1973-05-07

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
FIRST SESSION-TWENTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT 22 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House
of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
26314-1}
Available from Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada
[Stage Direction]
Monday May 7, 1973


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions and I think there may be found to be unanimous consent to deal, without notice with a motion that the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board for the crop year ended July 31, 1972, tabled on April 12, 1973, be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), seconded by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to lay upon the table of the House a certified copy of the report of the electoral boundaries commission for the province of Prince Edward Island, 1973.



INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table a document, in English and in
French, outlining the Canadian position with respect to conventions and recommendations adopted at the fifty-fifth (Maritime) and fifty-sixth sessions of the International Labour Conference at Geneva, October, 1970, and June, 1971.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgency. Extreme ice conditions in many lobster fishing districts in the Atlantic region have already meant a delay in executing this fishery. The persistence of this condition will result in shortening the season to the point of loss of livelihood to many hundreds of fishermen who are dependent on this fishery. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Minister of Fisheries give immediate consideration to extending the lobster season in those areas affected.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion therefore cannot be put to the House.



LIVESTOCK


Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the increasing incidence of brucellosis or Bang's disease in northwestern Saskatchewan, in view of the inadequate compensation paid to farmers, and in view of the danger to human health because of the possibility of undulant fever, under Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave):
That incidence, control, and compensation in so far as brucellosis is concerned under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act be referred for immediate study to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.

May 7, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member for Meadow Lake requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Treasury Board on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms or individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	What contracts for publicity and/or information were awarded in the current fiscal year, what are the names and addresses of contractees, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.
1968-69, Nil; 1969-70, Nil; 1970-71, $46,168.79; 1971-72, $326,361.21.
2.	1970-71, Publishing of Collective Agreements, $37,699.63; 1970-71, W. A. Gray, Toronto, $5,209.66, Editorial Assistance; 1970-71, M. Cassidy, Ottawa, $2,040, Editorial Assistance; 1970-71, Berger, Tisdall, Clark and Lesly Ltd., Toronto, $1,219.50, Editorial Assistance; 1971-72, Henri A. Muhn, Montreal, $750, French Editorial Assistance; 197172, Printing costs of booklet "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent": Canadian Government Printing Bureau, $136,844.19*; Campbell Printing, Ottawa, $3,716.16; 1971-72, Publishing of Collective Agreements, $176,867.76; 1971-72, GMISP booklet, $4,608.13; 1971-72, W. A. Gray, Toronto, $3,125, Editorial Assistance; 1971-72, H. Simcik, Montreal, $450, Design Services.
* Includes payments of $63,108.28 for work done on 197172 booklet in fiscal year of 1970-71.
3.	1972-73, Canadian Mailbag Marketing, Toronto, $4,000, Booklet Distribution; 1972-73, Printing and Costs of booklet "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent", Canadian Government Printing Bureau, $46,790.20; 1972-73, Henri A. Muhn, Montreal, $1,980, French Editorial Assistance; 1972-73, Henri A. Muhn, Montreal, $1,088.73, French Editorial Assistance; 1972-73, Publishing of Collective Agreements, $30,340.27; 1972-73, National Joint Council pamphlet, invoice not received.


AIR CANADA BUDGET
Mr. Rowland: 1.	It is the intention of Air Canada to reduce the budget of its finance department by a figure of $180,000 over the next few months?
2.	Is this budget reduction to be accomplished by reductions in the department's Winnipeg staff?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Air
Canada management advises as follows: 1 and 2. The Budget procedures are a matter of internal management, but it can be said that expense targets are set for all departments to ensure proper control of administrative costs. With reference to the Winnipeg Accounting Department, the company does not contemplate any reductions in permanent staff.


BIOAVAILABILITY STANDARD FOR DRUGS
Mr. Rynard: 1.	Has the Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare established a bio-availability standard for all drugs prescribed by physicians across Canada and, if so, is this bio-availability standard mandatory to all prescribed drugs?
2.	What percentage, if any, does this bio-availability standard require and does this standard percentage apply to all drugs?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The Health Protection Branch has established a guideline for the bioavailability of drug products which it assesses in its current programs on drug quality. Bioavailability tests are not at present mandatory, although there is provision in the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations to demand proof of efficacy. The whole field of bioavailability is very much in the development stage, with the clinical significance of bioavailability data still not fully understood. In order to put this problem in proper perspective, we have commissioned an advisory committee of non-governmental medical experts to consider all aspects of it, and report within the next few months.
2.	The guideline specifies a minimum bioavailability of 80 per cent for the product, relative to a reference standard. It has been applied to drugs chosen for reason of critical medical use, high sales volume, narrow therapeutic index, possibility of contaminants, and unknown problems with bioavailability.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION- DISENTITLEMENT OF BENEFITS
Mr. Paproski: 1.	In the week of January 8 to 15, 1973, how many persons were cut off Unemployment Insurance benefits in (a) Montreal (b) Toronto (c) Edmonton (d) Vancouver (e) all of Canada?
2.	In the case of those who were receiving benefits and whose entitlement was cut off prior to the benefit period being exhausted, what was the reason given for this action?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. During the week of January 8 to January 15, 1973 the following number of persons were cut off Unemployment Insurance benefits either because their claims exhausted or they were denied benefits for various limited periods. Number of Claimants: (a) Montreal 3,069;
May 7, 1973

(b) Toronto 3,766; (c) Edmonton 1,188; (d) Vancouver 1,537; (e) Canady *24,777.
*The national figures are available only on a monthly basis. The figures for the week requested have therefore been estimated.
2.	In the case of those who were receiving benefits and whose benefit had not exhausted, the reasons for this are as follows: (a) Refusal of an offer of employment; (b) failure to remain available for employment; (c) failure to attend a CMC course of instruction; (d) failure to attend an employment interview.


CMHC-EMPLOYMENT OF MARRIED COUPLES
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway): 1.	Does the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation now employ any husband or any wife of another person in the employ of the Corporation and, if so, how many?
2.	Does CMHC have a written policy in regard to the employment of persons thus related by marriage and, if so, what is the reason for such a policy?
3.	How many wives have been refused employment because of such a policy since June 1968?
4.	How many husbands have been refused employment because of such a policy since June 1968?
5.	Is this policy now under review?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation currently employs five married couples. Three of these couples were employees of CMHC before their marriage, and one couple was hired as a janitor team in a rental project. In the case of the fifth couple, the wife was hired on a short term contract, in a position previously occupied by her, while the present incumbent of the position is on maternity leave.
2. CMHC does not have a written policy governing the employment of married couples. It has been the long standing practice of the Corporation to discourage the hiring of all relatives of employees, and this applies to the hiring of a spouse of an employee. In administering this policy, cases do arise where personnel on staff marry one another. In these few cases that have arisen the Corporation has generally adopted a policy of continuing to employ both persons on the understanding that they will not be working within the same department in an office.
3 and 4. CMHC does not have a record of the number of husbands/wives who have been refused employment since June, 1968.
5.	The personnel policies of CMHC are always under review.
Order Paper Questions LIP PROJECTS


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Will additional funds be added to LIP for 1972-73 in order that most projects submitted can be approved and effected and, if so, on what date will it be announced?


Robert Knight Andras: It is agreed that a large number of prospective LIP projects had to be rejected due to the fact that the funds allocated were not sufficient to-permit the approval of all applications. I am presently studying the future of the Local Initiatives Program and when a decision is made, the House will be informed.


TAX LOSS BY GOVERNMENT DUE TO COMMERCIAL BANKRUPTCIES
Mr. Latulippe: What amounts in taxes were lost by the government due to commercial bankruptcies in Canada in (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: In so far as National Revenue, Customs and Excise, is concerned:	(a)	$778,481.32;	(b)	$517,578.44;	(c)

In so far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, is concerned; (a) $2,195,601; (b) $3,258,260; (c) $1,997,861.


LIP PROJECTS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many LIP projects for 1972-73 (a) were approved in each province (b) were submitted (c) were rejected (d) are still outstanding?
2.	For each province, how much was granted and how many participants are there?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. See Schedule 1.
2. The value of approved projects is shown at Column 2A of Schedule 1. At the present time, the information on participants is not available as the contractual details are still being processed.
Schedule 1
Province	1(a) Number of Approved Projects	1(b) Number of Applications Received	1(c) Number of Projects Rejected	1(d) Number of Outstanding Projects	2(a) Value of Approved ProjectsNewfoundland	.. 327	1,309	982	$11,715,004Nova Scotia	.. 355	1,097	742	-	10,147,304Prince Edward Island	.. 95	251	156	-	1,953,406New Brunswick	.. 407	960	553	-	10,773,249Quebec	.. 1,719	5,635	3,916	-	64,041,478
May 7, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Province	1(a) Number of Approved Projects	1(b) Number of Applications Received	1(c) Number of Projects Rejected	1(d) Number of Outstanding Projects	2(a) Value of Approved ProjectsOntario	.. 1,256	2,617	1,361	24,910,497Manitoba	.. 243	533	290	-	6,861,195Alberta	.. 279	733	454	-	7,748,788Saskatchewan	.. 183	379	196	-	5,142,828N orthwest Territories	.. 41	78	37	-	1,097,393British Columbia	.. 913	1,740	727	-	18,980,331Yukon	.. 34	58	24	-	654,219
Note: The figures shown in the column headed "No. of Projects rejected" also include those projects that were withdrawn or cancelled by the sponsors after submission.
(English]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION-SICKNESS BENEFITS
Mr. Hueglin: For each month between January 1, 1972 and the latest month for which statistics are available (a) how much was paid in sickness benefits (b) how many individuals received sickness benefits (c) how much was paid for maternity benefits (d) how many individuals received maternity benefits?
Hon. Robert K. Andras Immigration):	(Minister of Manpower and Benefit Initial Claims Payments Established ($000) (a) Sickness (b) Sickness	
January 1972	2,523	7,601February	4,215	14,316March	6,142	17,977April	5,481	12,982May	5,715	12,993June	5,293	13,619July	4,482	12,141August	4,624	10,719September	4,210	8,015October	5,193	8,608November	5,516	9,872December	*5,461 *9,287 (c) Maternity (d) Maternity	January 1972	1,886	2,074February	2,363	2,866March	2,835	3,279April	2,436	2,670May	2,730	2,748June	2,656	2,851July	2,334	2,740August	2,885	3,077September	3,127	3,500October	4,026	3,814November	4,689	4,212December	*4,464	*3,857
*These are preliminary figures and may be subject to change.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION-PREMIUM RATE
Mr. Hueglin: Is the Unemployment Insurance Commission considering an increase in employer-employee contributions and, if so (a) what is the amount of the increase (b) on what date will it come into effect?


Robert Knight Andras: The Commission will not be making any changes to the premium rate or maximum benefit payable for 1973; (a) not applicable; (b) not applicable.


PROJECT SAMSON
Mr. Rowland: 1.	What percentage of the $52,000,000 cost of Project SAMSON will be spent in Canada?
2.	By province, how will this expenditure be distributed?
3.	Do specifications for the tenders include formal regional distribution requirements?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. Contracts for Project SAMSON will be awarded as a result of competitions among qualified Canadian companies. Until such time as these competitions are held and contracts are awarded, it is not possible to establish what percentage of the cost of Project SAMSON will be spent in Canada. It is known, however, that the potential exists for a high level of Canadian industrial involvement. This will be brought about either directly for goods and services used in SAMSON, or through offset production arrangements outside the project.
2.	Similarly, distribution of expenditure by province cannot be established until the contracts are awarded. The three main switching centers will be located in Nova Scotia, Ontario and Alberta. SAMSON terminal locations are distributed across the country and a significant effort will be expended in each province for construction, installation and test, power and air conditioning.
3.	The invitation to tender will request bidders to indicate the regional distribution of their Canadian content.


