduced an amendment to remove the emergency clause from it. I voted in favour of an amendment to remove the emergency clause in committee, and I supported this position throughout the entire debate from the time the bill was first read. So, I think it is unfair to suggest there has been any inconsistency on my part.


Otto Emil Lang: On the same question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is really not a question of privilege, but since hon. members are trying to get their positions clearly on record perhaps I could be permitted to recognize the Minister of Justice on the same point.


Otto Emil Lang: I would just like to make it clear that I agree completely with the point the hon. member for New Westminster has made. My point was this: I thought he was beginning to see the value of including the judge in the process of granting permits and that this, perhaps, was an important change of heart. I did not claim I had his word on that, though.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: On the same question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Again, perhaps, with consent, the hon. member for New Westminster.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: On that point, with regard to the inclusion of a judge, during the first reading, the second reading and throughout the debates in committee I always voted in favour of including judicial approval in relation to all the clauses, including the emergency clause. Of course, we have now got to the point where the minister has brought back the judge. There has been no question, as far as I am concerned, that we should always have used the judicial process for the approval of wiretaps.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is the minister who has seen the light.


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, since I had the opportunity of speaking on the main motion I shall be very brief in my comments on the amendment standing in the name of the parliamentary secretary to the minister to the motion of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I direct my remarks to certain technical problems which the amendment appears to involve. I apologize for being absent from the chamber for a minute or two; perhaps I missed any comments the minister may have relating to some of these technical shortcomings which I understand he will be attempting to clarify or correct through an amendment of his own or in the name of one of his hon. friends on that side of the House.
As it now reads, the amendment does not require a peace officer or a judge who grants the authorization to comply with any reporting requirement pursuant to the annual report of the Attorneys General or the Solicitor General. This may be an oversight and the appropriate correction can be made, through cross-reference, in due course. Similarly, it may be unfortunate that the amendment should choose to use the term "peace officer". An
Protection of Privacy
earlier amendment used the term "agent" and this at least was consistent with the other language used in the bill. I say this bearing in mind that there are certain reporting requirements affecting agents, specifically the requirement that agents be named in the annual reports of the Attorneys General and the Solicitor General. I would hope that a housekeeping amendment might be brought in to provide for the naming of these peace officers who are to be granted this extraordinary power for an emergency operation by a judge for a period of 36 hours. Again, I think it is important for the protection of the citizens of Canada that ultimately there be some publicity as to the machinery to put this particular section into operation.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I think there has to be some built-in protection in this admittedly important emergency section to guard against its possible continual and repeated use. I think it was intended by the minister, and certainly by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, that this be an extraordinary section used only in emergency situations when it is not possible to comply with the requirements of Sections 178.12 and 178.13. One of the methods suggested in the standing committee to guard against repeated and continual use of the emergency section to the exclusion of the regular section, was an amendment put forward in the name of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. O'Connor). It was adopted in the bill as reported back from the committee as sub-section (5) to Section 178.15.
Of course, the original motion moved in the name of the right hon. gentleman quite rightly sought to delete the entire section which, of course, followed the intention of the motion in the name of the hon. member for Halton because that was the course of action sought at that particular time; that is, to get rid of Section 178.15 in its entirety. Now that we have the revised version of Section 178.15, which is apparently acceptable to all members of the House, somehow the additional protection against continual use was dropped. I would propose that the section be reinserted at the end of Section 178.15, and I propose to do this by way of a subamendment to the proposed amendment by the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) to Motion No. 3. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather):
That the proposed amendment of Mr. Guay (Levis) to Motion No. 3 be amended by deleting the first three lines of paragraph (a) of the amendment and substituting the following:
(a) striking out the following words and numbers appearing in
lines 2 to 4 of paragraph (b): "lines 1 to 13 inclusive at page 9
and lines 23 to 28 inclusive at page 11".
In so moving the subamendment, Mr. Speaker, I believe I stay within the spirit of the amendment proposed in the name of the hon. member for Levis, and certainly within the very strict spirit of the bill as reported back from the standing committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house has heard the proposed subamendment by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey). Without going into all the niceties of it, I would presume it fits within the spirit of Mr. Speaker's ruling at approximately this time yesterday in respect of another
8268

November 29, 1973
Protection of Privacy
proposed subamendment, but if anyone has a point of order to raise I will be pleased to reserve my decision.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I take it there is no question about the propriety of the subamendment?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In my haste to draft the motion before you I think I did make one minor error. Rather than coming back with a further sub-subamendment. it might be in order for me to provide Your Honour with the correction at the present time. May I proceed?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes.


Ronald George Atkey: The corrected subamendment would read as follows:
That the proposed amendment of Mr. Guay (Levis) to Motion No. 3 be amended by deleting the first three lines of paragraph (a) of the amendment and substituting the following:
(a) striking out the following words and numbers appearing in
lines 1 to 13 inclusive-
With respect, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member suggested, I think I am going to have to eat some crow. I think my original version is correct.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As I read the hon. member's writing that is right. The last lines refer to lines 1 to 13 inclusive at page 9 and lines 23 to 28 inclusive at page 11. I do not know that there are copies available to other members, but I was going to ask whether hon. members wished this matter reserved in order that the amendment could be typed out and circulated. I am in the hands of the House.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this matter and we are agreeable to proceeding with the proposed subamendment. We are agreeable to the change.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Likewise, Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this proposal with the hon. member and we are happy to support the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House then ready for the question on the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for St. Paul's?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. Paul's?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Subamendment (Mr. Atkey) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question now is on the amendment proposed by Mr. Guay (Levis). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment as just amended?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Guay, Levis) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We now move to the main motion standing in the name of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt that motion as amended within the last few minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Diefenbaker) as amended agreed to.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the indulgence of the House in respect of a total of six procedural matters. First of all, I would seek the consent of the House to the withdrawal of motion No. 11 which deals with this same section. It was designed to correct a typographical error and is clearly no longer necessary. That motion went to division and was, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) quite properly described it, footless or functus.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Functus" was the word I used.


Otto Emil Lang: I would ask for the consent of the House to the withdrawal of motion No. 11 standing in my name.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) that motion No. 11 be withdrawn. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 11 (Mr. Lang) withdrawn.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have four amendments of a consequential nature designed to change those portions of the act which deal with "permit". They ought to refer to "authorizations" under Section 178.15(2). With your leave, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might move all four motions.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro):
That Bill C-176 be amended by striking out line 12 on page one and substituting the following:
'given under section 178.13 or subsection 178.15(2);'
Second, I move:
That Bill C-176 be amended by striking out line 38 on page two and substituting the following:
'with any such authorization;'
Third, I move:
That Bill C-176 be amended by striking out
(a)	lines 10 to 14 on page 15 and substituting the following:
'(b) authorizations given under section 178.15 for which peace officers to be named in the report who were specially designated by him for the purposes of that section made application,' and
(b)	lines 29 to 32 on page 18 and substituting the following:
'(b) authorizations given under section 178.15 for which peace officers specially designated by him for the purposes of that section made application,'
Fourth, I move:
That Bill C-176 be amended by striking out line 37 and 38 on page 17 and substituting:
November 29, 1973

'tion referred to in subsection (2), set forth'


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motions of the Minister of Justice, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) in respect of four amendments, as a consequence of earlier proceedings this afternoon. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the four motions as presented by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions (Mr. Lang) agreed to.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to the next items, which I take it would be Nos. 19 and 20, I should like to indicate that there has been discussion and seems to be general agreement-and if that should be so I would appreciate it being made an order of the House-that the divisions which may be standing, and which may stand after the report stage debate is completed, be voted upon when orders of the day are called on Tuesday next and, if it is thought desirable by the House leaders, that third reading might proceed following that voting.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure about that. So far as the voting is concerned sometime on Tuesday is all right, but there should be no denial of the right of discussion on third reading.


Otto Emil Lang: There was no intention to indicate that there would be any denial of the right of discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister said that immediately after the orders of the day a vote would be taken.


Otto Emil Lang: The vote would be taken, then third reading would be called and there could be debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I see no need to defer the votes until Tuesday, but if that is agreed to we will go along with it and also join in the necessary unanimous consent so that the third reading motion may be called, and debated if desirable, on the same day the report stage divisions take place.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the Minister of Justice that the divisions at the report stage on Bill C-176 take place after the routine proceedings and the question period on Tuesday next, to be followed after the divisions by the motion for third reading and any debate which arises from that motion. Is this agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for St. Paul's rising on a point of order?


Ronald George Atkey: No, Mr. Speaker. I am rising to speak to the next motion to be called which I believe is motion No. 19.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With regard to motions Nos. 19 and 20 it is the feeling of the Chair, perhaps hopefully shared by the hon. member, that they might be grouped for the purpose of the debate and that an affirmative vote on motion No. 19 would also dispose of motion No. 20. Does any point of order arise from this?
Protection of Privacy


Stanley Howard Knowles: What would a negative vote do?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for St. Paul's rising on the point of order raised by the Chair?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I anticipated the suggestion made by the Chair, but I should point out to Your Honour and to hon. members that motion No. 19 really is a housekeeping type of motion made, I think, with the agreement of the majority of the members of the committee. It relates to cleaning up an amendment which had been passed prior to the subsequent adoption of further amendments which made necessary the motion standing in my name. I think it would facilitate discussion on the main issue, as brought to the floor by motion No. 20 in the name of the Minister of Justice, if we would first deal with motion No. 19 and get it out of the way. Then, we would have a clear run on motion No. 20.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with that. Essentially, I have no argument whatever with the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for St. Paul's, assuming that section remains in the bill. I think, so long as it does not interfere with the right to have a full debate on the section remaining in the bill, we would find the change proposed by the hon. member for St. Paul's agreeable and then we could have debate on the main question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I take it that it is the wish that the House proceed to the consideration of motion No. 19.


Ronald George Atkey: That Bill C-176 to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be amended in clause 2 by deleting lines 8 to 12 inclusive at page 19 and substituting therefor:
'in the case of a warrant issued under section 16(2) of the
Official Secrets Act.'
Motion (Mr. Atkey) agreed to.


Otto Emil Lang: That Bill C-176, to amend the Criminal Code, The Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be amended by striking out lines 38 to 43 at page 18 and lines 1 to 26 at page 19.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of putting this motion before the House is to have the House consider once again the question of the utility, on the one hand, of requiring notice such as this to be given and, on the other hand, of examining the problems which may be created by requiring that notice and considering, therefore, the balance of convenience which is involved. The section refers strictly to those cases where authorizations have been obtained. Therefore, it should be obvious to hon. members that we are dealing with an area wherein investigation is going on by law enforcement officers, where they have presented a case to a judge and obtained the necessary authorization to use an electronic device and that that use of the electronic device has served its purpose. It is at that point the question arises whether notice should be given to the person who was the subject of that particular kind of investigation.
26695-lli

November 29, 1973
Protection of Privacy
I really ask what great value is served by that. I can only see one negative aspect, that if you do not get a notice at some point in time, you know there are no legal authorizations of electronic devices against you so you can rest easy that for the three previous months you have not been the subject of this kind of investigation. We are talking about the area of legal authorization, and there is no question of giving notice and then taking advantage of other sections of the law to pursue an illegal use of these devices. In the case of the illegal use of these devices, there is no question of notice being required under the section because it clearly deals with authorization. The section itself has a number of problems, including the fact that notice is required to be given to the subject of surveillance, and in some cases there is a great difficulty in knowing exactly who the subject of surveillance is in relation to a particular electronic intrusion. The person whose conversation may have been under investigation or whose activities are under investigation may not have ended up at the place where the electronic intrusion is placed.
That is the kind of possibility that exists, and yet he would presumably have to receive notice. The major problem is that investigations by the police into the most serious levels of crime are sometimes extremely long and difficult matters. They can last a number of years, not just a number of days, weeks or months, and it may well be that an electronic intrusion is required at a certain stage in the procedure of such an investigation. The very last thing that justice would require is that the person under a continuing investigation be advised by the police that that investigation is going on. In some cases this could completely destroy the whole effort and process of our law enforcement officers to bring to justice the person whose conduct they are investigating. In some cases it is known that police in their investigation could get to the point where they could lay a charge in regard to some lesser offence but will none the less take the proper decision to continue the investigation and not lay the charge because laying the charge would have revealed that the investigation was underway. This indicates how important it is that there be no such indication of an investigation taking place.
It should be noted also that we do not require the police to give notice to citizens of other forms of investigation which they are undertaking or of investigations which they have undertaken and discontinued. One could make an argument regarding why such a procedure is not desirable, but especially in regard to investigations made in these circumstances where there was sufficient concern about the possible committing of an offence by the person in question that authorization was granted and he is now to be given notice of the fact that authorization has taken place. As indicated, these investigations in some cases go on for several years. In the section as it is presently worded, the only thing that can be done is for the judge within 90 days to either require the notice or extend the determined period of time. It is doubtful whether he would be able to extend it long enough to cover the situation where an investigation has continued a long time. In addition, it means going back to the courts. When

no useful purpose is served, I wonder whether we should go back to the courts in this manner and take up more of their time in this process.
There is the case of the smuggling of heroin into Canada where an investigation had gone on for two years or so. After several years, the police were able to move in and obtain first hand evidence of drug trafficking on the part of particular criminals, who subsequently received long sentences. In this case, the police officers employed electronic devices at some early stage in the investigation which took two years to come to its culmination. If a report had had to be given, a notification to the suspects of the fact that they were under investigation and the police therefore were on to them, this would certainly have been adequate warning to them. The possibility of detection would have ended, not only of them in the commission of the serious offence of trafficking and possession of heroin, but in addition an adequate warning would have been given to them so that they could have disposed of the drug in other ways and got it successfully into Canada. In that case, this was prevented because of the long and careful investigation which involved an electronic intrusion at an early stage of the case.
I ask hon. members to consider that kind of problem. There could be many such cases. I ask them most earnestly to consider this matter and weigh it against the advantage they see in a report going to the person who is under surveillance. Therefore, I ask the support of hon. members, some of whom may or may not have been in the committee, in looking at the difficulty which has been caused in the investigative processes if this kind of notice is required. I ask hon. members to support the conclusion at which I arrived which led me to move the deletion of this section because the harm to the cause of law enforcement far outweighs any advantage that can be read into the reporting provisions. Accordingly, I ask hon. members to support this amendment in my name.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, this is yet another attempt by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) to overturn an amendment adopted by a majority vote in the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The vote that he is seeking to overturn this time was carried in that committee by ten votes to eight. I am afraid that the minister has missed the point of the amendment. I thought this may have happened in the committee, but having heard the minister this afternoon, I am convinced that he missed the point.
The main purpose of the notice requirement is to keep the whole system honest, to keep the system forthright, to cause the Attorney General or his agents or the Solicitor General or his agents to think twice before proceeding with an application under section 178.12 or the emergency section 178.15. It is yet another important check of the use of the dangerous device of electronic surveillance. Far from attempting to put an unnecessary roadblock in the way of law enforcement, it is an important device by which the machinery of justice in its use of electronic surveillance can be brought out into the open after the event, and with certain adequate safeguards that meet virtually all of the objections which have been raised by the minister.
November 29, 1973