LIP PROJECT &quot;HANDICO A QUEBEC&quot;
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What is the purpose of the LIP project "Handico a Quebec", to which grants of $161,226 were made for a first project and $200,000 for a second project?
2.	What are the names and addresses of those responsible for the projects?
May 7, 1973

[ Translation]


Robert Knight Andras: 1. The projects are aimed to provide guidance and help in any manner or form to handicapped persons so that they may make a transition between their state of semi-dependance to total independance. Monitors are hired to teach them new skills and to assist them when visiting employers to offer their services. Furthermore, the projects provide ways and means of transportation to and from work. The handicapped are also assisted in their communications with governmental agencies most likely to help them.
2. Mr. Marc Ouellet, 3021 St. Simeon, Petit Village, Giffard, Mr. Rejean Fortin, 21 Thomas Chapais, Loretteville.


PROVISION OF MANPOWER AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OFFICE SERVICES IN DELTA
Mr. Reynolds: Has the government any plans to put a Manpower and UIC office in Delta to serve the needs of over 55,000 people living in this area?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned: No plans are being made to open a Canada Manpower Centre in Delta, B.C.
In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: The Unemployment Insurance Commission is presently studying decentralization of its offices. It is not known at this time whether this study will affect the Delta area.
1972 INCOME TAX STATEMENT-CODED NUMBERS


Mr. Rose: 1.	On the 1972 Income Tax Statement of Farming and Income and Expenses, have coded numbers been added to the individual expense items for the first time and, if so, what is the purpose of these coded numbers?
2.	Have other occupation forms been similarly coded and, if not, for what reason have farmers been singled out?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: In so far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, is concerned: 1. Yes. Coded numbers were added to facilitate direct keypunching for computer application of the information contained on Form T2042 (Statement of Farming Income and Expenses). This action on behalf of Statistics Canada was taken at the request of that agency under the authority of Section 23 of the Statistics Act. 2 * *
2. No. The Department of National Revenue, Taxation
has met the request of Statistics Canada that codes be
assigned to Form T2042 for the reason stated above.
Order Paper Questions


WELFARE ASSISTANCE TO CHILDREN AGED 16 AND 17
Mr. Hueglin: 1.	Are children aged 16 and 17 able to obtain welfare or any other form of social assistance that would enable them to live independent of their name and, if so, on what basis?
2.	(a) What are the statistics of children (i) 16 (ii) 17 receiving assistance as in Part 1 by month for the years 1970, 1971, 1972 (b) if these figures are not available, for what reason and are any actions planned to secure such information?


Marc Lalonde: 1. Children 16 and 17 years of age may be granted social assistance in every province. However, the legislation governing eligibility and the rates of assistance paid vary from province to province. Under the Canada Assistance Plan, the federal government may share in the cost of such assistance granted on the basis of a needs test which takes into account an applicant's basic requirements and the income and resources available to him. A summary of the provincial situation follows: In Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, persons 16 years of age and over may be granted social assistance. In most cases the provincial legislation requires that the possibility of family support be investigated, and that the young person register for employment or provide documentation attesting to school attendance or to the desirability of continuing at school. In Newfoundland and Saskatchewan persons 16 years of age and over who have established themselves as self-supporting may be granted assistance. In Manitoba, assistance to persons under 18 is provided on a non-ward basis by the child welfare authority. Quebec does not grant social assistance to persons under 18 except on an emergency basis. Exceptions are made for young people who must live away from home to receive medical treatment or educational courses not covered by Manpower training programs. In Alberta young people over 16 who are not attending school are usually considered responsible for their own support; but emergency social assistance may be provided when they are unable to obtain employment. Applicants for social assistance who are 16 and 17 years old may be provided with ward or non-ward care through the child welfare program. Young people are generally not required to return to a home situation which has been investigated and found unsatisfactory.
2. (a) Provincial governments are responsible for the administration of social assistance programs, and statistical data reported by them do not identify recipients of social assistance by single-year age groups. Hence, it is not possible to answer this enquiry at this time, (b) An Information System Team is presently engaged in a project which has as its central focus the design and development of a system for gathering and processing such statistical data.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-NUMBER OF MASTER MARINERS WITH FOREIGN-GOING CERTIFICATES
Mr. Nowlan: What is (a) the number of Master Mariners with foreign-going certificates employed by the Department of Transport in shore jobs (b) the number of non-Canadian Master Mariners with foreign-going certificates employed by the Department (c) what
3454

May 7, 1973
Order Paper Questions
percentage of Master Mariners with foreign-going certificates employed by the Department are non-Canadian (d) how many of the jobs held by non-Canadian Master Mariners in the Department were advertised and how were they advertised?


Jean Marchand: (a) The number of Master Mariners with foreign-going certificates employed: (1) Ashore 86; (2) Afloat 58; Total 144; (b) The number of non-Canadian Master Mariners with foreign-going certificates: Total 16; (c) The percentage of Master Mariners with foreign-going certificates who are nonCanadian: Total 11 per cent; (d) The number of jobs held by non-Canadian Master Mariners advertised and how advertised; Total 16 (Recruited by the Public Service Commission through normal advertising procedures).
CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-REPLACEMENT VEHICLE FOR M-37 3/. -TON CARGO VEHICLES


Mr. Rowland: 1.	Are the Canadian Armed Forces currently conducting evaluation tests of a possible replacement vehicle for the M-37 3A -ton cargo vehicles currently in service?
2.	What are the names of the vehicles and their manufacturers currently being considered for this role?
3.	What is the anticipated total cost of this purchase program?
4.	What is the number of vehicles it is anticipated will be purchased and what is the anticipated per unit cost?
5.	Will any eventual purchase contract contain the provision that the vehicle must be constructed in Canada?
6.	Will any eventual purchase contract contain provisions for regional distribution of expenditures on the vehicle?
7.	On what date may an announcement with respect to the letting of a contract be expected?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence and Supply and Services as follows: 1. Yes, evaluation trials are under way and are expected to end in June 1973.
2. Truck Utility 114-ton Chrysler Model XW350, Chrysler Canada Ltd., Windsor, Canada. Truck Utility Rover 101 Series, 1 Metric ton, The Rover Company Ltd., Warwickshire, England. Truck Utility, Volvo 4141 Series, 1 Metric ton, 4 Wheel drive, A. B. Volvo, Gothenberg, Sweden. Truck Utility, Volvo 4143 Series, 1.5 Metric ton, 6 wheel drive, A. B. Volvo, Gothenberg, Sweden.
3 and 4. Sufficient information is not yet available to allow a realistic estimate of either the unit or total program costs to be made at this time. It is expected, however, that approximately 3,300 vehicles may be purchased.
5.	The provisions of the purchase contract cannot be determined until the source of supply has been selected. It is Canadian government policy always to take Canadian content into consideration when selecting a source of supply.
6.	No special contract provisions are contemplated at this time. 7
7.	As no decision has been made on which vehicle may be selected, no date has been set for any announcement.


TREASURY BOARD-PERSONNEL
Mr. Knight: 1.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1970 in the Treasury Board?
2.	How many of those employees were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
3.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1973 in the Treasury Board?
4.	How many of those employees were earning more than $18,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. 443.
2.	15,000 to 15,999, 14; 16,000 to 16,999, 8; 17,000 to 17,999, 13; 18,000 to 18,999, 25; 19,000 to 19,999, 11; 20,000 to 20,999, 31; 21,000 to 21,999, 23; 22,000 to 22,999, 5; 23,000 to 23,999, 9;
20.000	to 25,000; 24; 22,000 to 27,000 15; 24,000 to 30,000, 4;
29.000	to 35,000, 2; 40,000 to 45,000, 1.
3.	591.
4.	18,000 to 18,999, 22; 19,000 to 19,999, 22; 20,000 to
20.999, 34; 21,000 to 21,999, 18; 22,000 to 22,999, 22; 23,000 to
23.999, 18; 24,000 to 24,999, 21; 25,000 to 25,999, 36; 22,000 to 28,000, *SX 1, 42; 25,000 to 31,000, *SX 2, 17; 28,000 to 35,000, *SX 3, 6; 34,000 to 40,000, *SX 4, 2; 45,000 to 50,000, *DM 3, 1;
*Not separated to $1000 intervals in order to protect privacy of salary information in accordance with T.B. Circular 1969-206.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-EXPENDITURE BY REGIONS
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	In the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1971-72, how much money was contracted to each of the five regions of Canada by the Department of Agriculture?
2.	What was this in per capita terms for each region?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: (In thousands of dollars):
Region	1968-69	1969-70	1970-71	1971-72Atlantic	16,999	13,130	12,860	15,012Quebec	68,958	67,569	60,734	71,803Ontario	76,241	85,825	82,238	104,469Prairies	55,822	50,755	108,469	78,758British Columbia	14,666	10,660	9,258	11,763Atlantic	$ 8.46	$ 6.53	$ 6.37	$ 7.29Quebec	11.63	11.29	10.10	11.91Ontario	10.50	11.51	10.77	13.56Prairies	16.16	14.50	30.79	22.24British Columbia	7.32	5.16	4.33	5.34
May 7, 1973


CANADA PENSION DIVISION-DISABILITY PENSIONS
Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What was the number of applications received by the Canada Pension Division for disability pensions between January 1 and December 31, 1972?
2.	How many of the applications were (a) approved (b) rejected?
3.	What was the average length of time taken before a decision was made on a claim?
4.	How many of these applications were rejected under Section 43 (2) (a) of the legislation governing the Canada Pension Plan?
5.	How many appeals (a) were heard (b) went to the Review Committee during this period and, in each case, how many appeals were (i) denied (ii) upheld?


Marc Lalonde: 1.	19,516.
2.	(a) 13,879; (b) 5,637.
3.	The average processing time is now two and one half months, with half this period required by the applicant to gather the supporting documentation (medical evidence, evidence of earnings, etc.) required by the legislation, and the other half by the administration to thoroughly evaluate the evidence, make a decision, and bring the benefits into pay. (It should be noted that, under the law, no benefit is payable until the fourth month following the month the disability is determined to have occurred.)
4.	4,541.
5.	(a) 1,210 appeals (to the Minister, First level); (i) 727 were not upheld; (ii) 483 were upheld (usually on the basis of new evidence or a change in the condition of the individual since the date of application); (b) 24 (appeals to Review Committee, Second level); (i) 5 were not upheld; (ii) 19 were upheld.


PENITENTIARY COSTS
Mr. Olaussen: 1.	What was the average cost to taxpayers for each prisoner in each year from 1952 to 1962?
2.	What were the total prison costs and prisoner maintenance costs in each year from 1952 to 1962?
3.	Are there proposed plans to cut down on prisoner maintenance costs?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: By the Ministry of the Solicitor General: 1 and 2
Year	Average per inmate	Penitentiary Costs	Inmate1 Maintenance$	$	$1952-53	1,885	9,3.01,295	7,909,5491953-54	. 1,796	9,193,577	8,135,6141954-55	. 1,907	10,501,364	8,823,9081955-56	. 1,943	10,700,571	9,444,9261956-57	. 2,213	12,022,137	10,714,1391957-58	, 2,19S	12,682,717	11,588,9551958-59	2,572	16,189,463	11,934,2871959-60	3,019	19,149,395	13,219,8951960-61	2,725	18,362,863	15,224,3341961-62	3,135	22,432,979	17,351,241
'Approximately 73 per cent of the total maintenance cost is attribuable to salaries.
Order Paper Questions
3. The increased cost of salaries, services and supplies together with the need for increased staff in the professional categories make it unlikely that the cost of inmate maintenance will decrease. However, expenditures are strictly controlled and efforts are continually being made to keep costs to a minimum while maintaining essential services and adequate rehabilitative programs.


CANADA PENSION PLAN-COVERAGE FOR HOUSEWIVES
Mr. Fairweather: Has a study been undertaken by government departments to explore alternative methods of providing Canada Pension Plan coverage for housewives and with what result?


Marc Lalonde: An Inter-departmental Study Group composed of the Department of National Health and Welfare, Department of Finance, Department of National Revenue-Taxation, Treasury Board, Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, Department of Insurance and the Secretary of State Department has met on several occasions to study this question and explore various alternatives. While the matter is still under review, no suitable method has yet been found to provide for the voluntary coverage of housewives under the Canada Pension Plan. At the moment, the same situation prevails in Quebec where such coverage is not yet available under the Quebec Pension Plan.