There is a second reason for this amendment. It is an amendment which applies to authorization which has been legally obtained, in that the reporting requirement makes the offence and damage sections of the bill much more meaningful. It will assist an individual Canadian, in the first instance, to know whether he has been the victim of a legal wiretap. Indeed if a Canadian discovers electronic surveillance equipment, and in due course does not receive the adequate notice to which he would be entitled under this amendment, then obviously he has good reason to suspect that he may have been the victim of an illegal tap. In that case, he has the very meaningful damage section open to him whereby he can proceed against the perpetrator of that illegal surveillance for punitive damages to the extent of $5,000, and he can seek to have that individual prosecuted in the criminal courts where the individual can face a penalty of up to five years' imprisonment.
But without the notice section, who is ever going to know? Certainly, the evidence placed before a judge on an application for authorization is not going to be a matter of public record. Certainly, the hearing at which an authorization is obtained is not a public hearing. It is an ex parte hearing in secret, and I think it is clear from the evidence of the police or law enforcement officials, put before the Justice Committee at various proceedings in this and the last parliament, that the police or law enforcement officials themselves are not going to make available the evidence that was used to obtain the authorization. Obviously, that is going to be secret documentation. At some point there has to be accountability, and unless we have this notice section, which the majority of the Justice Committee saw fit to include, we will not have the openness and public accountability which any system of legal electronic surveillance really requires in a free and democratic society.
The original motion which I placed before the standing committee was not spun out of thin air. It was not spun out of my imagination, or the imagination of any individual member of the committee. Indeed, it was the product of the standing committee of the last parliament, a committee which was dominated by a majority of Liberal government supporters, a committee which presented a very excellent report to the House on March 11, 1970. I would like to quote at length from that committee report, because I think the rationale for the amendment which we are debating today was very clearly put forth in it.
The Committee recommends that every order authorizing the interception of communications specify that the responsible Minister must notify the person who was the object of the surveillance, in writing, within 90 days of the termination of the interception; and that the fact of notification be certified by the responsible Minister to the Court issuing the authorization order. An exception to this rule should be made in the case of an interception involving espionage or sabotage on behalf of a foreign power, or where the responsible Minister certifies to the judge granting the authorization, prior to the expiration of the 90-day period that the investigation is continuing and the judge is of the opinion that the interests of justice require that a delay of a determinate reasonable length be granted.
It is really pursuant to that majority committee report- I repeat a committee dominated by Liberal government supporters-that the amendment was put forward in the standing committee of this parliament, and it carried.
Protection of Privacy
Again, to illustrate that the committee itself was not spinning its ideas out of thin air, and indeed had subsequent confirmation of some of the rationale behind the suggestion of a notice rule, let me refer to some submissions made by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association when it reported to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on June 6, 1972. I am now going to quote from the brief of the Civil Liberties Association of Canada presented that day.
But not all electronic bugs will culminate in public hearings. Thus, their victims may never learn of the intrusions they have sustained. In order to minimize the surreptitious character of the process, we believe that the bill should contain a provision requiring notification to the victim within a reasonable period after the termination of the surveillance. Such notification would enable the innocent victim to seek redress where the surveillance might have been improper. Moreover, the requirement of notice would create another political deterrent to widespread and needless bugging. Telling the victim is the perfect complement to disclosing the statistics. The prospect of more angry people might serve to restrain much needless bugging.
We note that such a provision was included in the U.S. statute, Professor Blakey's proposals and the recommendations of this Committee. It is regrettable that the government did not see fit to include it in Bill C-6. We submit, therefore, that you should try again.
Those words of the Civil Liberties Association tell it all. The majority of the standing committee in the previous parliament recommended a section like this but, for reasons which were not clearly explained, the government chose not to adopt the recommendation. And again, the Civil Liberties Association, making reference to U.S. authorities, to the very excellent evidence of Robert Blakey, professor of law at Notre Dame law school in the United States, and indeed to other statements made in the public domain at that time, came forward and said to the committee, "Have a try again; have another go." The committee in this enlightened parliament did, and we were successful. This is the amendment which the minister now seeks to remove.
I was interested in the minister's comment that one of the particular problems with the wording of the clause before us was that it was very difficult to determine who would be the object of surveillance. I find that strange when it was the minister himself, in committee, who suggested the use of those particular words. The amendment, in the form in which it was originally put, contained the words "any person whose private communication has been intercepted." Those words are obviously much wider than the words which are now in the present bill. Indeed, it was in order to accommodate some of the minister's concerns in committee that the words "those who were the object of the interception" were adopted in the amendment which is now part of the bill.
If I may draw an analogy to show why we need a notice section such as this, I may say it is similar to the situation involving credit reporting agencies where information that potentially invades the privacy of the individual is kept by a commercial concern, and is capable of being passed on by computer and other records to virtually anyone willing to pay for that information. In a number of the provinces legislation is being developed, a principal provision of which is to require disclosure to the individual citizen, so that he has an opportunity to see his file and to correct it. I think that is a wise provision. Similarly, I

November 29, 1973
Protection of Privacy
would suggest that a notice provision here is a wise provision. If there is some hanky-panky, if there is a possibility of illegality in the wiretap against an individual, indeed if there is anything wrong with the process, the requirement that after 90 days the person who was the victim of the tap be notified is going to bring it all out into the open and provide some additional protection.
To answer some of the concerns of the minister that important criminal investigations may well be hampered by this sort of provision, particularly those sorts of investigations which go on for several years, quite clearly subclause (2) (b) provides for the sort of exemptions that the police can obtain from the original granting judge to cover those situations. Certainly, it was never my intent to hamper that type of important investigation, and I have already stated in this House that electronic eavesdropping can be a valuable tool of law enforcement, particularly in the fight against organized crime.
If one examines the wording of section 178.23(2)(b), Mr. Speaker, one sees that it is possible to get an exemption:
Where the Attorney General of the province in which the application is made or the Solicitor General of Canada, as the case may be, certifies within the said 90 days in a manner prescribed by regulations to the judge who granted the authorization that the investigation is continuing and the judge is of the opinion that the interests of justice require that a delay of a determinate reasonable length be granted, in which case the judge may grant a determinate reasonable delay.
The minister suggests that some investigations by their very nature may take one, two or three years. He referred to the very important case involving the smuggling of heroin into Canada. I think that was a case for the proper use of wiretaps, Mr. Speaker. I would have seen nothing wrong in that situation with the police going to the Attorney General and having him, through his counsel, go back to the original judge, and say, "It is going to take not six, 12 or 18 months but two years to crack this case. Can you give us an exemption from the notice requirement?" I think any reasonable judge would grant an exemption, Mr. Speaker. If he were satisfied of the necessity for it, I think he would grant a determinate exemption of two years. So, I think that everything the minister seeks to achieve is possible in the words of this bill.
Finally, to answer an additional concern of the minister, he points out that in other forms of investigation the police and the law enforcement officers are not required to give the sort of notice which this section contemplates. I agree with that and I think that statement really indicates the minister's lack of understanding of what is being attempted with this particular amendment.
There are many in this House, I suspect the majority, who find that law enforcement and investigation through the use of a wiretap is a much different device or bag of tricks than all the other types of investigation and law enforcement devices in use. There is a certain immorality involved with electronic surveillance that is not involved with other types of police investigation. I think it is quite justifiable, as part of the philosophy of myself and others, that wiretapping and electronic surveillance be treated as a special type of situation. That, as contemplated here, is the requirement of notice.

I want to refer to comments made by hon. members in committee, and in particular and with apologies to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who is in his seat. I should like to refer to one statement that he made in committee which I think is particularly compelling in view of his experience politically, legally and judicially. I should like to quote from the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for November 8, 1973 at page 28:20 where the hon. member said:
I have no hesitation in repeating what I think about electronic espionage. And now, as a legislator, and no longer as an Attorney General only concerned with the enforcement of laws, but as a legislator who is mainly concerned with the rights of citizens who are affected by the enforcement of this act, I question the advisability of broadening the act to allow police or federal or provincial ministries of justice to engage in wiretapping without the strict control that would result from this amendment which ensures that persons exposed to this are notified; and I say this because it seems to me that an in-depth study of this amendment will enable us to point to the abuses that might be brought if the act goes through without this amendment. Without this amendment, wiretapping would become a crutch for the administrators of justice, who would be implicitly admitting their inability to deal with the rising crime rate.
The hon. gentleman concluded by saying:
-let me say that the use of wiretapping must be limited to precise circumstances, and must be made known at the appropriate time to all those involved.
That statement was put so well that I could not improve upon it, Mr. Speaker, and so I saw the necessity of reading it at this time.
The last point that I would raise, Mr. Speaker, is the other type of exemption that exists from the notice requirement in the form in which it is now drafted. As the section was amended by motion No. 19, there is an exception for situations where there is electronic surveillance involving espionage, sabotage, or other types of subversive activity, sections which were provided for under amendments in this bill to the Official Secrets Act.
I think virtually all members of this House agree that that is a special type of situation in which it would be quite unreasonable to require any form of notice to be given to the persons who are the object of that type of interception. I commend the ECMP security service, and through them and for them the Solicitor General who were so honest and forthright in coming before our committee and indicating the sort of installations and operations that were in use in this country and the necessity for them. I also commend the Solicitor General for arranging for an in camera briefing for members of the committee to indicate the nature of existing operations. It improved my understanding of the nature of that particular process and, accordingly, I have no hesitation in providing an exemption for the notice requirement for all operations under that section of the act.
There is an important protection for Canadians in terms of public knowledge of security service installations by virtue of the reporting requirement on the Solicitor General to table in this House on an annual basis, the number of such security service wiretaps and the extent to which they have been successful, as well as a general assessment of the whole process. That was an amendment brought about by the minister in committee. It is to his credit that
November 29, 1973

he listened to the speeches of hon. members on second reading and in committee.
May I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by reiterating the position I took initially in my remarks today. We are concerned here with requiring the police and Attorneys General to give a second look to situations where they are asked to put on electronic surveillance. This provision is not going to hamper them unduly; it is merely going to make them a little more careful and cautious. I think such a provision is in the interests of the liberty and freedom of all Canadians and should be adopted. The bill should be maintained in the form in which it was reported back from committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for New Westminster at eight o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows; the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Macln-nis)-Canadian Economy-Increase in cost of food-possible programs to supply food to those on low incomes; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Welfare-Method for fulfilling Prime Minister's promise of fuel cost assistance to needy; the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett)-Immigration-Indians-Rejection of Jay Treaty by government.
Is the hon. parliamentary secretary rising on a point of order?



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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 on Justice and Legal Affairs; motion No. 3 (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the amendment thereto of (Mr. Guay (Levis).
Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker . . .
Protection of Privacy Bill


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the parliamentary secretary rising on a point of order?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, it is just that upon reading subsection (1) of section 178.16 in Bill C-176, line 21 on page 9, I noticed that there was a translation mistake. What reads "it unless" in English has been translated by "ou la". It should be "a moins".
[ English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has noted the point made by the hon. parliamentary secretary about the spelling correction in the French version of the bill we have just been considering. Is it agreed that this correction be made?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding private members' hour. There has been discussion and I think there would be agreement that the first five or six minutes of this hour be devoted to order No. 164 standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Gauthier) on Bill C-232. We would then proceed with the order standing in the name of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier), No. 96.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are the suggested proceedings for private members' hour agreeable? The hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley).


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, we would agree to this arrangement with the stipulation that the first item could take a few more than five or six minutes, but a very few more.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we agree that the limit must be not more than ten minutes from now, in other words, 5.13 p.m.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I call on the hon. member for Ottawa East, I wish to make something clear. I gather that it is the wish of hon. members that we proceed with all stages of Bill C-232. If that is so, the unanimous consent of the House will be required for the bill to be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that I make this amendment to the motion, in putting the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 29, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa East) moved: that Bill C-232, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.

He said: Mr. Speaker, 1 am indebted to my colleagues and I thank you.
The purpose of this bill is to change the name of my electoral district to Ottawa-Vanier. This change is in order to identify better the geographic and democraphic facts of my riding.
Bounded by the city of Ottawa, Vanier is included in my electoral district. The name Ottawa-Vanier will reflect more adequately the geographic fact of my riding wherein lie the two cities.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, within the stricture of the time limit laid down by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I suggest that this bill has the complete support of members of my side of the House. We have always wanted riding names to be associated as closely as possible with the ridings for which they stand. In my case, in view of redistribution, I have great sympathy for that principle. I hope, if it becomes necessary for me to bring in a bill or motion with regard to my riding, that I can count on the support of the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Gauthier) if he happens to be here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind the time limit which has been established, may I, too, simply say that we are happy to agree to this bill. We accept the underlying principle and we join with all members in saying how pleased we are to see the name of our late, distinguished Governor General Vanier included in the name of an Ottawa riding.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boulanger in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Shall I rise and report the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]


Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore) moved:: That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Treasury Board for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on previous occasions I have advanced arguments in support of motions very similar to the one we are now considering. So far, it appears that these arguments have not found favour with government members. I want to summarize some of them quickly and introduce new evidence which I think will lend further weight to the basic proposition which underlies this motion and its companion motions. Very simply it is this: that more information must be made available to members of parliament so that they may the better discharge their fundamental responsibilities of approving government spending programs and government legislative initiatives.
I contend that information provided to members of parliament-and I know this is true for members of provincial legislatures as well-by the government for the purpose of scrutinizing activities of government is very slim indeed.
In my judgment, Canadian governments have an obsessive tendency to secrecy, and operate on the principle that unless documents prepared somewhere in the bowels of the huge administration are specifically labelled as public, those documents must be regarded as being confidential. I am challenging the implicit conclusion that what parliament shall have the right to know shall be that which the government agrees to reveal. I believe it is important in a democracy like ours for the public, and for members who are representatives of the public, to be given access to more information relating to the creation of government policy, the options which were open to the government as it chose that policy and the rationale which lies behind it.
I am not arguing against all secrecy; I am not taking an extreme position. I readily concede that there are certain kinds of documents and information which it would not be in the public interest or national interest, as distinct from the government's partisan interest, to reveal. I am not suggesting, therefore, that no document should ever be withheld; however, I suggest that there are very real limits to the sacrosanctity of government material. It is quite proper and fitting that the government should recognize that members of parliament have a right to some of the information and some of the material which is compiled and accumulated at such vast expense in the public service.
[DOT] <mo>
I suggest that a lack of information seriously impedes the ability of parliament to do its job properly, its most ancient job of expressing grievance in voting supply. I have argued that in the past. I will not repeat the argument fully. In the absence of hard information, members
November 29, 1973

of parliament too easily fall into a reflex partisan position and say yea or nay, depending on the colour of their political uniform rather than on the basis of evidence which might be made available to them.
Members of our party, including myself, have presented motions in this House calling for evaluation reports. There are many motions standing in my name similar to the one before us this afternoon. It is by no accident that in this motion I have called for the program forecast, including budgets A, B, X, in this case of Treasury Board and in other cases of other departments. I was interested in discovering how few members of parliament know what budgets A, B, X are, including some members on the government side who participated in similar debates in earlier weeks in opposition to my motion. One had the grace to admit he really did not know what he was opposing.
Budgets A, B, X is a document which contains three forms of calculations. Each department submits its budget to Treasury Board in the course of preparation of the main estimates. Budget A contains a forecast of the cost of continuing the current programs of that department for another year. Budget B contains a list of cost estimates of new programs which that department would like to introduce and for which it would like to receive permission. Budget X indicates those programs the government would be prepared to scrap or abandon if it were necessary to do so in order to clear the funds for the project outlined in Budget B. In those three straight forward calculations there lies a very interesting and informative story about the kinds of priorities and considerations that have gone into the preparation of the government's program. That kind of document symbolizes the sort of information I have in mind when I talk about parliament's need and right to know.
We need more than the estimates in the massive blue book. We need more information than is usually divulged by ministers and their officials at committee meetings. I have only been a member of this House for a year, but my experience has been that ministers are reluctant to divulge any more information than they possibly have to, and much of the committee meeting consists of dragging from a minister information that it would have been much more sensible for him to have volunteered at the beginning. Some ministers act as though they are on trial at these committee hearings. They say as little as they can. Frankly, the committees are not as informative as I would have thought.
I contrast that reality with the prospect of a committee hearing at which the members of the committee have previously been given much more background information concerning the government's decision to proceed in a particular direction. I thought the questioning would at least touch on the substance rather than the shadow of the issue and in that way, the public interest would be served. I can see that may be a forelorn and naive viewpoint. I may lose that illusion quickly, but I think it would be a pity if that illusion were shattered.
A couple of years ago the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) raised a very similar matter. At that time he challenged the government's policy which requires that documents be confidential unless otherwise designated.
Forecast by Treasury Board
He suggested that policy should be reversed and that government documents should be public unless otherwise designated. I read the speech the hon. member made at that time and the rather unconvincing reply with which it was greeted. I want to summarize two or three points which he made that are worth repeating. He said, and I quote:
-there is an increasing desire on the part of the public to participate more directly in the making of the decisions which inevitably affect them.
He went on to say his challenge to the government policy arose, and I quote:
-out of the belief that the power of the legislature to control the cabinet has been diminishing and ought to be increased.
Speaking for the last parliament, that certainly would have been a valid proposition.
In our society information is power.
If democracy in this country is to be served, there is much to be said for a balance of power between the legislature and the executive.
The hon. member for Selkirk made a point which I want to reiterate, develop slightly and leave as my final thought. He said:
To permit access to government documents as a natural right would not destroy our democratic system but, rather, would enhance it. We would not be the first country to adopt such a law. For over 200 years Sweden has provided open access to official documents and provided full information to any citizen about administrative activities.
I did a little checking on that reference. Indeed, I find that the Swedish government in making a proposition, which is a reasoned argument for legislation, before the Swedish Riksdag, must provide certain information, and I quote from a text entitled "The Parliament of Sweden":
A proposition concerning a law or an important item of expenditure must provide all the necessary information about the facts; similarly it must contain the statements of opinion from administrative agencies and organizations which the government is obliged by the Instrument of Government to consult before arriving at its own attitude towards the measure.
In other words, in presenting a legislative proposal to the Swedish parliament, the government appends the working documents and evaluations which led to the creation of that proposal. I hasten to add tor those members who may suspect I am promoting the socialist cause by quoting the Swedish precedent that this particular requirement or instrument of government long antedates the administration of the social democratic regime in Sweden. It is one which has been operative for many years in Sweden. The procedure is followed by the government in nearly all cases when legislation is presented, with the main exception, as hon. members might guess, of measures which involve national security.
I hope very much that those who are speaking on this motion from the government side today will address themselves to the substance of the argument I am making in favour of greater provision of information to members of parliament. This is the central element in the motion and others like it. I trust we shall not have recourse to debate such as has taken place in the past on similar motions
8276

November 29, 1973
Forecast by Treasury Board
when government members have been satisfied merely to recite the somewhat dubious accomplishments of the departments in which they are interested. I hope we can deal with the central issue which characterizes this motion.


Mr. Breau:: Would the hon. member permit a question? If it is so important in a political democracy that all position papers and evaluations within parties-and, after all, the government is a party-should be disclosed, does he accept the proposition that position papers prepared for his own party by his own party's research staff should be made public before a decision has been taken on them?


Terrence Wyly Grier: I notice the hon. member finds some difficulty in distinguishing between a party and the government. That is, perhaps, a tendency peculiar to his own party. I am sure, though, he must recognize that there is a world of difference between documents belonging to a government, which, incidentally, is not a party, and those belonging to his own party. I am not interested in asking for the documents of the Liberal caucus, nor am I interested in revealing the documents of the NDP caucus. Neither of us has any obligation but to our own members. The government, on the other hand, has an obligation to the country and to parliament, and it is to this obligation I am addressing myself.


Herb Breau: I appreciate the distinction the hon. member has made, but the example I used was merely by way of illustration. I was asking whether the NDP would agree to give up its sources of information before it had made up its mind on policy.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: I take great pleasure in rising to speak on this measure, and I hope my contribution will assist in setting out the position because I think the issue is indeed an important one and one which deserves considerable attention. It goes to the root of the whole principle of parliamentary democracy.
I was not informed of the situation in Sweden. I should like the hon. member, if he has no objection, to provide me with the document he has cited so that I could perhaps pursue the matter further on my own. I did take strong exception to the remark he made to the effect that those contributing to the debate from this side of the House had contented themselves by reciting departmental accomplishments. I have read the speeches and I did not find this to be the case at all. I found that the position he took was very clear but that the arguments presented by liberal members were equally clear.
There is one consideration which pervades the whole issue. It is that the NDP, for obvious reasons, are most interested in finding out how government works since they have not had any experience of government at the federal level. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, has held the reins of power in this country for a considerable time-


Stanley Howard Knowles: For far too
long.


Mr. Blais:: -and gained considerable experience while doing so. Surely, the hon. member for Winnipeg North

Centre (Mr. Knowles) would be the first to agree that his contributions to the legislation presented to this House has been substantial. He has done this in the context of our parliamentary procedure.
Looking at the tradition of Canadian and, indeed, British parliamentary development we find that initially there was regency, or monarchy. The decision-making process resided in one person. Subsequently, as government became more complex, the regent sought the advice of advisers who surrounded him and a cabinet system developed. In England, popular pressure demanded a constitution, and a constitutional monarchy was formed. The people secured power through the creation of a parliament and it was determined that the advisers to the Crown, the government, should be chosen from the members of this parliament and would be responsible to parliament for decisions taken. So, the members of the government are deemed to be the monarch's advisers. Because of the complexity of government in a modern age, they, in turn, have secured the assistance of advisers who are called civil servants.
I am taking some time trying to explain this because I am under the impression that some of my constituents really do not know how government works. This debate might provide clarification of the process. To a considerable extent, the Crown's advisers depend upon the civil service. We have developed, in addition, a tradition that whatever intercourse there may be between the Crown's advisors and those civil servants is a matter which is kept within strict limits of confidentiality. This follows from the fact that the government is not held responsible to parliament until a political decision has been made, that is until advice has been given to the Crown. Perhaps it is a fiction nowadays, but this is the way in which government and parliament have developed. So, government has kept confidential the documents which assisted in arriving at decisions because its responsibility to parliament and the people is to answer only after decisions have been taken. They have preserved the prerogative of keeping whatever advice they have received confidential. Over the years, the system has functioned very well. I might add that under the committee system, after decisions have been made, opportunities are available to members of parliament to demand explanations and ask for reasons why certain things have been done.
The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier) wishes to take this matter one step further. He wants to push it so that parliament has the power over decisionmaking, prior to decisions being made, by reviewing administrative documents submitted to the cabinet by individual ministers. On reading his motion, he seeks to have produced not only budgets A, B and X but also the program forecasts. He wants the whole kit and caboodle; and he wants it all produced to individual members of parliament before the decisions are made. What is even worse, after decisions are made by the government, he wants to have the power of hindsight in respect of all those documents so he can review the decision-making process and try to pick holes in it.
Surely at this time, when the whole country finds that perhaps the parliamentary process is not as fast as it ought
November 29, 1973

to be, when the executive arm of the government is not as powerful as it ought to be-indeed with this parliament- decisions are difficult to make, particularly in a time of crisis, because of the parliamentary set-up. The hon. member, by demanding the production of these documents made available to ministers or to the Treasury Board, or budgets prepared prior to the drafting of the estimates, would be delaying the whole parliamentary process. I am sure he does not want to do that, but I suggest that would be the result of his request. He would be hamstringing the whole executive decision-making process of government. Indeed, this would be most harmful to the process of government in Canada.
When the hon. member spoke on May 24, and I read his speech with great attention, he admitted that when presenting a motion like this he felt, with his lay brain-I mean in the sense of his uninformed brain, because he is not an accountant and neither am I-there would be great difficulty sorting through all this mass of information covering 1,200 pages which, when translated, amounts to almost twice as many pages. Perhaps I should read what he said as it appears at page 4068 of Hansard for May 24:
At the moment members of parliament basically have available to them information contained in the blue book of estimates, which is a veritable sea of figures. Perhaps a member who has been here for a generation or longer may be able to find his way through them, but most of us have not been here for that long.
Perhaps he had in mind the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Art hon. Member:	He has been here for three
generations.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Perhaps you are right; maybe even longer. In that statement the hon. member is mouthing words which I have thought. If we have trouble going through the estimates in the blue book, then think of the tremendous difficulty and the insurmountable chore we would have in reviewing the entire background of the long-winded programs which civil servants prepare and submit to their ministers. Think of all the mass of figures put down by those little accountants, with their little pencils in their little offices in respect of their little programs, in order to persuade their ministers of the value of their ideas. It is almost impossible to imagine the difficulty we might incur.
If we could devise a system whereby we could really analyse and completely digest all the information provided by civil servants so that someone like myself could come to a reasonable conclusion about a given program, then I would agree with the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore that we should look at such exposition or analysis. This is something I could understand. Perhaps I could then understand the principle being followed.
When we look at the whole process of government and the way ideas are fed into the system, we can see how impossible it becomes to expect that all this information leading to government policy could be analysed, classified and fed to someone who has trouble with the blue book. Perhaps it is understandable that he cannot fathom the blue book. I, too, have ideas and being on the government side I have greater hopes that my ideas might receive favour than does the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore
Forecast by Treasury Board who may be sitting in the opposition for some time. I may be less frustrated and, therefore, not as sympathetic as the hon. member and his colleagues toward the idea of seeing the inner workings of government.
In any event, when I submit an idea, an opinion, a view or a program it goes into the pipeline at the party caucus. If a minister thinks there is some merit in the idea and that it might receive a sympathetic view from his departmental officials, he will feed it through the department pipeline. If his officials then decide the idea is good, it will be resubmitted to the cabinet. One can easily understand why there is such a tremendous amount of information and why this procedure takes such a long time.
After this whole procedure, the minister may incorporate the idea into one of his programs and submit it to the Treasury Board. He might then say, "Mr. President of the Treasury Board, these are the programs that will advance civilization through eon, eon and eon." He might suggest that they are programs that would assist in advancing Canadianism. Then when the President of the Treasury Board or the members themselves have considered the program, someone might say, "It is a very good idea perhaps 20 years from now, but today it does not have a chance because the Tories across the way are yapping again about the size of the budget." There is a lot of feedback of this type in respect of government involvement.
In any event, there is this kind of interplay. The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore would like to grab the whole works, the whole kit and caboodle. He suggested it is difficult to understand budgets A, B and X, and I would suggest that he could not possibly understand all the information that goes into decision-making. I would urge the hon. member to consult civil servants he may know. I understand that lately hon. members over there have a good relationship with civil servants, particularly those in the foreign affairs department. Perhaps he could gain access to information in that way.
At the risk of being a little facetious, I would suggest to the hon. member that the blue book is a very complete document. I agree that there may be ways of ameliorating the difficulties of sorting through all the information in this book in order that members can ask relevant questions in respect of the direction the government is taking. It is also my suggestion that hon. members are apt to refer to items in the blue book which will attract the public's attention, perhaps because of some political vulnerability. Those are the items which receive the attention of hon. members in the opposition benches. It is the right of hon. members to refer to small items that may be of embarrassment to the government. Perhaps they see this as a way of discharging their responsibility.
Let me suggest to hon. members opposite that if they did not waste time in the miscellaneous estimates committee and in the public accounts committee by raising points of order and all sorts of unnecessary balderdash, but really concentrated on the estimates, a reasonable analysis could be made and relevant questions could be asked. Perhaps in this way the system might work much better. But that is not the fault of the government; it is the fault of the opposition. It is all well and good to say we want to be nice guys, but sure as hang-
26695-12 i

November 29, 1973
Forecast by Treasury Board


Walter David Baker: You will go to confession, won't you, tomorrow?