IMPAIRED DRIVING CONVICTIONS
Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	How many (a) men (b) women in Canada have one, two, three, four, five or more convictions for impaired driving?
2.	How many (a) men (b) women in Canada have one, two, three, four, five or more convictions for drunk driving?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that: The table below provides a partial answer to this question. It shows the number of persons (no breakdown by sex is available) charged/convicted of impaired-/drunk driving (number of convictions per person not available) for Canada (Quebec and Alberta excluded) for 1969, the latest year for which data are available. In 1967, the latest year for which data from all provinces are available, Quebec accounted for 42.4 per cent of charges and 40.3 per cent of convictions, and Alberta accounted for 1.4 per cent of charges and 1.8 per cent of convictions.
Persons Charged/Convicted of Impaired/Drunk Driving, Canada (excluding Quebec and Alberta) 1969
	Number of	Number of
	Persons Charged	Persons Convicted
1. Driving while		
ability impaired	167	149
2. Driving while		
intoxicated	12	11
26314-2J

Order Paper Questions [DOT]CANADA PENSION PLAN APPLICATION
May 7, 1973


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Under the Canada Pension Plan, how many cases (a) have not yet received a first decision on eligibility for disability benefits (b) were initially ruled ineligible for disability benefits and are now in some stage of review?
2.	How many of the applications on each of these cases were first received (a) less than three months ago (b) between three months and six months ago (c) between six months and one year ago (d) between one and two years ago (e) over two years ago?


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statistical nature of this response I would ask permission of the House for it to be printed as read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above follows.]
The length of time elapsed from the date the appeal was made to:
The Minister,
National Health and Welfare
Review
Committee
(a)	less than 3 months
(b)	3-6 months
(c)	6-12 months
(d)	12-24 months
(e)	more than 24 months
291 ( 82 per cent) 50 ( 14 per cent) 15 ( 4 per cent) Nil (	0	per	cent)Nil (	0	per	cent)91 ( 76 per cent) 23 ( 19 per cent) 6 ( 5 per cent) Nil ( 0 per cent) Nil (	0	per	cent)
Total
356 (100 per cent)
120 (100 per cent)
The Pension Appeals Board
2 ( 20 per cent) 2 ( 20 per cent) 6 ( 60 per cent) Nil (	0	per	cent)Nil (	0	per	cent)
10 (100 per cent)


SALE OF CANADIAN LANDS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Is the government aware of an advertisement in the magazine Outdoor. Life, February 1973, advertising Canadian lands seized and sold for taxes which are being offered for sale in the United States?
2.	Since it advertises for sale valuable urban land, river frontage and lake frontage, is it the intention of the government, in consultation with the provinces, to investigate sale of our valuable lands to foreigners?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Yes.
2. Land sales to foreigners is one of the items proposed for discussion at the next federal-provincial meeting of first ministers.


FROBISHER BAY POST OFFICE
Mr. Firth: Was a policy announced on March 12, 1973 to the people of Baffin Island and in particular, Pond Inlet, by the Frobisher Bay Post Office, to the effect that C.O.D. mail would be stopped at Frobisher Bay and forwarded to the settlements on receipt of the amount due and, if so (a) on what date was this policy initiated (b) for what reason was it initiated (c) how long will it continue?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Yes. (a) October 1969; (b) Frobisher Bay is the centralization point for 16 communities in the Northwest Territories. We have had serious difficulty in accounting for C.O.D. transactions at a number of points in our northern area. The Postmaster, therefore was instructed to apply the restrictive measures indicated whenever he experienced difficulty in collecting remittances for C.O.D.'s from one of his dependent offices. Extraordinary precautions were considered necessary in order to protect the department; (c) indefinitely.


SECURITY FOR EMBASSIES AND CONSULATES OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): Does the government provide police and/or security service for embassies and consultaes of foreign countries and, if so, what was the cost of the service provided during each of the years 1960-72 inclusive?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned, yes. The cost for each of the years 1960-72 was: Fiscal Years: 1960-1966, NIL; 1966-67, $40,736.48; 1967-68, $31,059.50; 1968-69, $43,430.00; 1969-70, $82,696.05; 1970-71, $180,377.73; 1971-72, $931,398.97; April 1-December 31, 1972, $975,000 (estimated).


AVERAGE AGE OF WAR PENSIONERS
Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	What is the average age of war pensioners?
2.	How many war pensioners are (a) over 80 years of age (b) 70-79 (c) 60-69 (d) 50-59 (e) 40-49 (f) 30-39 (g) 20-29 (h) under 20 years of age?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. As at December 31, 1972, World War I, 79.16 years; World War II, 57.98 years; Special Force (Korea) 47.59 years; all pensioners, 61.20 years.
2. (a) 9,791; (b) 18,542; (c) 24,822; (d) 58,784; (e) 9,527; (f) 16; (g) None; (h) None.
May 7, 1973


WAR VETERANS PENSIONS
Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): What was the total amount paid for veterans pensions during each of the years 1945 to 1972 inclusive?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Fiscal Year	No. of Pensions	Expenditure $1945-1946	142,671	59,466,3771946-1947	175,835	70,761,1051947-1948	189,863	77,093,3471948-1949	192,624	102,951,2931949-1950	195,907	96,090,6941950-1951	195,660	95,576,8981951-1952	194,461	103,703,4341952-1953	194,344	127,053,0931953-1954	194,265	127,579,4431954-1955	194,448	128,773,4691955-1956	194,218	130,662,0901956-1957	192,935	130,307,5621957-1958	191,625	145,582,7541958-1959	190,312	150,725,9031959-1960	188,626	149,656,0531960-1961	186,665	150,694,5471961-1962	184,666	177,869,6381962-1963	182,713	175,901,7371963-1964	180,354	173,164,5131964-1965	177,826	180,300,3761965-1966	174,567	185,532,0991966-1967	172,098	195,883,0551967-1968	169,129	205,571,3521968-1969	165,608	223,293,3411969-1970	162,312	218,527,9921970-1971	159,126	212,893,0331971-1972	155,373	231,348,9851-4-72 to 31-12-72	153,285	179,044,452


EMPLOYMENT BY GOVERNMENT OF MR. JERRY PRINGLE
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How much money has been paid by the government, before any deductions at source, in the nature of salary, honorarium or retainers to Mr. Jerry Pringle between October 30, 1972 and up to an including March 31, 1973?
2.	Has any money been paid to Mr. Jerry Pringle as an expense allowance of any kind whatsoever and, if so (a) what is the total amount of such expenses paid (b) what is the exact description of each expense and the amount involved in each case?


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Mr. Jerry Pringle received a
Order Paper Questions
fee from January 15, 1973 based on a service contract in the amount of $5,000 for a three-month period.
2. As of March 31, 1973, Mr. Jerry Pringle has not been paid an expense allowance; (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable.


EMPLOYMENT BY GOVERNMENT OF MR. BRUCE HOWARD
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How much money has been paid by the government, before any deductions at source, in the nature of salary, honorarium or retainers to Mr. Bruce Howard between October 30, 1972 and up to and including March 31, 1973?
2.	Has any money been paid to Mr. Bruce Howard as an expense allowance of any kind whatsoever and, if so (a) what is the total amount of such expenses paid (b) what is the exact description of each expense and the amount involved in each case?


Marc Lalonde: 1. Mr. Bruce Howard received a salary from November 27, 1972 to March 31, 1973, based on an annual salary range of $17,500 to $20,000.
2. No.


EMPLOYMENT BY GOVERNMENT OF REV. M.A. McBRIDE
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How much money has been paid by the government, before any deductions at source, in the nature of salary, honorarium or retainers to Rev. Murray McBride between October 30, 1972 and up to and including March 31, 1973?
2.	Has any money been paid to Rev. Murray McBride as an expense allowance of any kind whatsoever and, if so (a) what is the total amount of such expenses paid (b) what is the exact description of each expense and the amount involved in each case?


André Ouellet: 1. Reverend M.A. McBride received salary from December 18, 1972 to March 31, 1973 based on an annual salary of $17,500 to $20,000.
2. Travel Expenses, $427.59; Total Expenses, $427.59.


CMHC-INSURANCE FEES
Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	What was the total amount received on account of insurance fee on approved loans made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in each year since its inception?
2.	What amount, if any, has been paid out of this fund in each year since the fee has been collected?
3.	What is the aggregate amount of all NHA loans covered by the insurance fee?
4.	To what use is the insurance fee fund put by the government and what income is derived from it?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1, 2 and 3.

May 7, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Mortgage Loan Insurance Plan
(Administered by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, National Housing Act, Section 9)
Receipts	Expenditures
Year	Fees and Premiums Received	Other Income (Net)	Claims Paid and Legal Expenses	Other Expenses	Insurance or Guarantee in Force1$000	$000	$000	$000	$ million1954	.... 2,390	5	-	-	1241955	.... 9,237	152	-	-	1291956	.... 9,840	521	-	-	1,0831957	.... 7,279	978	38	-	1,4251958	.... 13,816	1,562	62	-	2,1001959	.... 13,146	2,530	275	-	2,7331960	.... 8,456	4,555	1,497	3,0901961	.... 10,971	9,932	6,730	3,6401962	.... 11,577	12,266	8,579	-	4,1231963	.... 9,869	17,909	13,944	-	4,4991964	.... 12,063	17,408	14,731	-	4,9341965	.... 13,483	21,148	15,400	-	5,3211966	
14,291	18,797	10,373	-	5,7891967	
16,491	14,798	4,644	697	6,3111968	.... 14,640	13,945	2,102	590	6,7321969	
14,995	16,354	2,410	501	7,4121970	
10,711	18,510	2,705	479	8,0511971	
16,361	24,144	7,389	565	9,2251972	.... 20,193	41,125	29,337	1,074	10,056
*Less than $1,000.
'As at December 31.
4.	The Mortgage Loan Insurance Fund is used to pay claims on defaulted mortgages made by approved lenders and CMHC, and insured under the terms of the National Housing Act. The income of the Mortgage Loan Insurance Fund is derived from: Rental revenue from repossessed properties; mortgage payments from proceeds of sold properties; and interest from investments in bonds issued, or guaranteed, by the Government of Canada.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-SPEED LIMITS FOR LARGE VESSELS
Mr. Cossitt: Has the Department of Transport established speed limits for large vessels using the main boat channel between Prescott, Ontario and Kingston, Ontario and, if so (a) what are the limits in specific areas (b) how are these limits enforced and by whom (c) what plans does the Department have for the strictest possible enforcement during the year 1973 in order to prevent damage to shoreline property by excessive waves?


Jean Marchand: In so far
as The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority is concerned: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, together with the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, have established speed limits for the main channel between Prescott and Kingston for all commercial vessels in excess of forty feet in overall length. These limits have been in effect since June 1, 1970 and are as follows: (a) Prescott to Blind Bay Vi mile east of Light 162, 15 miles per hour; Blind Bay Vi mile east of Light 162 to Deer Island Light 186, 13 miles per hour; Deer Island Light 186 to Bartlett Point Light 227, 10 miles per hour upbound, 12 miles per hour downbound; Bartlett Point Light 227 to Tibbetts Point, 15 miles per hour, (b) Limits are enforced by both Seaway entities.

The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority carries out speed surveillance throughout the Lake St. Francis-Blind Bay area. This surveillance is carried out with the help of radar equipment. Locations are selected at random and checks are carried out on a 24-hour basis. The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is responsible for speed surveillance in the area from Blind Bay to Tibbetts Point, (c) Recognizing the high water level situation in the upper St. Lawrence River area, the Seaway entities introduced temporary speed restrictions on March 27, 1973 in the following areas: Ogden Island Buoy 99 to Blind Bay, from 15 miles per hour to 14 miles per hour; Bartlett Point Light 227 to Tibbetts Point, from 15 miles per hour to 13 miles per hour. Agreement has been reached between the two entities for further temporary speed reductions from Tibbetts Point on Lake Ontario to Lancaster on Lake St. Francis when the level of Lake Ontario reaches a critical point. The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority plans to continue its speed enforcement program with particular emphasis being given to sensitive areas. Random radar surveillance will be carried out in all speed restricted areas both during night and daytime hours, including holidays and weekends.