Jean-Jacques Blais: If the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who made that comment had cleanliness and was himself pure in respect of many of the things of which I accuse the opposition benches, I would kneel here and confess before this whole body.


Walter David Baker: We will suspend debate and allow you to do so.


Jean-Jacques Blais: But because I lead not only a very active but a very chaste and honest life, I would take up very little time of the House and I am afraid it would be boring fare indeed. Perhaps at this time I might simply wish hon. members opposite all the luck in the world in attempting to ameliorate the system. However, I suggest there are methods and means available to them should they use the wisdom God has given them and employ it in the proper way.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) will take my advice to attend confession. I suppose that is his choice. Failing that, I suppose with regard to the last five minutes of his speech he could wash out his mouth with soap and that might satisfy most of us.
The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier) has raised a very important matter, which the hon. member for Nipissing commented upon and referred to as delaying tactics in respect of the operations of our committees. I confess to hon. members of the House who have been here longer than me that my opportunity to observe the operations of the committees has not been as extentive as theirs. But if it is the purpose of committees to permit members of parliament to examine the estimates and get behind the estimates, then I think the committee system in this House is failing. The results of the failure are exhibited in the frustrations which must be apparent when one reads the record of many of the committees which examine estimates.
This morning we were considering estimates in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. There are matters which affect a particular body, namely, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, that transcend in importance-the enemies of this point of view might call this political-the issues in the estimates. Those, unfortunately, are the only times when dealing with estimates that members of parliament have an opportunity to speak to the bureaucrats-in the case of CMHC this morning-or the minister in order to examine an issue which is current. So I think members of the opposition can be forgiven, when they suspect something is wrong or have information that something is wrong, if they use that one occasion to get at the information.
So far as estimates are concerned, this parliament imposed closure in any event, and the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) knows it. Even when the estimates are considered, as in the case of Supplementary Estimates A, those estimates will at least be reported automatically by the committee on December 10 no matter

what parliament may do. That shows another aspect of the futility of the system. That is the only occasion-using the example of this morning-when members of parliament can examine an issue of the day. I am the first to admit that perhaps in dealing with estimates this might not be the best place to do it. Of course not. But it is the only place.
The next thing with which we might deal is the question period in this House of Commons when members of parliament ask for information. I suppose that if members opposite would remove from their hearts all their political prejudices, they would have to agree with me that the performance of the government in respect of the question period, so far as being candid is concerned, has been lamentable in the past few days. The deeper this government gets into trouble, the more meaningless the answers are to the questions put to it. We represent the public who want to receive answers to questions.
Another aspect of this question is the order paper. There have been discussions in this House about the slowness of the government in answering questions. It seems to me that questions are answered and information provided on the basis of what is politically embarrassing. If it is not politically embarrassing, then of course answers come forth in due course. But if it is politically embarrassing, the members of the opposition have to raise points of order to obtain answers. Lastly, I want to say that it may well be that members who support the government can go to caucus, or straight to ministers as colleagues, and within the secrecy of the caucus obtain the answers they want. That may be the situation, but I am not so sure it is with this government. But the opposition does not have that opportunity. I suppose the purpose behind the motion proposed by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore is that the members of this House of Commons, who represent all the people of Canada, should be provided the same opportunity.
It seems to me that we are creating, because of the way in which this government has chosen to operate within the parliamentary system, an elite. The parliamentary system was never meant to be operated on the basis that only a few could use the instruments of power in their hands without at least accounting for their actions before the Parliament of Canada. This accounting can be done in many ways. It can be done all together by way of votes.
Another matter raised by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore was that information is power. As the public service grows, as government involvement in the community and business and in other spheres of our country grows, so does the power of the government grow. If that is to be the way in which we are to proceed in this country and it is acceptable to the people of this country, then who am I to say that it is not right? On the other side of the equation, there should be a similar growth in the parliamentary body to examine, to scrutinize, to analyse and to submit to cross-examination members of the government who supply the background material from which that decision was made. I say this because the parliamentary equation is getting somewhat out of balance. If there is any evidence of that, it is the operation of the question period, the committee system as it relates to estimates-
November 29, 1973

and I relate it only to estimates, not to legislation-the operation of the order paper, and other matters.
The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore has suggested that governments, when presenting a bill to the House or presenting an estimate, have to produce what he has called the working papers. I think that is perhaps a reasonable suggestion and one this government should consider. But I think the government should consider something else. I think that at the beginning of each parliamentary session a special parliamentary committee should be established, one that would be called the parliamentary committee on program review, to which the documents, namely the program forecast and program review, could be referred. It would be made up of members of this House, and their sole duty would be, not just to examine estimates in the very shallow way they are examined now but to examine the working papers. The members of the public service and of the government would not appear at the committee sitting next to the chairman, but would appear there as witnesses subject to cross-examination, not merely to the polite inquiries which are addressed to them now.
I think we could go one step further and perhaps consider the advisability of bringing back into the committee of the whole House the estimates of the departments. It may be that some are so complex that we could not have them all before the House for all the departments during a session, but perhaps the opposition could be given the choice of departments with which they wanted to deal in a particular year. Those estimates would be brought into this chamber under the light of publicity, and they would be examined in such a way that partisan chairmen-as is the case in some committees-could not exercise their will as I have seen them do.
I think it is important to consider this, and I would ask the government to consider it because there must be a diminution of power in the sense of the government gathering information unto itself and for itself. Otherwise, our system will not function. As the backbenchers of the government party have become the ciphers of power over there, we find ourselves becoming ciphers of lack of knowledge because of the system which has proved itself to be inadequate. Our country would be stronger, our people wiser and our parliament better if some suggestion such as the one of the hon. member were adopted.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to intervene for just a moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are not the
one who was supposed to do so.


James Alexander Jerome: I wanted to take exception to one remark made in the speech of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). He suggested that after all the work we have done to set up the committee system under the new rules, and to send to the committees automatically all the estimates in order that a small group of members who want to take the trouble to inform themselves and who are energetic enough to develop some expertise in the area, who have the will and the desire to make that effort, have
Protection of Privacy
the opportunity to get not just one minister at a time, as is the case in the House, but several ministers and indeed officials from several departments who are concerned with the subject matter under review and in this way ensure that the round of questioning gives every questioner several opportunities to run a point into the ground.
The hon. member would rather have the estimates back here in the House, where he has a much larger crowd of people lining up to ask questions and much more difficulty in pinning down a minister and keeping him here until he has come up with a satisfactory answer. What has happened is that the present system has given to energetic members in the ranks opposite an unprecedented opportunity to place a minister in this position before the committee and to question him until they are satisfied. The shocking fact about it is that in almost every instance insufficient work is done by members opposite, despite the extensive research facilities provided to them. This failing in the opposition may be overlooked. What cannot be overlooked is their temerity and gall in trying to lay the blame at the feet of chairmen of committees and accusing them of not being impartial and objective, which adds insult to injury and caused me to rise to my feet in this debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. We have a clock problem. As hon. members can see, the clock to my right shows 6.50, but the clock facing me shows six o'clock. It is now six o'clock.
[ Translation]
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m. At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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 on Justice and Legal Affairs; and motion No. 20 (Mr. Lang).
Ronald George Atkey: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, at the commencement of tonight's proceedings with a view to indicating that it is my intention to withdraw motion No. 1, which is to provide a change in the title of the bill. I do this at this time to facilitate the business of the House and to indicate to hon. members the nature of the balance of our work here tonight. I may say, in the course of withdrawing this motion, that I do not in

November 29, 1973
Protection of Privacy
any way withdraw from remarks made in pursuance of this amending motion in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, where I clearly indicated that its purpose was to draw to the attention of the government and the people of Canada the fact that with the protection of privacy-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. We should do this in a more orderly way. If the hon. member plans to say a few words on motion No. 1 while he is withdrawing it, I would suggest that for the moment at least we stand motion No. 20, which is before the House, and return to it afterwards. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ronald George Atkey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also thank hon. members for allowing me a moment or two to explain the reason for the withdrawal. There is much yet to be done in the protection of privacy. This bill, which attempts to provide protection for Canadians against bugging, wiretapping and other forms of electronic eavesdropping is a start but, as I have indicated, in many cases it is only the tip of the iceberg.
To its credit, the government has recognized that there is much to be done in the field of the protection of privacy through the commissioning of a task force report entitled "Privacy and Computers." All Canadians should be alerted to the dangers which this excellent report, brought forward in December, 1972, outlines in detail. I refer only to the dangers of medical data banks, computer credit data banks, police computers and other forms of computer data banks in this country and in the country to the south of us. We see from this that there is virtually no law in existence now to provide any protection for Canadians on such questions as access, security of information-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, but I assure the hon. member that it is a friendly point of order. We have no objection to his request to withdraw motion No. 1, but if in the process he is permitted to say a few words about it, one of my colleagues would like to do the same thing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is well taken. Actually, at this time there is no question before the House. The Chair has the option of putting motion No. 1 to the House if the hon. member wants to speak to it. If he does, then of course the Chair will have to allow other hon. members to speak to the motion.
I think it is an unfair practice under our normal procedures to take advantage of a motion being put and being the sole person to speak to it and then to withdraw it. That is not being fair to hon. members. Therefore I would ask the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) to make the choice. If the reason for withdrawing the motion at this time has to be explained in the House, then the Chair will have to allow other hon. members to comment on it.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the motion. As hon. members appreciate, those of us in the opposition

have perhaps extracted our pound of flesh, and I felt that it was not desirable or in the interests of the swift passage of this bill to proceed any further with the motion. With your permission and the permission of hon. members, I would request leave to withdraw motion No. 1.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we certainly would be agreeable to that. I think the withdrawal is far more sensible than the original motion.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we are also agreeable to that, but we certainly do not agree with the comment of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) that the suggested title of the bill was put in facetiously. In fact, I am somewhat disappointed it was withdrawn, because it probably more accurately describes the bill that we are going to be faced with on Tuesday than the present title.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the hon. member for St. Paul's. Does the House give unanimous consent that motion No. 1 standing in his name be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Atkey) withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The House will now revert to motion No. 20 standing in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang).


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) in dealing with the motion now before us. If I could summarize what he said, it would be in these few words-what real value is there in the notification section? The mere fact that the minister asked that question indicates a great deal to this House.


Otto Emil Lang: I also showed the cost.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We know the minister is concerned with cost. I am sure we all are, but many of us are very concerned with rights. I can understand the minister's approach to this subject, Mr. Speaker, when he asked the question, what value has notification, because anyone who asks that does not really understand what the right to privacy means. The right to privacy is a substantive right, and when the government or the Crown or the police take away that right from an innocent citizen, surely the very least that could be done is to notify the citizen that his rights have been attacked and taken away. That is what the committee said and said very wisely.
It is interesting that there was some concern within the NDP caucus some time ago about the bugging on a Wednesday of a private caucus meeting of our party. In that case the CTV at least had the decency to notify us that they had illegally intercepted our deliberations.


Otto Emil Lang: When they were caught.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Not when they were caught, Mr. Speaker: I think they notified us out of a sheer question of the morality of the issue. I am surprised that the minister takes the position he does with regard to this particular
November 29, 1973