AMOUNT BUDGETED FOR POLICE AND SECURITY PLANNING
Mr. Cossitt: What was the total amount budgeted for the fiscal year 19721973 for the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group in the Department of the Solicitor General?


William Warren Allmand: The total expenditure for 1972-1973 of the Security Planning and Research Group (now known as the Police and Security
May 7, 1973

Planning and Analysis Group) was $192,000, against a budget allocation of $271,000 for the same period.
1936 PERPETUAL, BONDS


Mr. Cossitt: Is the government giving reconsideration to the matter of calling the 1936 Perpetual Bonds bearing 3 percent interest in order to assist many elderly people who are holders of these securities and, if so, on what date can a decision be expected on the matter?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Careful consideration was given to establishing a maturity date on the perpetual bonds prior to September 15, 1966, when the last coupon on the coupon registered bond certificates became payable. The federal government has from time to time reviewed its policy with respect to these bonds and does not feel that it is in the country's best interest to redeem or fix a maturity date on these obligations at this time.


BUDGET FOR POLICE AND SECURITY PLANNING AND ANALYSIS GROUP, 1972-73
Mr. Cossitt: What is the reason that the estimates of the Department of the Solicitor General for the year 1972-1973 contained no specific budget for the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group?


William Warren Allmand: The Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group is an integral part of the headquarters of the Department of the Solicitor General (The Secretariat of the Ministry of the Solicitor General). Estimates of the Group are included in the total estimates for the headquarters (Secretariat) under the Activity-Departmental Administration.


BUDGET FOR POLICE AND SECURITY PLANNING AND ANALYSIS GROUP, 1973-74
Mr. Cossitt: What is the reason that the estimates of the Department of the Solicitor General for the year 1973-1974 contain no specific budget for the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group?


William Warren Allmand: The Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group is an integral part of the headquarters of the Department of the Solicitor General (the Secretariat of the Ministry of the Solicitor General). Estimates of the Group are included in the total estimates for the headquarters (Secretariat) under Activity-Departmental Administration.



Mr. Cossitt: What is the total budget allocated for the fiscal year 1973-1974 for the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group in the Department of the Solicitor General?


William Warren Allmand: 

Order Paper Questions


SUBSIDIES TO TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRIES
Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): What was the total subsidy paid to the transportation industry during each year 1960 to 1972 inclusive?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: Subsidies paid to Transportation Industry by the federal government are as follows:
Fiscal Year	$'000's
1961-	62	97,0041962-	63	99,4331963-	64	95,6801964-	65	99,8431965-	66	120,7841966-	67	147,9531967-	68	154,7311968-	69	123,3181969-	70	117,0581970-	71	95,2241971-	72	94,455
Note: (1) The type of analysis required to provide this information was not conducted for those years prior to 1961-62; (2) data provided refers to subsidies only (capital assistance not included).


ELIGIBILITY UNDER VETERANS' LAND ACT
Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	How many veterans of the Second World War used the establishment credit under VLA?
2.	Do any veterans still have the option to obtain benefits under VLA?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1.	129,603 veterans were established under the
Veterans' Land Act from inception to December 31, 1972. Records are not maintained separately for World War II and Special Force veterans who served in Korea.
2.	Veterans who hold a Certificate of Qualification are eligible to apply for benefits under Parts I and II of the Veterans' Land Act until March 31, 1974. Those veterans who are established may apply for additional financial assistance, to the maximum available, until March 31, 1977, provided that their agreement with the Director is in force at the time they apply. All eligible veterans, whether or not they hold a Certificate of Qualification, may apply for home construction assistance under Part II of the Veterans' Land Act until March 31, 1974.


AMOUNT LOANED UNDER VLA PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,823-Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): What was the total amount loaned to veterans of World War II under the VLA Program?
Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Records are not maintained separately for World

May 7, 1973
Order Paper Questions
War II and Special Force veterans who served in Korea. The following funds were disbursed to established veterans under the Veterans' Land Act from inception to December 31, 1972: $1,084,050,976 to establish veterans as full-time farmers, part-time farmers and commercial fisherman; $12,577,917 to establish veterans on Provincial or Dominion Lands; $3,818,626 to establish veterans on Indian Reserve Lands; $38,483,895 to build houses for veterans under Part II of the Veterans' Land Act.


HIGHWAY NOISE REDUCTION ENFORCEMENT
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to consulting the provinces and promoting highway noise reduction enforcement?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Yes.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms or individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	What contracts for publicity and/or information were awarded in the current fiscal year, what are the names and addresses of contractees, what are the amounts of money involved in each and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT-RESEARCH EXPENDITURES
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Department of the environment on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.


DEFENCE INDUSTRY PRODUCTION PROGRAM
Mr. Broadbent: 1. What were the names of the corporation which received cash grants under the Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIP),

in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 to date and, in each case, what were the amounts of money committed and paid?
2.	What are the objectives of the Program?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the Program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?
Return tabled.


COST OF FURNISHINGS FOR GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS 1968 TO DATE
Mr. Harding: What was the total cost of purchase and installation of office furnishings for (a) furniture (b) carpets and carpeting (c) draperies and blinds (d) plants (live and artificial) (e) others in each department and agency and for each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 to date?
Return tabled.


GOVERNMENT LOANS TO MUNICIPALITIES IN CANADA
Mr. Beaudoin: By year since 1867, has the government loaned money to any municipality in Canada and, if so (a) at what rate of interest (b) for what term?
Return tabled.


NUMBER OF BILINGUAL POSITIONS IN PUBLIC SERVICE AT WINNIPEG
Mr. McKenzie: In each calendar year 1970, 1971 and 1972 (a) how many positions in the public service at Winnipeg were declared bilingual (b) how many new appointments were made to these positions (c) what proportion of these new positions required bilingual employees (d) what proportion of these bilingual employees were predominately French-speaking (e) how many public servants in Winnipeg were displaced as a result of bilingualism?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL REVENUE FROM CIGARETTES
Mr. Mather: In each year 1970, 1971 and 1972 (a) what, in dollars, was the total federal revenue from cigarettes (b) what was the total federal expenditure on smoking and health (c) what was the department of National Health and Welfare estimate of deaths, days lost through illness and cost to the economy of cigarette-induced disease?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO DAY-CARE CENTERS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): How much has the government spent on assistance to day-care centres in each province during the fiscal year 1971-72?
Return tabled.
May 7, 1973


CANADA'S NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	In each of the past ten years, what studies have been undertaken concerning (a) land rentals in Canada's National Parks (b) leasehold policy in Canada's National Parks (c) townsite administration in Canada's National Parks (d) land appraisals in Canada's National Parks (e) any other matter relating to policy or administrative changes in the National Parks?
2.	In each study (a) what was the cost (b) who were the authors (c) what was the date of completion (d) what was the date of publication and, if not published (i) for what reason (ii) on what date will it be published?
Return tabled.


LIP PROJECTS-QUEBEC
Mr. Fortin: For each federal constituency in the Province of Quebec in 1972-73 (a) how many local initiatives projects were submitted for approval (b) how many were approved, what was the amount involved in each case and on what date was each approved (c) how many projects were rejected and what is the exact amount of the total projects rejected (d) how many projects are still under consideration?
Return tabled.


LIP PROJECTS-LOTBINIERE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Fortin: 1.	In 1972-73, how many local initiatives projects were submitted by citizens from the constituency of Lotbiniere?
2.	(a) How many were accepted (b) what was the amount of each accepted project (c) on what date was each project accepted?
3.	(a) How many projects were rejected (b) on what date was each project rejected (c) for what reasons (d) what is the exact amount of each of the rejected projects?
4.	(a) What projects are still being considered (b) what is the amount of each?
Return tabled.


LIP PROJECTS-QUEBEC
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	How many public servants were responsible for analysing, selecting and approving LIP projects submitted from the Province of Quebec?
2.	What were their names?
3.	Did the Montreal Regional Office have responsibility and authority for approving or rejecting such projects and, if not, was there another selection committee in Ottawa and, if so, what were the names and duties of each of its members?
4.	Were there specific standards to be strictly applied by the public servants in assessing the acceptance or rejection of a project and, if so, what were such standards?
5.	Were priority projects (a) those related to recreation and submitted by private organizations (b) those concerning public works and submitted by public organizations?
Return tabled.
Order Paper Questions TOTAL AMOUNT OF LIP GRANTS, QUEBEC 
Question No. 1,196-Mr. Matte:
What was the total amount granted to each of the 74 constituencies in Quebec under LIP?
Return tabled.


QUEBEC-NUMBER OF ACCEPTED LIP PROJECTS AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
Mr. Matte: For each of the 74 constituencies in Quebec (a) how many LIP projects were accepted (b) what was the unemployment rate?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE-PERSONNEL
Mr. Knight: 1.	How may full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1970 in the Department of National Revenue?
2.	How many of those employees were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
3.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1973 in the Department of National Revenue?
4.	How many of those employees were earning more than $18,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
Return tabled.


LIP PROJECTS 1972-73
Mr. Haliburton: 1.	How much money was committed for all LIP projects for 1972-73 season?
2.	What is the total cost of administrative and supervisory services borne by the government in relation to LIP?
3.	By province, what amount was committed to LIP?
4.	By constituencies in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, what amount of money was committed to LIP?
5.	What is the total amount committed to projects which will provide tangible continuing facilities such as houses, public buildings, play grounds, etc?
6.	What is the total amount committed to projects, the central purpose of which will not leave any tangible facilities in the community when completed?
7.	What is the total amount committed to projects in which provincial or municipal administrations are participating, either directly or indirectly?
8.	How many grants have been allocated?
9.	How many of the program are being carried out by an organization which was in receipt of LIP funds in 1971-72?
Return tabled.


NUMBER OF GRAIN HOPPER CARS IN USE
Mr. Masniuk: 1.	What is the number of grain hopper cars currently in use by (a) CNR (b) CPR?
2.	What principal tracks are used for the grain hopper cars by (a) CNR (b) CPR?
3.	What is the maximum number of grain hopper car units which may be carried by these principal tracks?

May 7, 1973
Oral Questions
4.	Does the government consider the present handling capacity adequate and, if not, what are its intentions toward rectifying any inadequacies?
Return tabled.


EMBASSIES AND CONSULATES IN CANADA
Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): How many embassies and/or consulates are there in Canada, what countries are represented and where is each embassy and/or consulate located?
Return tabled.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I have had a series of six questions dealing with Air Canada, Nos. 1182 to 1187, on the order paper since February 26, a period of some ten weeks. I wonder if something could be done to facilitate obtaining the answers. The questions are not that difficult.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he can now give us a definite date when the proposed food prices review board will be established, it now being more than a month since the committee made its interim report and about ten days since the minister announced his intention to establish such a review board? Can the minister give us a firm date, or is he having trouble finding people to serve in this rather useless role?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there is no trouble in finding people to serve on the board. The work of identifying potential members has not yet been completed. Therefore I am not in a position to give a definite date when the formal appointments will be made.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps the minister might tell us whether it will be this year or next. Can he tell us whether the terms of reference of the Prices Review Board will include any guidelines with regard to costs, profits and price increases, or will the board have to establish its own guidelines as a result of laborious and long research?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference of the board will be set out in the order in council appointing the commissioners, but I can direct my hon. friend to the statement I made about the plan for the board a few days ago.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is because I read the statement of the hon. gentleman that I have asked the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the intention that a member of the board who considers it appropriate may make a report on his own or will it be necessary that all members of the board act in concert? I ask this question particularly because I understand it is the minister's intention to have the board represent different points of view in the country.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would have to check into this further, but I understand that basically the reports would be reports of the board.