amendment, because it is the simple, moral and decent thing to do to notify a private citizen whose conversations have been intercepted, and intercepted legally under the bill. I have heard from the minister about the famous heroin case for about four days. I refer to the famous heroin case that was brought about through the use of wiretaps. I fail to see how this particular section to which the minister objects would have in any way impeded the success of that investigation, because section 178.23(2) (b) clearly provides:
where the Attorney General of the province in which the application is made or the Solicitor General of Canada, as the case may be, certifies within the said 90 days in a manner prescribed by regulations to the judge who granted the authorization that the investigation is continuing and the judge is of the opinion that the interests of justice require that a delay of a determinate reasonable length be granted, in which case the judge may grant a determinate reasonable delay.
It is very clear, Mr. Speaker, that the case the minister has presented to the House is that this section would have created difficulty. It would have created no difficulty at all. The real issue is that the minister does not want to go to the judge. It is an inconvenience, it is a nuisance to go to the judge. We on this side of the House do not consider it a nuisance or an inconvenience, and we have confidence in the judiciary of this country to exercise its rights fairly and properly for the protection of the citizens of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I do not have too much to add. Certainly we in this party vigorously oppose the attempt to destroy the good work of the committee. I fail to see the logic of the minister's argument on this. This is a rather vital section for those of us who believe that privacy is a substantive right and the Crown, the government or anybody can only take that right away under very special and extreme circumstances. This is not, obviously, the view that the minister takes. It is interesting that in the 1400s it was an offence in England to eavesdrop. They were very wise then. This is the right that we should all protect, Mr. Speaker, and we in this party certainly hope this motion fails when it comes to a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the minister takes such a callous attitude toward this particular section. He and his officials had ample warning that the committee was very likely to move in the way it did on the matter of notice. The committee studying the bill this time recommended notice, and the committee studying the bill the last time around recommended that notice be given. During second reading many hon. members begged the minister to consider this recommendation. I did so at the time because I knew that the draftsmen at the minister's disposal would put the matter of notice in accurate language to cover the sense of the former committee's recommendation and also what many of us felt should be incorporated into the law.
When the minister appeared before the committee, many of us again urged upon him the need to provide legislative language to cover this notice provision. It should not be any surprise at all to the minister that the committee
Protection of Privacy
decided, or redecided if you like, that some notice of this invasion of a substantive right had to be given if the thrust of the act, which the minister claims is a great advance in the law, was to be given effect.
There have been many allusions to Watergate over the past few weeks. I am not going to delay proceedings very much by recounting all the shabbiness of that event. But I think the attention of hon. members should be drawn, if they have not seen it already, to an article by Morton Halperin, who is known to some people in this capital and who was a consultant to the U.S. Secretary of State, Dr. Henry Kissinger.
In the New York Times of May 31, Morton and Ina Halperin wrote an article entitled "The outrage of wiretaps". The article speaks of the wiretap placed on their telephone. Actually, the wiretap was continued even after Mr. Halperin had left the employ of the government of the United States. The wiretap first went on when he was an adviser to the presidential candidate, George McGovern. It is a poignant article, a sad article, a miserable article, because it tells the grubby story of people who have no respect for privacy.
We all, of course, give credit where it is due in the famous heroin case. But for every heroin case there are many Halperins in this world. In the case of the Halperins, the grandmother was ill. Those who were listening heard the request for medical assistance; heard the chatter of the Halperin children as they called back and forth to their friends; heard the conversation of husband and wife as they asked each other to do chores that all of us are asked to do in the ordinary family context.
It is because of such outrages that we need the notice provision. Other members may be bothered by other aspects of this bill. What has bothered me is this: the citizen who has been subject to a wiretap should have some notice of it if no prosecution results. This is the fourth time that we have asked for this notice provision to be included. The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs asked for this notice. I was very reassured by the speech of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) and I hope that once again the majority of members of this House will, when the deferred vote on this matter comes up next Tuesday, support the considered decision taken by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in 1973, and taken a couple of years ago when the matter was before us then.
In this case, as in other cases when the minister has been willing to make accommodation, I hope we can come to an accommodation on the urgent, important and serious matter of giving notice to one who has been subject to intrusion, subject to outrage, but who has not been prosecuted as a result of that outrage. I am urging hon. members to stand firm on this provision, as the committee did. I am glad to say that members of my party and of the NDP were supported on this issue by other liberal Liberals.
The minister likes to talk across the floor about my being in an ivory tower, and so on. I have long since ceased being bothered by epithets. Perhaps once in a while I am in an ivory tower. Perhaps once in a while it is time for an ordinary member of parliament who is not carrying

November 29, 1973
Protection of Privacy
a brief for any particular group in society but is carrying it, hopefully, for all society, to bring forward amendments to a statute like this in the manner I have suggested, because if the bill were left in its original form it would not be a good piece of legislation but would be legislation which the minister and the government would live to regret.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, an hon. member speaking on another motion suggested that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) is competent but rigid. The more I see him in operation, the more I think that statement is true. A standing committee in a previous parliament made a recommendation which the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs saw fit to incorporate in this legislation. However, the Minister of Justice has got his deputy ministers busy again in trying to undo the work of the committee. That makes me very sad and underlines the minister's rigidity.
It was the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) who gave the thrust and strength to the particular amendment we are considering. I recall well that in early meetings it was he who saw the injustice of certain provisions that were included in the bill when it went to committee. The Minister of Justice, I think, called the hon. member for Fundy-Royal a man in an ivory tower and an impractical ideologist.


Otto Emil Lang: I did not do that.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I prefer the ivory tower, impractical idealist for Fundy-Royal at any time to the Minister of Justice who has such rigid attitudes. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal senses the true meaning of this bill and he wants to give full protection to all Canadians. I know the Minister of Justice has often spoken about the famous heroin case. I suggest that he told students about this when he was dean of the law school out west.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He may be out
there again next year.


John Gilbert: He tries to use his experiences with the heroin case, or with rape cases or what have you, to terrify members and put fear into their hearts. That is not worthy of the Minister of Justice.
I now wish to refer the words of a learned judge, Mr. Justice Louis Brandeis of the United States, who said on this point that experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel the invasion of their liberty by evil-minded movers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. Those are appropriate words of a very learned judge.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party may I say that we are very proud to see someone of the stature and experience of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal serving as a member of this House and, more especially, as a member of the committee. He certainly gave the committee leadership. He is concerned about the protection of the public and he has pointed to the direction in which we should go. The minister may say the hon. member lives in an ivory

tower. I suggest it would be better if the minister were to take a less rigid stance, as I think his present attitude detracts from his strength. I have always considered the minister as a person who could give moral leadership. In this instance he has fallen short of his potential. Fortunately, there are members like the hon. member for Fundy-Royal who can give us leadership.
We of the NDP will strongly oppose the motion moved by the minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister should withdraw.


Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise and support the position taken by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). Too often in the annals of this country, not only in parliament but in society generally, all too few people will take a strong philosophical view. Perhaps the minister will say "ideological" or he may refer to an ivory tower. I suggest the minister lives in an ivory tower. I point my hand to where the ivory is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Trevor Morgan: As we progress in this nation we must hold true the rights of the individual. We must not let them be sacrificed and suffer because it is easier to do something else, because it is easier to just ignore the little man. We have a responsibility to the average citizen to make sure he sees that justice is done. Surely it is the obligation of any government with any commonweal or brotherhood with the citizens of this country to know what is in the best interests of the people. They have the resources at their command. They have a bureaucracy which has grown beyond all sense of reality. We talk about that reality, and they talk about the hon. member for Fundy-Royal being nothing more than a pure idealist. I wish the two could be put together and they could be a little more idealistic in the way they run the affairs of this country. It is only right and natural that the position taken by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal should be adopted by this House. If we do not do that, we disregard the people for whom we act.
We talk about law and order. That is supposed to be the hue and cry which is put up by this government to try to jam down the throats of the members of this House the amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). That law is not meant for the average individual. How do you expect to have order unless the government assumes a proper stature which inspires order? What the minister is doing is inviting a situation which decries the law and order which is so necessary in this country. If you adopt the position taken by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, you will initiate this essential feeling in the average man, inspiring him to respect the law. Through respect for the law, you generate order. This is the only way it can possibly be done.
There are many fundamental issues involved in this matter. I do not intend to talk about them tonight. In dealing with legislation like this we must take a fundamental approach to what is required if we are to build up
November 29, 1973

what we believe to be a democratic process, a rule of law. That is what is necessary. Sometimes this government forgets they should be operating under the rule of law. No democratic system can work without it. If they start to ignore that principle, which they do, and decry the position taken by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, they forget about the rule of law. That is the fastest way to destroy this democratic institution of which we all should be proud.
If the position taken by the hon. member to whom I previously referred is ignored, we start to chip away at the principles which we here spend hours to protect. Thousands and thousands of lives have been lost to obtain these rights. You do not deal with this matter lightly. You do not say that is idealism or ivory tower stuff. You do not do it that loosely or that easily. Surely we have learned something; hopefully we have. We begin to wonder, when amendments to this legislation are placed before us by the Minister of Justice. They do not do anything to enhance the rule of law, the democratic process or the stature of the Parliament of Canada. All they do is create a situation in which we have derision in the country. If you cannot protect the little people, you are entitled to suspect there will be derision for this parliament. We should all be proud of what we are here to do. The minister has to take a backward step, reconsider the matter and accept the position of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. Perhaps this is what is required. It will take a big man to withdraw.
Before entering this chamber I held the minister in high esteem. However, after seeing what has happened to this legislation in the hands of this minister, perhaps I should take a second look at the esteem in which I hold this minister. I feel rather badly. I suggest the minister can be a big man. He can prove that to this House. If the words of the last two speakers have any meaning to the minister, I suggest he must withdraw. I hope he will do so, not only out of respect for parliament but for the people of this country for whom he is the Minister of Justice. If justice is to be done, this is the position he should take.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is on motion No. 20. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to the order made earlier this day, the recorded division on this motion stands deferred until Tuesday next.
Protection of Privacy
The House will now proceed to motion No. 22 standing in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: No. 22.
That Bill C-176, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be amended in clause 6 by adding immediately after line 10 at page 25 the following:
"(6) No warrant shall be issued by the Solicitor General of
Canada under this section unless an authorization to intercept
is obtained in the manner provided under Part 1V.1 of the
Criminal Code."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment will, I hope, commend itself to the House. It relates to the provision having to do with the Official Secrets Act. In the case of Criminal Code offences, provision was made in the bill for referral to the judiciary before authorization for wiretapping is given, except in the emergency clause. I am pleased that the minister has seen the light and presented the House with an amendment to ensure that even in the circumstances of this clause reference to a judge is necessary before wiretapping is authorized.
The amendment I am now proposing would require that all wiretapping, not merely wiretapping created as an offence under the Criminal Code, should require judicial approval. I believe the arguments in favour of such an amendment are very persuasive. I have practised law for some 16 years. All of us who have appeared before the courts have lost and won, but I have never felt I was unfairly dealt with in terms of the consideration shown me. I think all of us have the greatest respect for the courts and for the judiciary.
Why is it, then, that we lose confidence in our judges all of a sudden and say that when questions of security and the Official Secrets Act are concerned, this is too sensitive an area for them to be involved in? We all have friends and acquaintances in the judiciary, and in all my years in practice I have never met a member of the bench to whom I would not entrust the kind of confidential information which would need to be disclosed before an authorization would be issued.
As we have proceeded in our consideration of this bill, each time the judiciary has been eliminated from the process it has been brought back again. The judiciary is a great bulwark of civil liberties in this country and I see no necessity of bypassing the judges in matters connected with the Official Secrets Act. Under the notification provision we have arranged for special reference to the judiciary. Under the emergency provision the same applies; and, of course, there has always been provision for reference to the judiciary in the main authorization clause. I hope the House will now take this final step and make the necessary improvement to the bill so that the rule of law may prevail throughout. Surely if we want the rule of law to prevail we rely on the judiciary to enforce the law.
We in this party have been critical of the bill before us. If there are to be abuses, then mark my words those abuses will arise through invocation of the Official Secrets Act because its terms are indefinite-the definition of "subversion" is fluid. A tremendous amount of discretion

November 29, 1973
Protection of Privacy
is left in the hands of the minister. In fact, far more discretion is left in the hands of the Solicitor General under the Official Secrets Act than rests in the hands of the Attorneys General under the Criminal Code. Thus, this is one of the most dangerous areas in terms of invasion of privacy that can be found in the legislation. Yet up to this point the House has not seen fit to rely on the judiciary.
Why should we not wish to protect innocent victims of wiretapping carried out under the cloak of the Official Secrets Act? The argument that this is a special area is based on one premise-the judiciary cannot be trusted to deal with applications under this clause. This attitude is, in my view, an insult to the judiciary. We should be placing our confidence in the discretion of the judges and their ability to protect the liberty of the subject. I urge the House to amend this clause by providing the same protection to the citizen in the area of the Official Secrets Act as has been in respect of the Criminal Code.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I thought members on the government benches, which are bursting with ministers signing their mail and backbenchers reading the papers, would probably wish to take part in a serious discussion on this important issue. But if they want us to go on-


John Napier Turner: We are listening.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Perhaps it is time for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to listen.


Marc Lalonde: There are only two Tories in the House. Where are the rest?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, when the time comes to account for actions taken in this House, the one I am most ashamed of is the vote on second reading in favour of the War Measures Act. I will always be glad that I changed my mind on third reading because I found there was no possibility of the government providing any adequate appeal procedures. I think that was one of the saddest chapters in our history.


Thomas Miller Bell: They were after votes then.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: That is why I think we are dealing now with an important clause. An interesting study has just been completed in the United Kingdom, on the subject of the Official Secrets Act, under the distinguished chairmanship of Lord Franks. The trouble is, when I ordered a copy from Information Canada they did not know for some time whether it would be possible to give me a copy of the report because they were not sure whether or not it was secret.
We in Canada caused a study to be made of the Official Secrets Act. It was disappointing failure. It produced a report which made no substantial recommendations for reform in this, one of the most outmoded sections of the law. In Britain they are moving toward a fundamental revision of the Official Secrets Act. As far as I can see, this whole matter of the government wanting secrecy had its origin late in the seventeenth century or the early part of the eighteenth century when governments thought it very

important that advice they were getting both on the home front and from abroad should be a matter of secrecy.
Just a year ago when I was in New York at a seminar on the matter of secrecy, a person in the United States government said that there were some 4.5 billion pieces of paper in a facility somewhere near Washington which were secret and classified documents. It seems to me, as a simple layman, that this mass of documentation in itself, if sought for the purposes of research by scholars and other interested persons, would be practically impossible to obtain.
I hope this government will soon convene another study group to take a very searching look at the Official Secrets Act of Canada with the expectation that it will be able to follow some of the advice on this matter given by the Franks commission in Britain. I share in a personal way the view of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), that it is not a bad idea for government-I say this although I have the greatest amount of respect for professional and political people-should take a second look at emergency situations. I think the people to whom I refer let Canada down in an unfortunate way. We had a major reaction, very much overblown, and I am still very sad about the vote I cast.
That is why I would prefer, personally, to leave this matter to judicial scrutiny, because I think there can be involved in government programs people who would not be prepared, or not able, to place before judicial officers sufficient support for their points of view in order to sustain a judicial order. The situation to which I referred exposed as a very sad part of contemporary Canadian history an unfortunate reaction on the part of governments which sought to avoid the judicial process. This has happened on one or two other occasions. I cannot remove the scar of the War Measures Act from my conscience.


Albanie Morin: You should have been the prime minister of the province of Quebec; then you would have thought differently.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I have had a lot of compliments tonight, but I think the hon. member's colleagues said that even though my French is not very good, at least I had a bilingual mind, which would qualify me for the prime ministership of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: If you lived in Quebec.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Had I been the prime minister of Quebec I do not think I would have invoked the War Measures Act; and had I been the prime minister of Canada I hope I would not have invoked the provisions of that act. Be that as it may, I think this is a time for soul-searching.


An hon. Member:: I would hope that you do.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I hope the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) will give us another example tonight of the type of speech she made on another occasion. Speaking quite frankly, what she said caused a cold chill to run down my spine, and I know as a personal matter that it
November 29, 1973

embarrassed a good many of her colleagues. I suggest that she exemplified a reaction of anti-unionism and many other things that, if I were not an old-fashioned gentleman from New Brunswick, I might accuse her of because I thought it was one of the most reactionary speeches I have heard in this House. If she wants to give us another example, I will listen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Hon. members may laugh, but many of the hon. member's colleagues were not very happy about the example of Liberalism we were treated to the other night. If the minister has a question, I will be glad to defer to him.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member how, in view of his reference to the remarks of the hon. member, he gets along with some of the members of his own caucus?


Thomas Miller Bell: How do you get along with the NDP at your caucus?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I do not get along with every member of my caucus, and I think it would be a very unusual and boring caucus if I did. I had not thought a caucus was the place for a love fest. I find a caucus very challenging in trying to persuade people I do not happen to agree with, and it is one of the most stimulating activities that one takes part in here. Apparently the hon. member does not have any trouble with the members of his caucus. If he could get along with Beryl Plumptre as well as he gets along with his own caucus, God bless him for that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And God help
us.


Walter David Baker: And God help the country.


An hon. Member:: Are there any more questions?


Walter David Baker: What is the next question?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: If the hon. member wishes to ask a question, I will be glad to listen to him.


An hon. Member:: At least we had music during the question period.


Otto Emil Lang: Would you like more violins?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It is a good thing I have a check-rein on my emotions. I hope the minister will reply to my remarks because I would be delighted to have my position challenged.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I waited with interest to hear what the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr.Fairweather) would say. Having heard the kind of remarks made by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), I knew the hon. member would have to make some reply. He was pressed, pressed and pressed by that hon. member in this House. I was not completely sure whether he was supporting the motion moved in the name
Protection of Privacy
of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). I found this interesting in one respect because a couple of his colleagues suggested that it is a terrible insult to come into this House and move an amendment to restore a position which had been taken by the committee. This was a position taken in the committee which friends of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal felt was important.
It has been suggested that what was involved here is a matter to be treated in this country in a very careful way. If that is what is involved in this particular section of the act, then I suggest there may be an inadvertent attempt to destroy one of the very foundations of this country and that attempt could well be avoided. It is my feeling that this section was carefully written to ensure that the responsibilities of the Solicitor General in connection with any attempts to obtain evidence are observed. It was also written in recognition of the fact that it is important to the state that these side efforts to destroy the state should not be allowed to continue.
I know I have said this before, but the remarks I make in response to what has been said by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal existing in an ivory tower were made because I have had the same kind of thing said about me. So I thought I would put it forward to him and some of his colleagues, although some of his colleagues clearly qualify.
The fact is that we must look at the practical situation we are in. Here is a case where if the security of the state itself is threatened, we must expect to take appropriate action with regard to it. The hon. member's colleague, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey), recognized this in a section with which we were dealing earlier by carefully treating specially and separately each proceeding that is carried out under cover of the Official Secrets Act. There was there at least a recognition of the fact that where thebe is espionage, sabotage or subversive activities, or where there is a most organized attempt to destroy the basis of the state, sometimes very special measures are needed.
The thing that disturbs me about the attitude of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal is his willingness to share in a doubt about the importance of the integrity of people in elected political office, as though our political process could survive unless we could bring forth elected people in our political process who could have that confidence placed in them. He is making a terrible mistake when he turns to any other country or any other example and says it does not work there, and therefore we must do something differently here. I think the hon. member has shown a lack of confidence, in this way, in the political process. We did, in the committee, make an important change in this area. We had an attitude which is now being characterized as rigid. We put forward, at the request of hon. members in the committee, changes which redefined the words "espionage", "sabotage" and other specific or subversive activities.
It was the hon. member for Fundy-Royal who indicated that basically he saw the need of this kind of section but he wanted those words more precisely defined. We did so in the committee, and that now is being characterized as some form of rigidity. We know that is the kind of politi-

November 29, 1973
Protection of Privacy
cal remark that is made by members of the opposition when they have nothing to say. They accuse ministers of being rigid, arrogant or overzealous; and when they find a minister who is not arrogant, rigid, or overzealous they call him weak-kneed, feeble and otherwise unable to stand firm in the face of adversity. Those are the different possibilities they find. Let us see that clearly and understand that they are political remarks, and not put them down to something else.
After all the violins for the hon. member for Fundy-Roy-al, I regret that he found it necessary to drop to that level tonight and resorted to that kind of tactic once again. The hon. member for St. Paul's was in the committee. We not only made the move in respect of the definition of "subversive" activity in this context and in the context of a section where we saw the special need to protect the state and have the Solicitor General take the responsibility for it, but we added a further section, a section which I placed before the committee and asked to be moved and approved which called for the Solicitor General to make a detailed report on the activity under this part which had not previously been included in the bill and which had not been suggested originally by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. We now, once again, have the responsibility and undertaking of the Solicitor General for the warrant, in the first place, and the responsibility to report in detail on the activities under this section.
With the political responsibility that is involved, that should have been recognized by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal as being adequate to better protect our country and our freedoms. However, with the sound of violins playing in his ears, he failed to appreciate that. I hope other members have seen it and will fail to support the motion of the hon. member for New Westminster and will, instead, support the basic need in this country to have at certain times certain measures to take care of the very existence of the state and the very freedoms and liberties which we all defend.


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of a great Canadian athlete-a man who had a tremendous hockey career in Toronto, Detroit, and now in Montreal, and whom we honoured last night in Montreal. I refer to Frank Mahovlich.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) is assisted by every member of this House on his point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, he scores a good deal more often than any member of the government. I never cease to be amazed at the gall of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) in purporting to rise, as he did a minute ago, to object to the way in which we have berated ministers on the treasury benches for their shortcomings. He is an expert at that. He has proven it time and time again in his two portfolios. I am glad to see his predecessor is here tonight, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). I commend the speech he made in 1969. I fully endorse everything he said at that time.

It is a pity the Minister of Justice did not follow the precepts set forth by the minister of justice of that day. I doubt whether he even read the speech, otherwise we would not be seeing such terrible legislation before us as there is in this bill. I see the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has left his seat-although his seat gives every appearance of being ready to be occupied again. I hope he comes back because I want to say something about responsibilities under his jurisdiction.
However, before doing so let me say I am opposed to this section in its entirety and not only to the amendment that has been advanced. I do not think any great improvement has been brought about by the amendment made in committee, which has attempted to confine the operation of the section to so-called matters of national security. The section as it stands gives the Solicitor General absolute power to issue a warrant or intercept communications when those communications effect a subversive activity or the gathering of foreign intelligence essential to the security of Canada. Subsection (3) of this section attempts to set forth a definition of subversive activity. It includes espionage or sabotage and foreign intelligence activities directed toward gathering intelligence information relating to Canada, and activities directed toward accomplishing governmental change within Canada or elsewhere by force, violence or any criminal means. The word "elsewhere" concerns me a good deal in a piece of Canadian legislation.
The next part deals with activities directed to an actual or potential attack or activity against Canada. No one can quarrel with that. The last part has to do with activities of a foreign terrorist group directed toward the commission of terrorist acts in or against Canada. That is a very broad definition that could include all sorts of so-called organizations in Canada which have as their objective precisely that. But let me backtrack for a moment to subclause (c) which includes in the definition of subversive activities, activities directed toward accomplishing governmental change within Canada or elsewhere by force or violence or any criminal means.
In effect, the section is authorizing the Solicitor General to issue a warrant for the purpose of intruding on the conversations or in the mail of anyone in or out of government if this is all that is required, if they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that someone is conducting activities directed toward accomplishing government change anywhere in the world. This seems to me to be a breathtaking power to be giving to the Solicitor General. All that is necessary, for instance, for the invocation of this clause and the granting of a warrant is the request by the CIA or by any other intelligence service in the country to the Canadian Solicitor General to intrude upon the communications emanating from any Canadian citizen because they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that some activity is being conducted by that Canadian citizen, government employee or otherwise, which might have the effect of causing a governmental change within the country. It could happen in the case of Chile, it could happen in the case of the United States or of China-indeed, any country in the world. That kind of
November 29, 1973

unbridled power in the hands of the Solicitor General in completely unacceptable in my view.
When I placed on the order paper some months ago the series of questions with respect to the Police and the Security Planning and Analysis Group falling within the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General, a great number of eyebrows were raised on the other side as to the inferential information which was contained in the questions themselves. I stated last night that one can only wonder at the reason for the government not denying immediately and with emphasis the possibility of the existence through the Defence Research Board of surveillance capabilities at Shirley's Bay of the whole of the Ottawa telephone system. But they got around that.
I see the Minister of Justice smiling. It is permitted to speak of these things now. But I ask the Minister of Justice this: If there is no such plan and no such capability, why does the government seek refuge in reply to that question by saying that it is not in the interests of national security to discuss these matters? They should have set everyone at ease immediately by saying that it does not exist. But the inference in the reply is that it does exist, and I maintain it exists, perhaps not in that location any longer but it is there. Now we want to give the Solicitor General the power, without any control whatsoever except for the requirement to report after the fact, to implement the whole system. I, for one Canadian, resent the extent to which that would intrude upon not only my privacy but my freedom.
We heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) say today that an investigation has been conducted into leaks with respect to certain communications between a Canadian official in Chile and the public. They have conducted that investigation and they think they have zeroed in on the person who was responsible for the leak. Under this clause in the bill, the Solicitor General could issue a warrant which would authorize the interception of communications on the telephone of every single employee in the Department of External Affairs or, indeed, in any government department, in order to determine where that leak originated. Indeed, they could go further than that and if there was the slightest reasonable "ground to believe" that perhaps it might be some civil servant who has left the service and is now in civilian life once again, they could intercept his communications, and on and on it could go. No citizen would be free from the intrusion of this kind of power without any judicial control.
In 1969 the minister spoke of controls. He spoke of the necessity to balance the need for giving the law enforcement agencies in this country effective means to cope with lawbreakers. That is balanced against the law and order concept and the right of the individual to privacy and freedom without intrusion into his private affairs. I ask him now whether this clause in particular, and this bill as a whole, would provide that kind of guarantee to the Canadian citizen that there will be no intervention in his private affairs to the extent which this bill seeks.
Again, on April 3, 1973, I put a series of questions on the order paper. The government in their answers hid behind the following phrase:
Protection of Privacy
It is not considered in the public interest for reasons of national security to disclose the details of security and intelligence activities.
If that kind of question can be answered in that manner, what kind of report, I ask, are we to expect from the Solicitor General under the clause in this bill? We will get the kind of report, should this clause pass in its present form, that will hide all relevant reasons for the application in the first place and all relevant reasons for the granting of any warrant. The phrase that will be used, if we from the opposition inquire about it if we ask why, when, how, or who was involved is that the information requested is not returnable by the government for reasons of national security. That is the answer we will get.
I join my friend, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), in his view with respect to the October crisis. I, too, voted in favour of the implementation of the War Measures Act, but in my 16 years here that is the most shameful vote I ever cast. We were assured by the now Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and by the now Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), as well as by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), that full disclosure would be made of the basis upon which the War Measures Act was invoked. Much to the credit of the Minister of Finance, he was the one, I understand, who prevented that act from continuing in force after the date of its expiration. I congratulate him for that, in spades.


Albanie Morin: You do not understand.


Erik Nielsen: I only understand the concept of retaining the freedom of the citizen. I cannot give the precise figures now, but at one time a few months ago I had them down to the unit. Of the hundreds of arrests that were made after the invocation of that measure, precious few-in fact, only seven-were brought to trial out of some 400 or 500 arrests and detentions of people kept incommunicado and without benefit of counsel. And of those seven I do not think there was a single conviction.


Albanie Morin: Did you witness the event?


Erik Nielsen: Now the government wants to give the Solicitor General the same kind of power.


Albanie Morin: Again you don't understand.


Erik Nielsen: Again there was no justification whatsoever for that intrusion on freedom, for which I speak on your behalf as well. Mr. Speaker, I did that which the Prime Minister did not do, although he could have, and that was to spend ten years, four of them on active service, fighting to preserve the very freedom I am speaking about tonight. Maybe it is he who does not understand what motivated people to go to Europe in the last war and fight for these very things. Just maybe, perhaps it is he who does not understand.


Otto Emil Lang: You should have worn a helmet.


Erik Nielsen: And what is more, the real reason-


Mr. Crouse:: Erik, he says you should have worn a helmet.

November 29, 1973
Protection of Privacy


Erik Nielsen: That is very true. I did not wear a helmet, if the minister means it in the classical sense of a metal helmet. But I did wear a helmet in the aircraft I flew. I certainly did not wear the kind of helmet the Prime Minister was wearing, riding around on a motorcycle in Montreal, advocating that people not go to Europe to fight for freedom in this country. I can say, further, that I added a year to my age to get into the forces; I did not lose two of them to stay out.
The only purpose for the invocation of that measure, and its only accomplishment, was to seize-


Mr. Olivier:: You are a stranger in the night.


Erik Nielsen: I cannot hear the member.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: I say you are a stranger in the night.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member says I am a stranger in the night. The hon. member for Louis-Hebert says I don't understand. When those two members over there can say they have lived in every province and territory in this country, as I have, then they can criticize me for not understanding. But until then let them be silent.


An hon. Member:: New Brunswick got rid of you.


Erik Nielsen: I am afraid I did not originate in New Brunswick.


Otto Emil Lang: Who got rid of you first?


Erik Nielsen: The only purpose the invocation of that measure served was to gather reams and reams of paper and documentation. I must say it succeeded admirably in that. I must say it is to the advantage of the nation to have that kind of documentation of subversive activity; but it was a hell of a way to go about getting it-to invade the privacy of homes in the middle of the night and arrest and detain people under that kind of measure. But that was the purpose of it. And we have never had any explanation, on any basis, for its invocation since then. Hon. members opposite know that, because even the media have come around to criticizing themselves for supporting it.


Albanie Morin: You must know why they did that.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps the hon. member will explain when she addresses herself to this subject. I would like to learn.