REVIEW BOARD-METHOD OF REPORTING-CONTINUANCE OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask the minister whether, in accordance with the recommendations of the parliamentary committee, he intends to have the Prices Review Board report through him to parliament and, if not, why not?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I announced that, in order to confirm the independence of the board, it will be able to release its reports directly for the use of parliament, the public and the government without the necessity of having the report go first to some minister before they can be made available to those concerned. I think this is quite consistent with the main thrust of the recommendation of the committee that this board be independent.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact that the minister has circumvented parliament by using the Inquiries Act, and in view of the fact that act will give the board no more and no less power than the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices, thereby making the special committee redundant, is it the government's intention to continue the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices and will the committee be given new terms of reference in view of the obvious redundancy?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the government has not circumvented parliament by announcing its decision to take action under the Inquiries Act. The Inquiries Act is an act of parliament, and the government is using authority already given it by parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Specifically, Mr. Speaker, this board will have very wide and deep powers under the Inquiries Act. I invite the hon. member to take the trouble to read the Inquiries Act and then he will know what I mean.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Further, Mr. Speaker, if I could have another 30 seconds-
May 7, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps it might be easier to allow the hon. member his supplementary and then the minister could have another 30 seconds.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if it is his intention to appoint Professor Young as Chairman of the Prices Review Board so that he can at least salvage something from the Prices and Incomes Commission?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will just have to wait to see who is appointed so that he can try to salvage something from his very negative approach to a very constructive proposal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON WAYS CONTEMPLATED BY GOVERNMENT TO IMPLEMENT REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether he will give consideration to making an early statement in the House of Commons to expand more fully, in a more detailed manner, on the ways which the minister and the government would contemplate for following up or implementing recommendations of the Prices Review Board?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to take that under advisement with my colleagues.


REVIEW BOARD-POSSIBLE DIRECTION BY GOVERNMENT RESPECTING SUBJECTS OF INQUIRY
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will the minister, on behalf of the government, be directing certain courses of inquiry for this board on the basis of the fact that there has been a tremendous increase in the input costs of farmers and farm suppliers, which can do no other than be reflected in higher food prices? Will the minister give this priority and direct that immediate action be taken on behalf of this industry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my statement a few days ago, the board is intended to be independent, and its terms of reference will enable it to look into any aspects pertaining to changes in food prices. I think this could certainly cover the areas mentioned by the hon. member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for Exter-
Oral Questions
nal Affairs. In view of the repeated incidents of attacks on personnel of the International Control Commission and the continuation of hostilities throughout Indo-China in breach of the Paris peace agreement, will the minister make a statement in the House at an early date on the continuation of Canada's contribution to the ICCS after the 60 days we are now committed to have expired?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the incidents the hon. member has referred to are part of the accumulating evidence. As I have said publicly, and I have no hesitation in saying it here in the House, there has not been the kind of improvement in conditions of operation of the ICCS which I laid down as one of the reasons for staying on. In fact, the situation has deteriorated rather than improved. However, we have been urged to be patient and we shall continue to observe events, probably until the end of the month.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If the conditions to which the minister refers have not been carried out, and I must agree with him that they have not, why does he not now notify the various parties that Canada cannot continue this useless role?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the peace agreement remains in effect. Although both the United States and the North Vietnamese have sent notes to each of the members of the International Conference on Viet Nam and both of them have expressed their determination to see that the peace agreement is carried out, it has obviously been breached. However, I do not think it is for us to judge whether the peace agreement itself has been broken or not. That is for the signatories of the peace agreement to decide. Our function as members of the ICCS is to report upon infractions that are brought to the attention of the International Control Commission.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the increasing concern of the whole population of Canada with the payment of old age security pensions at 60, could the minister state whether he raised this question during the recent conference with his provincial opposite numbers?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, that question, as well as many others, has been discussed. The whole field of social security was dealt with, including the question mentioned by the hon. member.

May 7, 1973
Oral Questions


DATE OF NEXT CONFERENCE OF WELFARE MINISTERS
David Réal Caouette: Mr.Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Can the minister tell us roughly when he intends to meet again the provincial ministers of social welfare?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, in my statement following the conference, I indicated that the next meeting is planned for September. In the meantime, the deputy ministers and government officials will meet.


INCLUSION OF YEARS LIVED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY FORMER RESIDENTS TOWARD QUALIFYING FOR CANADIAN OLD AGE PENSION
[Stage Direction]
ernment. If he does, there are no doubt opportunities for which his abilities would well suit him. As for a rehabilitation program, Canada has none which could be suited to Mr. Marc Cayer's very special case.
Mr. Wagner:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Has he been in touch with Mr. Marc Cayer with a view to benefitting from the experience the latter gained in Viet Nam?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My officials had the opportunity of talking to Mr. Cayer about his experiences there and he knows we would always be willing to listen to anything else he would like to tell us.


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of a recently signed agreement between the minister and the British High Commissioner which will allow former residents of Canada now living in Britain to receive British pensions at age 65, can the minister inform the House whether negotiations are taking place between Canada and Great Britain in order to establish reciprocal arrangements which would allow former residents of the United Kingdom to have their years of residence in that country count toward qualifying for the old age security pension in Canada and, if so, can the minister advise the House when reports on these discussions will be made available?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the matter has been discussed with several countries on many occasions and not only with the United Kingdom. I do not believe I shall be in a position to report to the House in this regard in the near future.	.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can he tell us whether, since his return to Canada, Mr. Marc Cayer has been offered any help whatsoever by the government to facilitate his reintegration into Canadian society?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be privileged to reply to this question. As the hon. gentleman knows, Mr. Marc Cayer was afforded all courtesy and help possible on his return from Viet Nam. He never suggested that he wanted to have any employment with the Canadian gov-


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Howard Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of my question relates to the massive escapes of maximum security prisoners from the medium security institute at Cowansville, Quebec. Was the Solicitor General informed when maximum security inmates were transferred to the medium security institute at Cowansville, or were the transfers made by his officials without his knowledge?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I was not made aware of this. I might say that the people who are there who could be considered to be maximum security inmates, and I do consider them that in many cases, were classified as medium security inmates. However, after looking at the records of many of these men it is pretty obvious that they are maximum security inmates. There has been a serious overpopulation problem with respect to maximum security inmates and we are trying to find places for them at the present time.


William Heward Grafftey: When maximum security type prisoners were placed in Cowansville, did the Solicitor General order or receive a thorough analysis of the adequacy of the security provisions at Cowansville, and has the minister assessed the effects of these transfers on parole procedures and on modern penal reform and rehabilitation measures which were being carried out successfully at Cowansville with hundreds of medium security type inmates and at similar institutions across the country?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 30 maximum security type prisoners at Cowansville, which has approximately 420 inmates. These inmates were not transferred there all at once but over a period of time. In Quebec there are approximately 600 maximum security inmates, and Archambault, which is the principal maximum security institution, only holds 450 inmates. So they have have had to put some of the maximum security
May 7, 1973

inmates at Cowansville, some at Leclerc and some in the special correctional units.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that the 12 prisoners who escaped were maximum security inmates? What affect has this had on Cowansville which is a medium security institution designed to rehabilitate inmates?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, all those who escaped were not maximum security inmates. However, the moving of maximum security inmates to Cowansville has contributed to the general population problem and has created a lot of tension with the staff and inmates. It has led to a situation in which there are not enough staff to handle all the inmates from the point of view of programs, security and many other aspects. We are now looking for solutions to that problem. On a temporary basis we are applying maximum security measures to Cowansville Penitentiary.


William Heward Grafftey: In view of the good work carried on at Cowansville, will the minister assure the House that in future no more maximum security inmates will be transferred there?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we, of course, want Cowansville to return to being a medium security institution as soon as possible. However, if maximum security inmates are sent to penitentiary we have to put them some place. We are not going to put them back on the street.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: As I said, Archambault-


Mr. Bell:: Explain.


William Warren Allmand: Obviously, I have to explain quite a bit.


Thomas Miller Bell: Where is Rivard now?


William Warren Allmand: As I said, the principal maximum security institute in Quebec is Archambault. However, there is no space left at Archambault and at all our maximum security institutions throughout Canada there is a serious overpopulation problem. We have to find additional space outside of the present regular maximum security institutions.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one further supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock has a supplementary.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Having in mind the almost daily reports of greatly increased corporation profits in Canada, is consideration being given to
Oral Questions
reconsidering the government's earlier idea of reducing corporation taxation rates?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the improvement in the return on capital for the business community in no way lessens the need for the corporate measures proposed in 1972 which were meant to enhance Canada's ability to compete in the medium and long term with the new economic blocs in the world.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal who I believe wished to ask a supplementary to the previous question. I thought the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock was rising on the same question and that is why he was recognized.


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. Will the government soon fill the vacancies on the National Parole Board and add to the membership of the board so that it may resume its very useful practice of interviewing inmates in the various penal institutions across the country, a practice they have had to stop because the government has not filled the vacancies and has not done anything about expanding the board?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the National Parole Board has discontinued personal interviews in penitentiaries is not due to the vacancies on the board. It is due to a general over-work problem that has carried on for some time. I might say we have made recommendations to fill two positions. We hope they will be filled soon, but that in itself will not bring back the interviews at penitentiaries. I hope to have some measures before the House soon to increase the size of the parole board and I hope we will have the support of members opposite in this regard.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It will also be of interest to the President of the Treasury Board. In light of the widespread fear of contracting out policies in the maintenance and catering sections of the Department of National Defence, can the minister indicate the extent to which this policy has been implemented and comment on the charges made during the past week across the country by the president of the Union of National Defence Employees to the effect that many-

May 7, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member resume his seat. The second part of the hon. member's question is hardly in order. The hon. member cannot ask the minister to comment on statements made outside the House. The question might be asked in other terms or perhaps the hon. member might ask it in some other form as a supplementary.


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard and seen the allegations made by the union, but I can assure the House and the hon. member that no members of the Department of National Defence staff are being laid off, dismissed or in any way having their jobs jeopardized as a result of contracting out any of the services that the hon. member mentioned.


Donald W. Munro: None the less, can the minister indicate whether this policy of contracting out is in fact a new policy or whether it relates to the already stated policy of the government, enunciated by the Treasury Board, to reduce the number of civilian employees within the Department of National Defence from 35,000 to 30,000?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, there is no new policy of contracting out in the area of food services and maintenance and cleaning. There is no attempt to reduce the number of Department of National Defence personnel by contracting out. Our contracting out is relatively limited in those areas.


VALCARTIER-MEASURES TO AVOID LAYING OFF OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. minister tell what has been the objective of the administrative measures used until now and assure the House that the department will review its policy in order to spare certain employees of the Valcartier base who have recently been threatened with dismissal at the end of the month?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already given that assurance.


FUTURE INTENTION RESPECTING CONTRACTING OUT OF CERTAIN SERVICES
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Because this concerns the livelihood of very many people, I wish to ask the minister a question to which I hope he can respond directly. Will the minister assure the House that the Department of National Defence has no intention of contracting out food or maintenance services beyond what has already been done?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, as X indicated, our contracting out of food services and maintenance services is relatively limited. There are occasions when we are not able to meet our
requirements internally and we do contract out. When we do, however, the positions of our employees are protected. I repeat, we do not have a policy to greatly increase the contracting out of services.


Douglas Charles Rowland: In view of the fact the average age of the employees likely to be affected by any contracting out, however minimal, is in excess of 50 years, can the minister assure the House that, should contracting out take place, no indeterminate employees will lose their jobs because of it and they will be able to retain their jobs where they are currently employeed or at a base nearby at the same salary?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can give that guarantee and assurance to the employees. No regular employee can have his position jeopardized by any contracting out of services which we might undertake.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Jack Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It arises out of the motion on the order paper which deals specifically with the Official Languages Act. Does the Prime Minister envision an act or bill following this motion which will place binding authority either on the Treasury Board or the Public Service Commission?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the motion stands by itself. No legislation is contemplated at this time to follow up the implementation of it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question arising out of the Prime Minister's answer. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the nine points outlined by the President of the Treasury Board will have a lasting effect and carry on to another Treasury Board or another President of the Treasury Board in subsequent parliaments or, for that matter, in this parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the meaning of the question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: With Your Honour's indulgence, possibly I could explain it a little better. A resolution passed by this or any other body is an expression of that body's opinion, but if the Treasury Board, the government, the cabinet or this group of Members of Parliament should change, that resolution would not necessarily be binding on a subsequent body of men or women, or both. What means of conveyance of that authority does the Prime Minister have in mind for subsequent parliaments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the authority lies in the act. It was endorsed by all parties in the House some years ago. The present resolution intends explaining how the act will be brought into application in as much detail as possible. If that resolution is adopted by the House, as I

May 7, 1973

hope it will be, it will be binding on the administration as long as it is not changed by parliament.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have one further supplementary. I do not want to get into an argument with the Prime Minister with regard to the application of the Official Languages Act. However, I wonder how the nine points, which I also endorse-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I note there is some applause. If the members had studied the amendment, which I know the Minister of Finance well remembers and which clearly outlines similar proposals-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member ask a supplementary rather than comment on the reaction from other members. Following that, we might try to go on to the next question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I did not want to become involved, but it seemed obvious that I should make some comment. Will the Prime Minister state how the nine points, which are not now in the Official Languages Act, will become part and parcel of that act if a bill or an act does not follow the motion now on the order paper?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the resolution carries, and if the hon. member intends to support it I am sure it will carry, because if he supports it I am sure everyone else will-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -it will become a directive of this House to the President of the Treasury Board.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Only to the present President of the Treasury Board.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me we are getting involved in debate on a motion which is not at the moment before the House.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact the minister was not able before Easter to introduce his bill to increase the basic rate of the war disability pension, can he say whether that bill will be introduced within the next few days?
Hon. Daniel ]. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, that is presently before the government. As I already stated in the House, when I have the information I will certainly convey it to the House.
Oral Questions


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister say whether the bill when it is introduced will provide for the increase to be retroactive?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: When the bill is drafted this will be very obvious and easy to determine.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FOOD PRICES
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a question supplementary to those put to him previously. In light of the fact that a great many people in Canada, including important elements of this House, have some reservations as to the efficacy of the Prices Review Board of which the hon. gentleman has told us, is the minister prepared to submit the terms of reference establishing the board to the House for approval in the form of a motion in the same way as the Prime Minister is submitting his motion with regard to the Official Languages Act?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I shall be happy to discuss the hon. member's suggestion with my colleagues, though I might add that parliament has already spoken by passing the Inquiries Act which delegates to the cabinet the authority to set the terms of reference.


Gerald William Baldwin: In that light parliament has also legislated the Statutory Instruments Act. Will the minister co-operate with the joint chairmen of that committee and allow that committee to examine the provisions of the terms of reference in the order in council if he is afraid to entrust the matter to the House?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I have the utmost confidence in the House, and that is why I am happy to be able to make use of the authority given to the government by the House under the Inquiries Act. However, I would be glad to examine the requirements of the Statutory Instruments Act to determine whether the hon. gentleman's suggestion is one that is in fact required by that statute.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question in relation to a paragraph which has appeared in an information bulletin issued by the Department of Manpower and

May 7, 1973
Oral Questions
Immigration. It is stated that all new staff-this refers to the Department of Manpower-shall be fingerprinted. Does this requirement apply to all the staff of the Department of Manpower? Does it apply to all public servants irrespective of their category in the various departments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It certainly does not apply to everyone in the public service. However, I will look into this requirement, discuss it with the minister concerned and perhaps provide an answer to the hon. member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Might I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to tell us to which people this fingerprinting requirement applies? It is stated that all new staff are to be security-cleared to a minimum level of "confidential" and complete a form known as M & I 34 or C-216C and be fingerprinted. What people are we talking about?


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question, get the information and report back.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: One further question to the Prime Minister. I ask it because I think this is a very important matter, one of concern to many people nowadays who are getting jobs in various departments. Will the Prime Minister take notice of this question and advise the House and the country what new civil servants, public servants, are being fingerprinted in all the departments in Canada today in accordance with the confidential bulletin put out to various people across the country?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint John-Lancas-ter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Prime Minister wanted to answer. This matter involves security and is of concern to public servants across Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair does not wish to prevent the Prime Minister from replying to the hon. member's question, but I was under the impression he was repeating the question he asked in the first instance. In any event, the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster is about to ask a supplementary which might give the Prime Minister an opportunity to reply to both questions.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the Prime Minister whether he would consider appearing before an appropriate parliamentary committee, either in camera or otherwise, to deal with this general subject and, in particular, with the charge he made over the weekend that Americans are spying on Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I never made such a charge.


Thomas Miller Bell: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I have here a Canadian Press report of May 7 in which the Prime Minister is quoted as saying that certain Americans are spying on Canadians-on Canada. I would think an opportunity should be given for the committee to hear, in camera or otherwise, whether these spying charges are justified or not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Having heard the hon. member explain his question, I think he is really referring to the rest of the answers I gave. I did tell a questioner on television that most people in business, in government, in politics or in industry were trying to obtain intelligence concerning their competitors and that the only important question was whether this intelligence was obtained in legal or illegal ways.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the cabinet has issued a directive that people getting new jobs in the public service in the various departments of government must all be fingerprinted irrespective of the category in which they are classified? Has such a directive been issued and has the Prime Minister knowledge of it? If not, will he look into it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, you are perfectly right. In my first answer to this question I did indicate I would look into the matter.


DEVELOPMENT OF CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS RESOURCES-DISCUSSION BETWEEN MINISTER AND GOVERNMENT OF PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In his recent conversations with the prime minister of the Peoples' Republic of China and in particular in his discussions concerning the continental shelf, did the minister propose to the premier a meeting of Pacific powers to decide on boundary lines between the nations before oil or gas is recovered from the continental shelves?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines
and Resources): No, Sir. The concern which is felt by the leaders of the People's Republic of China relates to the Yellow Sea rather than to the Pacific Ocean as a whole. I did indicate we would be prepared to co-operate with that government by making available to them the studies we have carried out in preparation for the Law of the Sea Conference and in particular with respect to our own negotiations for defining the boundary on the continental shelf off the east coast of Canada.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Would the minister make the same information available to Members of Parliament as he is making available to the premier of China?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: I would be glad at some appropriate point to explain to the hon. gentleman the problems associated with this as they affect the continental shelf.
May 7, 1973


TRANSPORT
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport regarding the unfortunate incident at Tofino on the west coast of Vancouver Island in which two persons were drowned when seeking to reach the Indian reserve. In view of the fact there is some concern in the community about the reduction of staff at the lifeboat station- the staff has been reduced to one contingent on duty from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.; there is no one there at night- may I ask whether the minister is prepared to make an investigation to determine whether or not this curtailment of service was responsible for the loss of life to which I have referred? If he has received a report on the incident, is he prepared to tell the House the nature of the information he has received?


Jean Marchand: It is my
intention to investigate the matter to determine whether the staff at the station is sufficient. However, in the particular case to which the hon. member has referred, no responsibility can be placed on the staff because four minutes after they received the alarm they were on the spot, saving the people who could be saved. There is only one period during which no one is in the office; it is from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m., four hours, and during that time there is direct telephone contact between the office and the people whom this service affects. Maybe there is a shortage of staff but responsibility cannot, surely, lie in that direction in this case.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Apart from those few extraneous remarks the minister made, may I ask him whether he will undertake to have a full study made of the situation to determine whether or not these deaths might have been prevented, or deaths in similar circumstances prevented in the future, by having a full complement on duty 24 hours a day?


Jean Marchand: I repeat that in this particular case four minutes elapsed between the alarm and the rescue. But I am making a doublecheck with a view to seeing that no lives are lost as a result of lack of staff.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Will he tell the House the basis of his assumption that the Indians of British Columbia want, as he put it, "half of B.C. back" if he has in fact read the very reasonable, clear and just brief on native claims presented to the Prime Minister and the government by the Union of B.C. chiefs in July of last year, and what does he expect
Oral Questions
to gain by making such exaggerated and unfounded statements?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In those terms the question is not in order.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport having regard to the matter of customs preclearance. It arises from the statement issued by the minister on April 26 confirming the intention of Canada to discontinue preclearance and indicating to the United States that restoration of preclearance would have to be negotiated in the context of the present bilateral air agreements. Can the minister advise the House whether any renewed negotiations are taking place with United States officials in this regard, and can we expect reinstitution of preclearance?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think there will be a new round of negotiations on May 28. Like the hon. gentleman, I will just have to wait to see what the results of those negotiations will be.


FISHERIES
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that ice conditions in the Atlantic region are hampering the execution of the lobster fishery in many districts, will the minister indicate whether he has received any reports from his district officers, and what action he is taking to relieve the situation by way of extending the lobster season in those areas affected?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, consideration is being given to the submission of the hon. member.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether there has been any investigation of the allegation that Mr. Edgar Benson, during 1968 when he had responsibility for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, appointed as

May 7, 1973
Oral Questions
auditors for CMHC a firm with which he had formerly been associated?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to, perhaps with the help of the hon. member, look into that allegation and find out.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I asked the question particularly because of the fact that when Mr. Benson was asked he said "it is possible; I am not sure". I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether there are any guidelines laid down within this government that govern this kind of appointment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the normal guidelines referring to conflict of interest in such matters do apply, but I would have to know more about the particular case to know whether there are any guidelines that cover it.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the disquieting number of railway accidents which occurred recently, and especially in the last few months, is the minister considering requiring the Canadian National Railways to hire enough qualified personnel for an adequate inspection of the lines and an equally adequate maintenance of the equipment?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, for quite some time the Canadian Transport Commission has undertaken, jointly with its American counterpart, an investigation into the causes of railway accidents which are increasing considerably because trains are longer. Trains which were formerly made up of 40 to 50 cars now have 100 to 120, and engines are heavier; this surely results in more frequent accidents. In my opinion the first thing to do is to carry out a complete and thorough investigation into the incidence of modern technology with regard to railway accidents.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley West for a supplementary question and then the hon. member for Brandon-Souris for the last question before calling orders of the day.


STEPS TO INCREASE COMPENSATION OF RURAL MAIL DELIVERY CONTRACTORS
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I would also direct my question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that inflation has caused unorganized rural mail contractors to fall so far behind in income they are in fact currently subsidizing the whole postal operation, can the minister advise the House what steps he plans to take to improve the rewards for this group of workers?


André Ouellet: The senior officials of the department are examining this questicn, Mr. Speaker, and I hope to be able to announce soon to the hon. member and this House decisions which certainly will satisfy them.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Brandon-Sour:s. Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member. I did not appreciate that the hon. member for Fraser Valley West had a supplementary question. I will recognize him anc then we will hear the hon. member's supplementary to the previous question.


Mark Willson Rose: I did not rise immediately, Mr. Speaker, as I was waiting for the translation. Since the minister has asked a number of Members of Parliament for suggestions to improve the rural route delivery system, and since the present legislation restricts the minister to amending those contracts under $10,000 a year, is he planning to introduce legislation dealing with this restriction and, if so, when can the House expect to see this legislation?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I hope to introduce such a bill as soon as possible, but I think that it will be possible in the meantime to take administrative measures to correct the situation pointed out by the hon. member.
[Eng lish]


POST OFFICE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Can he explain the continuing unreasonable delay in the delivery of first class mail in every part of Canada?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question from the hon. member. I invited him to give me specific cases but he has not done so yet.