Albanie Morin: Don't tell me you blame the media.


Erik Nielsen: I would be the last one to blame or criticize the media, but I have occasional observations to make with respect to its accuracy. It is a night for true confessions. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal has confessed his, I have confessed mine, and several members of the media have confessed with respect to the position they took at that time.
I see the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) grinning in his seat. He was the minister who followed the senator who preceded him, who is now in the other place. I say this about that hon. gentleman, that as long as he was solicitor general he resisted the setting up of the security planning and analysis group. He did not permit it to

happen, because he knew of the dangers inherent in that kind of secret police force in this country. Then he was shunted aside. He sat on the front benches for a while, not on the treasury benches, and then was lateralled into that place where all party faithful eventually are lateralled- the other place. After that, the Minister of Supply and Services became the solicitor general, and it was with the greatest alacrity that the security planning and analysis group came into being because he knew he had to go along with the ideas of the Prime Minister on this, and with that small cadre of people who surrounded him, with respect to the philosophy of the establishment of this group.


Mr. Goyer:: What about your own reseau of information?


Erik Nielsen: I did not hear the question, so I cannot reply. But I will say that that group would never have been established under a Conservative government; and I still say there is no need for such a police force in this country. The Minister of Supply and Services and the Solicitor General can try until they are blue in the face to assure me, others on this side of the House and other Canadians outside it, that this group does not perform police work, when in fact it does. They take refuge behind the explanation that it is not an operations group, that it conducts no investigations. But, Mr. Speaker, all they need do is lift the telephone to the RCMP and say, "Look here, old Joe Blow down there in the reserve in Saskatchewan is giving a little trouble and we think it may be aimed at subverting the government of Canada." And bang! He has an intercept on him right away under this provision in the bill.
The minister shakes his head as though this is not true. I have a memo here, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to cite the date or the author. But I will cite the recipient of it, W. J. Davbos-Lieutenant-Colonel Davbos. It is entitled "Social defence and the Indian." It is quite a lengthy memo, of several pages. There is outlined in it the threat to Canadian security that is being offered-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but his 20 minutes have expired. He may, however, continue if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Erik Nielsen: You don't want to hear it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert).


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed at the members of the Liberal Party not permitting the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to proceed with his speech. I always believed the Liberal Party was thought of as the great reform party. Now I am beginning to think of it as the great reactionary party. After hearing the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) and the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin), who have been the two main Liberal spokesmen at the report stage of this bill, I can only come to the conclusion that the
November 29, 1973

party's name has been changed to that of the great reactionary party.
I recall hearing the story one night of a young Jewish rabbi, just graduated from the seminary, who went to the old rabbi and asked, "Would you give me some advice?" The old rabbi replied, "You go down in the market place of life for a while. That is the best advice I can give you." When I look at the Minister of Justice I realize that his training and experience have been in law school. When I compare him with a former minister of justice, I note the difference. That former minister not only had the academic experience but the practical experience.
If I had anything to do with the training of law professors I would make it a requirement that they go into the marketplace of life before becoming professors. And I would pass that suggestion on to the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) also. If people like that want to become fully fledged professors, there should be a requirement that they go into the practice of law for at least five or six years to get the real touch of things.
It may be that we in this party and our friends in the Conservative Party would not be calling future ministers of justice arrogant, overzealous, rigid, inflexible, and so forth. That may be the result, Mr. Speaker, and I think it would be an excellent result because every measure that has been brought forth, every motion to improve the bill, has met with tremendous resistence from the Minister of Justice. There has almost been an apology from the hon. member from Windsor-Walkerville who has hopped from one side of the House to the other with his compromise amendments to the motions. It has been a rather disappointing display on the part of government members.
I think the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has set forth some of the dangers. I might add that I am very happy that we made sure that any authorization under the bill will be by way of an application to a judge. When the former minister of justice had conduct of a bill similar to this, it was his attitude that there should be political accountability and that the application should be made to the attorney general. I went along with that and saw the wisdom of it. After the experience we have had in the debate on second reading and the debate in committee, I think it is protection to people that the application for an authorization has to be made to the judge. This is the conclusion I have come to after our experience in committee, with the resistance and the inflexible attitude of the Minister of Justice in regard to this matter.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon set forth the dangers. If we can make it a requirement that the police must get judicial authorization for an indictable offence, and we now know the list of offences that they have to apply or which gives them the authority to apply, I see no reason why the same should not apply with regard to national security. I appreciate the strong point that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) made with regard to the War Measures Act. One of the things that has had the strongest impact on my life was the action taken by the Liberal government in the days of Mackenzie King when it passed legislation to deport Japanese Canadians. As my hon. friend from Winnipeg North
Protection of Privacy
Centre (Mr. Knowles) says, it was an order in council. If there is anything that made me a socialist, it was that particular action by the Liberal government.
I recall, as well, the former prime minister, Mr. Pearson, having to tell the RCMP to lay off university students on the campuses. This was because of the overzealous attitude of the RCMP with regard to subversive matters. In this instance, the first minister of the Crown had to tell the RCMP to stop their harassment of university students.
I see nothing wrong in having the Solicitor General make an application to a judge for an order with regard to national security-nothing wrong whatsoever. The minister says that this is a very sensitive area, and I agree. But the sensitiveness of the area can be taken care of quite easily in the affidavit that would be submitted. Mr. Speaker, the application is ex parte and the content of the affidavit can be taken care of quite easily. There should not be any difficulty whatsoever. This would be a protection and would add to the prestige of the Solicitor General.
We have found the present Solicitor General to be very fair-minded, co-operative and understanding. I think it would add to his prestige and the security and protection of Canadians if he were to agree that whenever an application is made for an authorization, it should be by way of a judge rather than by way of the RCMP. It would impose a great responsibility on the Solicitor General-far too great a responsibility because there is a political element attached to national security measures. I would think it wise to accept the motion of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) that the application for authorization must be made to the judge. It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that we give full endorsement to the motion of the hon. member for New Westminster.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on this matter for a few moments. I listened while the former dean of a law school took his academic podium and lectured a former attorney general of a province, who also has some experience in the law as well as experience in this House, about his attitude with respect to ministers of the Crown. Although I have not taken much part in this debate, having consulted with those in this party who have taken part in it, and having sat through most of it in the House, I want to say that in the last few days we have been dealing with a bill that affects every Canadian. We have had from the Attorney General of this country perhaps one of the worst examples of rigidity, arrogance and overzealousness, and as a result of holding for too long positions which were untenable in the interests of justice this Attorney General has been made to capitulate. I think the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) was right when he suggested that he is not like the former attorney general, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) who, while I have some doubts about his capabilities as Minister of Finance, I have absolutely none with respect to his abilities as Minister of Justice. There is as much difference between that last mentioned gentleman and the present Attorney General as there is between night and day.
I was not in this House during the "October crisis", as it is called, but I was a very concerned and observant Canadian. I accepted at the time, on representations made

November 29, 1973
Protection of Privacy
by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), that there was indeed an insurrection, that there was indeed a possibility of a toppling of the instruments of government, a real threat to government and a real threat to our way of life. As time went on it became apparent that people were being held in custody incommunicado, without counsel, without the usual things that protect all Canadians, and without charges being laid. Doubts began to appear in the newspapers and doubts began to arise in my mind about whether the government had used in a proper manner the power which it has in the statute books of this country.
As time went on, people were released, some with their lives ruined, some with their businesses ruined, and only a few were ever brought to trial. Then the press of this country said that they, too, doubted the veracity of the government in the earlier assertions that were made and I began to wonder what had happened to our community. As a member of the Bar of the province of Ontario, I am going to say that if the Law Society of this province and other provinces had been as zealous with respect to the protection of civil liberties as they were in arguing about the right of a person to blow into a breathalyzer, perhaps some different complexion might have been put on this matter.
Doubts on these questions have lingered in my mind and, I am satisfied, in the mind of a former attorney general in this country. He, unlike the Minister of Justice, was a practising member of the Bar before he came to this place. For a time he practised while he was a member. He has seen in the courtroom and in other places the tremendous power of the state used in the apprehension and prosecution of criminals, and the relative difficulties experienced by people caught in the toils of the law. When bills seek to confer emergency powers without recourse or redress, any member of parliament with any sense of justice must be concerned about the attitude of the government which is to administer the law. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) can be forgiven for looking with suspicion at certain sections of the act. He can be forgiven for his doubts about the validity of certain sections when he looks across the aisle and sees those who would administer the law.
The present Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) at one time was responsible for a different portfolio. He would counsel the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) with regard to any decision which would need to be taken with respect to the section we are considering. For that reason I am prepared to suggest that we should distinguish between ordinary crimes committed and those crimes which may be detrimental to the state. Of course, I am talking about offences which honestly, truly and obviously involve the security of Canada.
There should be differences with regard to the apprehension of ordinary criminals and those who would plot against the state. The government's record in making judgments of that sort is not good; actually, it is dreadful. So we can all be forgiven if we do not trust the government in the use of this section. We cannot be certain this government will not panic. We cannot trust the government not to use certain powers conferred but this bill for its own purposes. We have seen this government acting in

desperation not just in the 1970 incident, to which I am alluding but in other circumstances. It has reacted irrationally in other ways.
As the section we are considering would confer great power to deal with the freedom of individuals, but would not provide for any of the normal safeguards, we can be forgiven for being skeptical. Such tremendous power carries great responsibility. The degree of responsibility must be as great as the power which is being conferred. We do not trust the government with this power, and I am sure I speak for many members.
Of course, when the government apprehends a real attack, as opposed to a suspected attack, or the possibility of a real attack involving the security of the state then without doubt, as most members of this House would agree, the government ought to have at its disposal extraordinary powers for dealing with the situation. I suppose this particular section is designed to meet such conditions. But what worries me is this: the wording in the reporting provision of the bill is not strong enough. As the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) suggested, the whole truth will not be set out in reports which under this bill must be made from time to time. In this regard the relevant section to do with reporting speaks of "a general description". That refers to methods of interception. You can bet your bottom dollar that the emphasis will be on the general rather than on the specific description. Even if there is an opportunity to make specific disclosure, the government will avoid that opportunity like the plague.
Why do I guess that? I have heard government members avoiding answering even the simplest questions during the question period. Those questions do not even involve national security, although they do involve our economic health. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray), when asked simple questions, to do with inflation in this country, food prices, etc. has referred to that lightning-rod of Canadian politics, Beryl Plumptre, and suggested she will answer. Of course, she is not here in the House to answer.
Today I listened to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) waffling, if I may use that expression, in committee with respect to certain events which have occurred within Central Mortgage and Housing. There, again, we saw a member of the government evading the truth in committee. He was aided and abetted by partisan members of the committee who were afraid that the truth would be uncovered. That is what we face. That is the kind of thing which raises doubts as to how this part of the bill will be used once it becomes law.
Speaking for myself-I do not know if I speak for all -if I could choose the member of the treasury benches who would administer this bill without rigidity, without arrogance, but with understanding of the dreadful power contained in the bill, I would choose my neighbour, the former minister of justice who now is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). If the statement of the former minister of justice referred to at length by the hon. member for Yukon in the debate on November 28, represented that minister's position on the place of government in our society and the use of power, he is at least reasonably fit for the position which he held and which many in this country wish he held now.
November 29, 1973

Unfortunately, he is now responsible for another portfolio to do with monetary and fiscal affairs. He left his previous portfolio in which his strain of Irish goodness was able to show itself from time to time, and assumed responsibility for the portfolio in which a parsimonious attitude on behalf of the government must be exhibited. If he still occupied that portfolio, 1 suggest he would show a grasp of this problem much greather than his grasp of the problems to do with his present portfolio which have to do with economic, monetary and fiscal matters. I think the country suffered a bit because he left justice. It has certainly suffered because he went into finance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: None the less, he is my neighbour. Sometimes there is very little in my heart with which I can praise, but on that occasion in 1969 there was a great deal. I should reiterate this in the most neighbourly fashion I can muster.
As we consider this bill we should consider that it is a giant step forward in providing the police and public agencies for the first time with the right to legally and usefully use a system of detection which the law never before permitted. That in itself imposes a great responsibility on them. In order to control that responsibility, parliament has decided the judiciary has a place. That was a wise decision. When historians look back at this parliament they will agree that if we were going to give that power it was a wise move indeed to provide that kind of protection, a protection which I must say, to my regret, the Minister of Justice fought against until he was dragged away kicking and screaming. The courts indeed have a part to play in this new form of police power.
None of us wants to see the public authorities hampered in any way. We do not want to see the Attorney General hampered in any way with respect to the functions of his office. We do not want to see the police of this country put in any worse position technologically than the lowest criminal or, indeed, the highest of the order of criminals, if there is such an order. Every one of us wants to see the police armed to protect society against the works of those who would seek to bring it down.
At the same time as we are giving the police this power we are giving a responsibility to the courts to protect society. We are giving the law officers a certain power, in this clause, in extraordinary circumstances when the country is actually facing the possibility of destruction in terms of its political interests, with its enormous power which this parliament has seen fit to convey and confer upon the Solicitor General, the Attorney General and others involved in the decision-making process. With that power there is a heavy responsibility not to use it in a political way to destroy or divert those who are perhaps the enemies of the government of the day, but to use it properly, wisely, judiciously and honestly to track down only those who would destroy the government of our country rather than those who would merely question it.
I am prepared to recognize that under certain circumstances there is a difference between the common criminal and those who would destroy the state. I do that on the
Adjournment Debate
understanding that whatever power is given to any government of this country is not a licence to misuse that power for its own sake. When I heard the hon. member for Louis-Hebert the other day, my blood ran cold. If I had the honour of defending the Minister of Finance I would not even recommend her for his jury because I feel so badly about her speech. I read and reread that speech.


Albanie Morin: Oh, it impressed you, did it?


Walter David Baker: I wonder how one of such a gentle exterior can have dripping in her veins the ice that was apparent and will leak forever from the pages of Hansard.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired. If the House wishes, I will put the question on the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is not agreed. It has been called ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe this is the last of the report stage amendments. I wonder whether we could extend the time three or four minutes and complete this part of the work.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is correct that this is the last of the motions to be considered at the report stage. The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hear "No."


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there are other members of our party who have indicated a desire to speak.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ English)
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order No. 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, nutritional experts are taking a cautious view of the first findings of the Nutrition Canada survey. As one critic observed, it raises more questions than it provides answers and health experts do not know what to make of

November 29, 1973
Adjournment Debate
some of its findings. Its main point is that Canadians on the whole are badly nourished, regardless of their income level. To take this conclusion at its face value, particularly the latter part, would be a great mistake. There are too many qualifications which must be taken into account. For one thing, the survey does not seem to have made an in-depth study of the very poor, including many of the aged. For another, it has not to date included studies of the native Indian and Inuit peoples. For still another, it appears to overlook completely the findings of bodies such as the Montreal Catholic School Commission, 1972, and the National Council of Welfare, 1973, which found a close correlation between low income and malnutrition.
In its report "One child, one chance", the latter points out that while nutritional ignorance is common to rich and poor alike, those with an adequate income, often through overeating, are able to establish margins of nutritional safety. Those on low income are up against a situation where rising living costs force them to first meet fixed expenses such as rent, utilities and transportation. Food becomes the flexible item in the poor family's budget. What is left over from fixed expenses can be spent on food, a precarious approach to good nutrition.
It was the consideration of this fact that caused the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices to include in its first report to the House of Commons on April 2 of this year the following recommendation:
That the federal government, in co-operation with the various provincial governments, consider the feasibility of co-sponsored programs to get proper food on the tables of people with low income.
To my knowledge, the government has taken no action whatever on this recommendation. To our many inquiries it replied that the Canada Assistance Plan stands ready to fund 50 per cent of any such program proposed by any provincial government. That is not good enough. The members of the food prices committee were well aware of the Canada Assistance Plan when drafting that recommendation. We were well aware, also, that some of the provinces simply cannot afford to find 50 per cent of the costs of such programs to supply the nutritional needs of their people.
What we intended to press for, and what we still press for, is leadership from Ottawa and a greater share of the funding-up to 75 per cent or 100 per cent. The need is great. Many hon. members have by their questions lately drawn special attention to the heavy extra burden being placed on low income people by the rising cost of heating oil and motor fuel. These are costs which must be met but which cut into the amount left for buying food. And look what is happening to food prices. To give one single example, a letter from Saskatchewan today encloses the tops of two boxes of Creamettes macaroni. The boxes are identical-the two-pound family size. One was bought on August 24 and cost 45 cents; the other was bought on November 23 and the price had gone up to 65 cents, representing an increase of almost 45 per cent in just three months. Both were bought in the same O.K. Economy Store, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Loblaws.

Yes, I know about the increased cost of durum wheat, but I also know that macaroni is one of the food staples of the poor, a budget-stretcher, a substitute for the meat they cannot afford. Small comfort for these people to be faced by the confident image of the Loblaw manager who explains, "More than the price is right. But, by gosh, the price is right!"


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: It may be right for Loblaws, but it is wrong for the poor and it is wrong for the government which has the duty to protect their living standards. I am glad to see the minister in his place tonight. I want to ask him again: What is the government going to do about the recommendation of the food prices committee concerning the nutrition of people on low incomes?
[ Transla tion]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member. I know that she was there when I was called before the standing committee of this House which deals with the matter of food prices. I then said that those who wrote the report on nutrition in Canada had reached some conclusions, but that we were taking those conclusions further and examining in detail certain elements worthy of further study, including in particular the situation of low income groups.
Moreover, the hon. member mentioned that there had been no studies concerning the native Indian and Inuit peoples. On the contrary, a study has indeed been made on Indians and Inuits and the relative report contains some recommendations. We plan to publish a complete study on this subject next spring.
When the hon. member suggests that certain provinces cannot afford to pay 50 per cent of social welfare costs, I would like to remind her that these provinces receive substantial amounts in the form of equalization payments which have been considerably increased again this year, to reach close to $100 million more than last year. I am pleased to see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is in the House tonight, for he was the one who suggested this measure in the budget speech. Such a measure would help greatly low incomes provinces.


John Napier Turner: Exactly.


Marc Lalonde: With regards to the case mentionned by the hon. member relative to the increase in heating costs, I would remind her again that in most provinces the real heating costs are absorbed by public welfare programs, and as a result, there is no reason for which low income people in these provinces have to cut down their food budget to pay their heating costs. I personally communicated with my colleagues in other provinces to urge then to take special steps for that purpose.
Finally, as far as Saskatchewan is concerned, I can hardly believe that such a province, with its present revenues, is unable to pay 50 per cent of the additional cost of food and if the small wage earners of that province are unable to feed themselves properly it is the responsibility of that provincial government which is free to adjust the
November 29, 1973

public welfare payments and we will be pleased to contribute up to 50 per cent.
The position of this gouvernment on the food issue is that basically we must provide people with an additional income and they will then make a more sensible choice of food, if they are given more information and education.


WELFARE-METHOD FOR FULFILLING PRIME MINISTER'S PROMISE OF FUEL COST ASSISTANCE TO NEEDY
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, on November 23 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) what measures he proposed for the implementation of his television assurance that needy Canadians would have enough money to pay for higher priced winter fuels. I asked whether it would be by new legislation, greater federal generosity under the Canada Assistance Plan, or how. The Prime minister, in a scarcely startling reply, indicated that his statement was the direction agreed on between the Minister of National Health and Welfare(Mr. Lalonde) and himself. Later the minister indicated that telegrams were being sent that very morning to provincial ministers. The announcement of care and concern and largesse was seemingly purely a federal one. This seems to be prime ministerial largesse at its most fulsome; but the execution and implementation of the gesture was to be shared with the provinces.
As with many prime ministerial grand announcements-and I think of the one of last August-the difference between the appearance and reality is vast indeed. The federal government, which in mishandling of the energy question must take primary blame among the 11 governments in this country, is not taking the heavy portion of the burden being placed upon the consumers of this country resulting from such mishandling. This is as clear as is the fact that the announcement of federal aid for fuel is not any great new breakthrough in Ottawa-based compassion. It is unfair and misleading to suggest that the announcement is a new and improved approach to assistance to needy Canadians. The Canada Assistance Plan already provides for 50-50 sharing in respect of these matters. At page 7 of the 1970-71 report of the CAP we read:
The major costs of assistance for which contributions are made under the plan are for basic requirements which are defined in the legislation as food, shelter, clothing, fuel, utilities, etc.
It declares, further:
For other budgetary items such as shelter, fuel and utilities actual costs to the recipient are generally used . . . The plan is designed to support the provision of assistance to any person in need whatever the cause of his need.
In many other places in the report the word "fuel" is used. It is a deplorable misrepresentation to proclaim to the Canadian citizenry that the government of Canada was accepting new responsibilities, giving new leadership or showing new concern for the plight of the needy in this country. Many months ago I suggested that in the face of soaring living costs and resultant heavier burdens for the poor, the federal government should do more under the Canada Assistance Plan. I suggested that it should increase its portion to 75 per cent from 50 per cent. This was a sound suggestion before the fuel crisis fell upon us.
Adjournment Debate
It is all the more necessary now. Nor can I imagine that there is any province not willing or anxious to accept such a change in the structure of the Canada Assistance Plan. I would like to hear the minister's statement in this regard.
The mismanagement of the national economy by the present government has caused the twin demons of inflation and unemployment to have full play in Canada. The federal government should take its share of the efforts to mitigate the effects of inflation and unemployment upon the host of poor people in this country. It is very easy to send telegrams to the provincial governments and to restate the obvious, for example, that the CAP can be used to help the needy pay higher fuel costs. Much more meaningful and appropriate would be a new division of the financial burden. The increased fuel costs will be most hurtful in the five eastern provinces. These are the very provinces which will find it hardest to put up their 50 per cent of the cost of the Canada Assistance Plan. To ease their burden, to give more equality across the land, we need a new look and a new willingness to help. In short, we need a new formula. Telegrams and T.V. programs may seem impressive, but of themselves they will do little to help hundreds of thousands of Canadians for whom the prospects of the coming winter are bleak indeed.
I repeat my claim of months ago, a claim made by other members of this House in respect of the present emergency-that this government has put the people into it. The policies of this government should be reconsidered and should be strengthened. If the minister replies, perhaps he will give us the assurance that the delayed Bill C-211 will be brought forward immediately.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member which was an exercise just as phony as his demonstration of crocodile tears about the action the government has taken in respect of the poor in this country. His whole argument had nothing to do with the fate of the poor but, rather, the giving of more money to certain provincial governments for the running of their social assistance plans.
I can only repeat that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in his last budget gave $200 million in equalization payments to the provinces in need in this country. I should like to know, rather than see these crocodile tears, what the hon. member knows about what has actually happened. He might be interested to learn that, in respect of the province of Prince Edward Island, I have just received a telegram from the minister responsible indicating that this province, which the hon. member claims cannot do anything to improve the fate of the poor, has increased by 10 per cent across the board in October the social assistance payments, and that the rates are also being reviewed for further adjustment in January.
When the hon. member claims that the province cannot afford to meet its duties and responsibilities, I think he is seriously underestimating the real situation and what is happening in respect of this whole issue which he raised again in a phony way.


Mr. Paproski:: What you say is phony.

November 29, 1973
Adjournment Debate


Marc Lalonde: Listening to you is something like that. So far as the question of fuel costs is concerned, most provinces are paying the actual cost of whatever the increases may be. They are being covered completely by the Canada Assistance Plan. The hon. member has no reason to cry in his phony way over the fate of some of the people in need in this country.


IMMIGRATION-INDIANS-REJECTION OF JAY TREATY BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the high-handed action of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) in unilaterally exercising his power as minister of that department in respect of the members of the Iroquois confederacy was first brought to the attention of this House on October 29 by my colleague the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn). You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the matter has been dealt with already on one occasion in this hour by my colleague from Brant.
I am rising at this time because on that occasion I addressed a supplementary question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Unfortunately, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is leaving the House and it becomes obvious that only the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacGuigan) is here to reply. I say at once that if he intends to rise in that capacity and give me a repeat answer to the one he gave the hon. member for Brant, it will be completely unsatisfactory. This is in no way a personal reflection on his ability to reply. However, if he is here in some capacity representing the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) I shall await with interest what he may have to add to this discussion.
I addressed my supplementary to the Prime Minister on that occasion because it was evident to me that one department of government had unilaterally taken action in respect of something which had been accepted in other departments of government in relation to the Indians in Canada and the United States-in North America-over a long period of years. As the Minister of Manpower and Immigration indicated on October 29, it was something which went beyond the ambit of his department in the perspective in which it was raised, because he did say that he thought perhaps the question might more properly be addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). Obviously, my question requires a response from the Prime Minister inasmuch as by the admission of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration himself the ramifications of this action go beyond a single department.
It is all very well for the government through its spokesman, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, to outline all the niceties of the history of what is commonly referred to as the Jay treaty, and to suggest to us that it is not in effect because of certain action taken by the Supreme Court and because of lack of action on the part of the government of Canada, parallel in the legislative field to that taken in 1928 by the United States. Be that as it may, the fact remains that not only in respect of the Iroquois people in the area

represented by the hon. member for Brant, but across Canada from one boundary to another in relation to crossing into and out of the United States, the government of Canada has tacitly accepted a procedure which in effect recognized the existence of the Jay treaty.
I know that this has been applied in relation to the boundary between the province of British Columbia and the state of Washington since before the days of confederation wherever the Indian people, many of whom belong to the same language and blood groups, moved across that boundary. I know that it has been recognized in great measure in respect of the people of the St. Regis community, for example, where the community is divided three ways, some of it in the United States, some in the province of Ontario and some in the province of Quebec.
For the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, without notice, without discussion or debate in the House, to suddenly, out of the blue sky, cancel an arrangement which had been in existence since before confederation, and then to hide behind the fact that the government has not taken legislative action to initiate the Jay treaty, makes a mockery of the whole professed interest at the present time on the part of the government in the question of aboriginal rights. It flies in the face of some of the statements made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and indeed of some of the reluctant admissions by the Prime Minister that the Indians had in fact more rights than he had realized until recently.
So this is a much broader issue than the one which was responded to by the parliamentary secretary to the minister when he replied to the hon. member for Brant on November 20 in the "late show". I would suggest that not only is this a question of aboriginal rights and the reality involved therein, but there is the whole question of what I think is the constitutional mockery that the government makes of this whole matter of the application of treaties. The Crown has asserted that it has not handed to parliament the treaty-making prerogative. We have heard that expressed in the House many times. It has also been recognized that, constitutionally, Canada inherited the treaties that were made on our behalf by the United Kingdom government prior to the Statute of Westminster in 1931.
So to suggest that the Jay treaty no longer has a valid application in Canada, if tested constitutionally, would be bound to be as incorrect as the assertion made until recently about the royal proclamation of 1763 on aboriginal rights. The government cannot have it both ways. If that treaty is not applicable because of lack of initiative in the past to introduce legislation, in effect the government is saying that the question of whether treaties have valid application should be in the hands of parliament. I suggest the best way the government could do this is to refer appropriate legislation to this parliament, so that we would have companion legislation to that which the United States in its wisdom saw fit to place on its statute books dealing with aboriginal rights.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, a repeat question deserves a repeat answer. The fact is that
November 29, 1973

in 1956 the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the Jay treaty had no application in Canada since it had not been implemented by Canadian legislation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, neither Canada nor the Indians were a party to this treaty because it was a treaty between the United States and Great Britain.
At the non-constitutional or non-treaty level, as I related in my reply on November 20 as recorded at page 7991 of Hansard, several steps were recently taken. The most important of them in this context is that at a meeting with
Adjournment Debate
a group of Indian leaders, including the president of the Iroquois and Allied Indian Association, at which the matter was discussed, the Indian leaders were urged to submit their suggestions to the task force reviewing current immigration legislation. It seems to me that this clearly indicates the willingness of the government to consider any proposals that may be made, at a concrete level, by Indian leaders.
The other details of the question are answered in the earlier reference in Hansard.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Friday, November 30, 1973