REQUEST FOR RESTORATION OF MAIL DELIVERY SIX DAYS A WEEK
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Red Deer. In view of the Prime Minister's recent comment about the slowness of Canadian mail delivery, when will the Postmaster General be announcing the restoration of delivery six days a week as a partial solution to this problem?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the hon. member had appreciated as I did
May 7, 1973

the Prime Minister's sense of humour and that he had not taken it amiss.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the people of Canada do not regard this as funny, will the minister take some action?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, since we have decided to establish the 5-day delivery service, we have noted some difficulties, especially on Mondays. However, recent surveys have shown that conditions have greatly improved and since we have signed an attractive contract with most postal workers, the postal service has really improved in Canada.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-176, to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of Bill C-176 is of very great importance. It is a subject matter that has been before this House of Commons on two separate occasions. This afternoon I want to address myself very briefly to hon. members here about its content, doing so with the earnest hope that the broad measure of agreement, which I am sure there is in the House about the importance of this matter and the need to make these changes in the law, will result in the expeditious movement of this bill to the committee, back to the House and into effect as the law of Canada.
One of the problems we have experienced in the past with legislation is that too much kindness and too much talk about the merits of legislation has resulted in a delay in the implementation of important measures. This bill is important because it recognizes in a formal way the importance of privacy in our Canadian life. I say "in a formal way" because of course privacy has been recognized in indirect ways through various parts and parcels of the law over the years. But in this bill, for the first time at a federal level, the right of privacy is recognized expressly in a protection of privacy act. We are all familiar with the deepfelt belief that privacy and individuality are of fundamental importance to our own democratic way of life. With the growth of electronic devices which make it possible to hear or intercept conversations and communications without awareness of that interception by the persons participating in the conversation, we have
Protection of Privacy
had an increase in the problem of protection of privacy and an increase of the problem of the security of the people in this country, as well as their ability to converse with the knowledge that it is a private matter and not one which is being overseen or overheard by other persons.
The bill attempts to protect the right of privacy, I believe in a number of effective ways. It makes it a criminal offence to engage in this interception and a criminal offence with significant potential penalties attached, one of which is imprisonment of up to five years. It makes it an offence to possess or to sell devices of the electro-magnetic type or other devices which may be used for such interception purposes. Again, it places in the law significant penalties of up to two years imprisonment for this sale or possession of these devices. There is, of course, provision for the proper and authorized possession and sale but in a limited way, a way which is necessary for other portions of the bill. The bill also places a limitation on the communication of information if it is obtained in an illegal way. It proscribes that and also creates the potential of damages, punitive damages, to be assessed against those who improperly obtain or communicate information with electro-magnetic or other similar devices. That is the main thrust of the bill. It sets up the protection of privacy and the importance of our ability to communicate with one another without being surreptious-ly overheard or having our conversations intercepted.
The bill puts in play, I think, effective measures to ensure that that cannot be done and that that will be hereafter, after the passage of this bill into law, an illegal matter and therefore one which we can attempt to restrain with the full power of law enforcement. The bill on the other hand, recognizes the potential desirability of the use of these devices on occasion in the public interest, in the public cause, when our enforcement officers, either for security reasons or reasons associated with offences where other measures may fail, need these devices and will find them useful in the enforcement of the general law and order on our society. In the case of criminal matters, the bill proposes the authorization of such uses by persons engaged in the enforcement procedures. The bill accepts the conclusion of the House committee in 1970, which was supported by the House again in committee in 1972, that these authorizations should be obtained from a judge, a judge defined, as the committee chose in the 1972 session, to include superior court, county court and district court judges. The Solicitor General, in the case of certain federal matters, and the provincial attor-neys-general in the case of provincial matters, are involved in the applications for these authorizations and therefore are seen as having a direct responsibility for this.
There is, in a sense, a double protection through the responsibility of the Solicitor General or the provincial attorneys general and the actual authorization of the use of the warrant by the judge. That is one of the issues which has been the cause of some discussion and controversy. It may again be a matter upon which the committee will wish to focus some attention. I hope when we get to that stage we will look at it seriously once more, but not to the point of preventing the bill becoming, at an early date, a part of the law of the land.

May 7, 1973
Protection of Privacy
It has been argued in the committee that, on the one hand, it might be better if the full responsibility for these authorizations were placed upon the Solicitor General or the attorneys-general as the case may be. The involvement of the judge, I think, is a useful precaution, even though it is recognized that in an ex parte proceeding he is faced with material being presented to him upon which he must make a judgment without having necessarily the total part of the argument which an opponent might put forward to him. It is none the less a useful precaution I believe in ensuring that the form of the use of electronic device is in fact apparently on a sound basis.
The bill itself sets out that these are not to be first-rank techniques of investigation but rather in the way of additional, fail-back or substitute ways of investigating when more ordinary means of investigation fail. There is further political protection in the requirement of report by the Solicitor General or by the provincial attorneys-general each year with regard to the number and types of uses of devices in the course of enforcement within their areas of jurisdiction. These, I think, are the interesting and useful balances. It will be argued before the House I am sure-and we have a good deal of knowledge about the arguments which may be made in the committee because of the appearance of this matter before the House on two separate occasions and the appearance of witnesses before House committees-that the bill, even as it stands, is perhaps a little too restrictive in respect of the investigative powers, in the shortness of the period for which warrants may be issued and in the exact terminology of the type of cases for which they may be applied.
I will be eager to hear hon. members views once again in the committee as we look at the exact and precise details of the legislation. There also has been some controversy in respect of the proposals in the bill to exclude evidence in criminal or civil matters under federal jurisdiction which had been obtained in an illegal or unauthorized manner following the enactment of this bill into law. There, we would be seeing the introduction into our law I believe for the first time of an exclusionary rule which I think is, in its history, merely intended to add a further sanction against the illegal obtaining of evidence on the theory that it will not so readily be obtained as evidence if it is not admissible in a subsequent case. I think it is worth noting that there are significant other sanctions in the bill before us, including both the penal provisions and the civil or punitive damages provisions, including Crown liability if any Crown servants are involved in an illegal interception. The committee may want to consider further whether this exclusionary rule is reasonable or necessary in this particular case with these additional sanctions.
There is, in addition to the sanction argument, the issue which will be before the committee of whether it is right for a court to be involved with evidence which is illegally obtained or, on the other hand, whether it is fair or decent to the administration of justice to see a cause unresolved because certain clear evidence is not before the court because of the technical rule excluding it.
I think these are important points, and I hope and look forward to having the committee conduct further discussion upon them, but not in a way which will obscure the 
main and fundamental thrust of the bill upon which there was agreement in the committee of the House of Commons when the main portions of this bill were put forward in almost the same form as they now stand, as well as in the committee of the House in 1972 when a bill very much like Bill C-176 was before it. That main thrust is to make it an offence to engage in electronic, electro-magnetic and similar eavesdropping or interception of conversations to protect privacy in a fundamental way by the creation of that offence, and then only to allow certain very narrow exceptions to that main point. With the passing of the law, therefore, the interception of communications by private citizens, whether for purposes of trade or curiosity, will be a criminal offence. We will have the possibility of restraining such activity and, perhaps even more important, of adding to the assurance of individuals that their privacy is protected and that they do not have to fear that such devices are around them.
In addition to the prohibition of the use of these devices we have also the prohibition of their possession and sale, again except in very narrow categories. That is the main thrust of the bill. It is an important addition to the Criminal Code and to the law of the land and I, therefore, urge hon. members to help in the swift passage of the legislation, even though we must debate in committee the interesting points to which I referred and resolve them there. While they are important, they are not as important as the main thrust of the bill which, I hope, will soon be a part of the law of the land.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, the shortness of the speech of the minister makes it somewhat difficult for the rest of us to comment on a seminal piece of legislation-if I could use that term-but I am afraid that, although the official opposition will want to co-operate in the passage of this bill, there will be three or four speakers from this side at least who will want to have a chance to make their comments before the bill reaches the committee.
I think I am conscious of the fact that we must not be like the pharisees and thank God that we are not like other men when we consider this bill in juxtaposition to the grubby and sordid events which are called the Watergate scandal in the United States. However, it must be admitted that the Watergate scandal makes an interesting backdrop for a public debate in this country. It is my submission that, although the events of Watergate could have taken place here legally until this bill is passed, there is no question that their ethics would leave a great deal to be desired.
One of the major problems connected with this bill for spokesmen for the official opposition such as me is not really in the thrust which has been discussed by the minister regarding the protection of privacy, with certain narrow exceptions, but rather-and I will comment briefly on this and hope that perhaps somebody else from the government will allay my concern about it, and then I will consider some other aspects of the bill-in the rather loose, use of certain words, if I can say so fairly, in clause 6 on page 21 of Bill C-176. There is a description in the clause of espionage and sabotage, and the following are the words which I think are used much too loosely, certainly for this party's acceptance, namely: " .. . or any
May 7, 1973

other subversive activity directed against Canada . . This is not the language of the Criminal Code. This phrase is nowhere defined, either in the Criminal Code, or in this bill, and I hope that the committee will direct itself, first of all, to getting rid of such loose language or, second, to to at least defining it.
We must remember that we are within three years of the imposition of the War Measures Act, and I think that put all of us as parliamentarians-I am not being partisan at all-on our guard when we see rather ill defined language about what is or what is not subversive activity. As I have said in other contexts, one man's draft dodger is another man's hero, and I think that in defining the right to privacy and in defining peculiar ways in which the government can listen in on conversations-and I think this bill is a positive measure-we must be very careful that we are not busy listening in on activities which, although they may not be very pleasant for governments or for administrations, none the less are in no way part of what we might call the scandalous activities of espionage and sabotage.
That is just a comment, but I hope the government will want to tighten up this language, and if not tighten it up, remove it altogether because sabotage and subversion are well defined. There is a law concerning them but nowhere in this statute or the Code is there anything about any other subversive activity directed against Canada. This needs to be defined, and I hope the government will see to it that it occurs.
The problem of the control of electronic means of surveillance has become acute due to rapid technological advances which now offer comprehensive techniques for bugging and snooping. As is obvious, telephones can be tapped, offices bugged, files photographed, movements monitored, and communications recorded without the knowledge of the person involved. I think the minister will agree that science and technology have-until this bill is passed-outstripped the legal means of controlling technology. This is really what we are about. The law is finally catching up with technological change. As I said when I started, it is appropriate for us to be discussing this subject while the evils of Watergate take up so much of the news these days. The assumption that Watergate could not have happened in Canada is naive, I think, and dangerous, particularly because, until now no federal law has existed concerning wiretapping and other forms of electronic eavesdropping.
As the minister has said, the aim of the bill is to make a crime of the wilful interception of a private communication. To repeat what the minister said-if I may flatter him in this way-the central question is the delicate one of how far you can restrict law enforcement officers without interfering with them, how much you have to restrict them in order to give better assurance that there is, in fact, protection of privacy in the bill. The bill prescribes a particular kind of compromise in this area. If protection is to have meaning, all methods and devices for wire tapping and electronic surveillance must be controlled.
The Task Force on Privacy and Computers-if I may say so gratuitously, one of the more interesting recent
Protection of Privacy
government publications-explains the privacy of the person as "aimed essentially at maintaining the dignity of the human person. Our persons are protected not so much against the physical search as against the indignity of the search, its invasion of the person in a moral sense." The right to privacy is not absolute. "In any society, claims to privacy are continually balanced against other values and interests by social, political and legal processes. The security and welfare of the collectivity and its institutions are values which tend to prevail over individual claims to privacy." Of course, what the government is seeking, and I hope it thinks it is seeking it with our help, is to try to strike a just balance between public protection and safety and the protection of privacy. As the minister pointed out, this question has been considered several times in recent years.
The Justice and Legal Affairs Committee studied the matter of electronic eavesdropping and made a report on March 11, 1970. The committee listed 20 major recommendations. Among them were that wire tapping, electronic eavesdropping and industrial espionage should become crimes. Also recommended by the committee were well defined limits on police use of electronic bugs, a list of crimes justifying such investigation, application for use by an attorney-general and authorization by a judge, a stated time period for surveillance, and a yearly report to parliament by the attorney-general. I am glad to say that many of these recommendations have been incorporated in the bill that we are now considering. As I have said, at present there are no privacy laws at the federal level in Canada. British Columbia and Manitoba have privacy laws for civil actions, and I am informed that several provinces have legislation concerning interception of telephonic communication.
This bill is the third bill concerning wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping introduced by the government. When the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) was minister of justice he introduced a bill on privacy on June 28, 1971. That bill died on the order paper after first reading. Then, there was Bill C-6 on the same subject. It was given first reading on February 21, 1972. I think it is worth noting, and anyway I am going to note it because others may read that there is this chronology available. I always have a horror that some day others will read these words, but if so, no doubt thay will be interested to know what happened. Hence the excuse for the history lesson, Mr. Speaker. On May 2, 1972, Bill C-6 was given second reading, and was discussed in committee in early June. The bill, with amendments, was reported back to the House on June 14, and we know what happened then. It did not get any further, and once again died on the order paper.
The present bill has been before us for just a month. It was given first reading on April 13. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, it is the same as Bill C-6, with one or two amendments suggested by the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Outlawed is wilfully listening in or recording of a private conversation by electromagnetic, accoustic or mechanical devices. It will become a criminal offence to possess, sell or purchase any device that is primarily useful for invading privacy.

May 7, 1973
Protection of Privacy
Information gained from illegal wiretapping would also become an offence punishable by imprisonment. The bill authorizes monitoring aimed at preventing and detecting subversive or criminal activity where other investigative procedures are judged not likely to be successful. Evidence obtained as the result of information acquired though illegal wiretapping can be used in certain circumstances. Bugging must be authorized by a provincial attorney general or by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). Application must be made to a Superior Court judge, and bugging can be approved for a 30 day period, with the right to apply for an extension. In case of emergency, the approval of a judge is not required for authorization but the permit is valid for only 36 hours, and approval of a judge is necessary if the evidence obtained is to be used in court.
Basic to the consideration of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is the recognition of the right to know. In a moment I am going to quote the distinguished hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton, the present Minister of Finance, who made a very interesting and now, I am afraid, forgotten by many, speech in September, 1969.


John Napier Turner: Not forgotten by Jed Baldwin.


Mr. Fairweather:: No, and he has a private bill which should be part of this legislation. I am going to invoke the good advice of the Minister of Finance and read to him part of the speech he made, and the suggestions he was going to make to his cabinet colleagues.
The legislative scope of this bill attempts to achieve the two purposes of protection of the right to privacy, and infringement of the right to privacy in the public interest. I suggest it can be criticized as completely forgetting to provide for the complementary right to know. I have here marked a copy of the speech which the Minister of Finance made in 1969. It was probably made to Osgoode Hall. He used to like to speak there. But no, Mr. Speaker, I see it was to the Canadian Bar Association, one of the more open and liberal associations of this country. It was to the Canadian Bar Association annual meeting in Ottawa.


John Napier Turner: Don't forget that we may be back in practice one day, Gordon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I had better stop this. Anyway, the speech was delivered to that very open minded group, the Canadian Bar Association. It was entitled, "Twin Freedoms: the Right to Privacy and the Right to Know." I agreed with the thrust of the speech. At page 13 he said:
Mr. Chairman, there is another side to the right to privacy which has not received the prominence it deserves but whose dimensions cannot be ignored. There is a tendency in governments to refuse information to its citizens under the guise of privacy which is disguised as the public interest.
Those words are eloquent, but they are four years old and I have not seen the government change one whit.


John Napier Turner: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Please do.


John Napier Turner: Has he read the Statutory Instruments Act which goes a long way towards increasing the public's right to know?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I have read the Statutory Instruments Act. I have also read the 16 points that the minister's colleague, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) announced, commonly known as the sixteen protection of the government rules. We will be discussing those in the committee. As a very senior civil servant said to me, "I have to get it through my head that it isn't really the protection"-Mr. Speaker, what did he say?


John Napier Turner: It must have been late at night.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: No, it wasn't late at night. It was an important statement, and I will recall it. He said that it was the protection of the government that was always foremost in the mind of the government, and not indeed the protection of the public. It is no wonder that that man has moved to other places.
Now to continue quoting the speech made by the Minister of Finance, he said:
There is a tendency in governments to refuse information to its citizens under the guise of privacy which is disguised as the public interest. Government secrecy is sometimes legitimated-
I would not have used that word.


John Napier Turner: That is the right word.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: -as the state's right to privacy, but it may well be a denial of the public right to know. If individual privacy is a foundation of democracy, the citizen's right to know is fundamental to any participatory democracy.
That was a sort of elegant phrase then; it is now more famous for its breach than for its acceptance by this government.
The public cannot be expected to dialogue meaningfully-
Now, Mr. Minister, really. "Dialogue meaningfully" is not a phrase that I think you would have used. I suppose you meant "talk sense". That would have been a better cliche. I know "dialogue meaningfully" is what you said but I hope we reach the stage in this parliament that the cliches "dialogue" and "meaningful" will be exorcised forever. If so, we will have done the country a service.


John Napier Turner: That speech was made three or four years ago.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Before it got to the dialogue stage! Now, I am afraid that I was guilty, too. I notice we are beginning to use the word "thrust" and it is close to becoming a cliche as well.


John Napier Turner: How about "scenario"?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: We could go on forever-"a meaningful scenario". To continue:
The public cannot be expected to dialogue meaningfully-still less decide-if it is refused the very information which would make such a dialogue and decision-making possible.
May 7, 1973

That was an excellent speech. I wish some of the minister's good sense had been embodied in this legislation because I think that most of this legislation is good but there is a serious gap in that part of it which relates to the public's right to know. The minister went on to say:
It is my view that we have now reached the stage when this matter should be dealt with legislatively-
I presume the minister's intervention meant that the Statutory Instruments Act had covered his concern.


John Napier Turner: Partially.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Well, the minister is still the minister- regretfully. Maybe he can do something more about this.
-in a comprehensive way and it is my intention to recommend that this course of actions be followed in so far as the federal government is concerned in the very near future.
I think that is a good recommendation. If the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) would accept some amendments that we offer at the committee stage, perhaps we might have dual rights entrenched in legislation-that is the protection of the right to privacy and the fact that the public has, indeed, the right to know.
Others will be considering this legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I hope very much that before this second reading debate is finished someone on behalf of the government will explain what I find to be upsetting language on page 21 in clause 6.16(2)(a) "subversive activity directed against Canada". I serve notice that if the government cannot clear up this matter we will want an amendment at the committee stage.
The bill has been around three times, so there is some disposition to try to get it to committee at an early date. I hope the House will profit from speeches made by members new to this place but not to the consideration of this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-176 takes centre stage at this critical time in political democracy. Canadians have been exposed to and some have experienced the results of wiretapping and electronic surveillance. We have witnessed and read the revelations of the Watergate affair and are shocked by the conduct and cover-up of persons in high places. Mr. Speaker, Watergate is now making the McCarthyism period in the United States look like the age of reason. When we learn that the late J. Edgar Hoover, as head of the FBI, considered Martin Luther King a subversive and a liar and applied electronic surveillance to Dr. King, it makes us realize the restrictions that must be placed on electronic surveillance.
We in the New Democratic Party support the principles of Bill C-176 but are concerned with some of the procedures and provisions in it. I notice that the former minister of justice is here, Mr. Speaker. I read his speech and some of his interviews in which he indicated that there should have been consultation between the Minister of Justice and the attorneys-general of the provinces. I hope that procedure was followed prior to the framing of this bill because he indicated the necessity of uniformity in the law and that the power to license the manufacture of electronic equipment probably lay within the provincial
Protection of Privacy
jurisdiction and that such licensing was necessary. I hope this course has been adopted by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) and that he will be able to respond to that assertion.
In view of the fact that there is now virtually no legislation limiting electronic surveillance, this bill provides a good starting point to deal with this serious problem. Prior to this legislation all we had was one federal statute which made it an offence to interfere with any of the property of the Bell Telephone Company, to work on its lines or intercept any message transmitted thereon, as well as a few provincial statutes which made it an offence to divulge the contents of a conversation heard by means of wiretapping, except when authorized or directed. These restrictions were completely unsatisfactory and provided an opportunity for wiretapping by many people and groups. Probably the worst offenders, Mr. Speaker, were the police forces of this country.
Wiretapping and electronic surveillance have increased in use and sophistication at a rapid rate in the past few years. They have become the tyrant of technology and have taken on different forms and types, pressing into the privacy of man's conversation and into his home. We have had electronic snoops with regard to criminals; we have had electronic snoops with regard to car salesmen, where a manager has had electronic surveillance of conversations with customers; we have had electronic surveillance with regard to union activities; we have had data bank information revealed, and in some cases that has been unwarranted and unjustified; we have had psychological surveillance by way of truth serums; we have had corporate espionage and now political espionage as exemplified in the affairs of our neighbours to the south.
This bill deals with some of these areas but certainly not all. Probably the most important is the danger of the misuse of data bank information and there is a need to protect individuals and businessmen against the misuse of information about them which is sorted in computers or data banks. There is now a provincial or international flow of information through the telecommunications facilities, linking computers with central data banks. This is certainly not covered by the bill.
This legislation is clear in three aspects however: first, electronic surveillance in the private sector is completely illegal; second, the possession, sale and purchase of electronic equipment by unauthorized persons which render it primarily useful for surreptitious interruption of private communication is illegal and, third, civil liability of persons connected with illegal wiretaps is established. These measures are welcome.
The major concerns of the New Democratic Party are first, the issuing of permits by judges; second, the admissibility of certain evidence from illegal wiretaps and, third, amendments to the Official Secrets Act concerning the issue of warrants by the Solicitor General for alleged espionage and subversive activities. These are the three main areas. I am sure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) will deal with them when he replies, and also at the committee stage.

May 7, 1973
Protection of Privacy
The general rule that private wiretaps are illegal is subject to this main exception: That the police are permitted to make wiretaps, provided they have complied with certain criteria satisfactory to the judge before a permit is issued. That brings into sharp focus the question of personal privacy in a democratic country and underlines the problems arising from the tyranny of technology. I submit that personal privacy is central to man's dignity and liberty, and to deny him this privacy may be to undermine his very humanity and erode belief in our democratic institutions and the judicial process. In the words of Mr. Justice Field of the United States:
-Of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault but exemption of his private affairs-from the inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose their value.
This proposition was restated by Professor Edward Ryan at the Couchiching Conference of August 5, 1971 when he said:
The right to privacy, far from being a mere individual claim, is itself a public interest of the highest order, in which may be found the wellsprings of individual creativity and group expression which are at the heart of popular government. They cannot be allowed to be imperilled. No more fundamental laws to our ideals is possible than that posed by the possession and potential abuse of overly wide governmental powers in this area.
From those statements arise such questions as: Should the police be given the power to snoop, and is wiretapping necessary and effective in combatting crime? Many have said that the police should be in the same position and as well equipped as criminals with respect to the use of electronic equipment. This bill deals with the question of private surveillance and private surveillance is made illegal, as is the possession, sale and purchase of unauthorized electronic equipment.
The second assertion that crime is on the increase does not necessarily jibe with the facts. The fact is that more crime is reported today than in the past, and therefore it does not follow that more crime is being committed. The assertion that police wiretapping and electronic surveillance is necessary to combat crime should be reviewed on the basis of facts. The self-conferred right to wiretap by the police has had no appreciable effect on crime detection. Actually, the evidence discloses that wiretapping is used by the police for the purpose of aiding in investigation and seldom if ever for the purpose of collecting evidence. The following was said in the brief of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association which was presented to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs:
In a learned law review article, Brown and Peer made the following observation, generally supported by experts in the field: 'Wiretapping is of very little use in connection with ordinary felonies and crimes of violence. There is lacking in this sporadic sort of crime the pattern of continuity necessary for effective wiretap operation by the police officers.'
No less an authority than Ramsay Clark, U.S. President Johnson's last Attorney-General, voiced the same misgivings when he said:

In several cities where organized crime is most severe, police and prosecution have in the past used wiretap without inhibition. It has not been effective. Organized crime still flourishes in these communities. In other cities where there has never been organized crime, police have never used wiretap. The massive programs required to end organized crime have no place for wiretap. It is too slow, too costly, too ineffective .. . Organized crime cannot exist where criminal justice agencies are not at least neutralized and probably corrupted to some degree . .. The F.B.I. used electronic surveillance in the organized crime area from at least the late 1950's until July 1965 ... So far as is known not one conviction resulted from any of the these bugs ... In 1967 and 1968, without the use of any electronic surveillance, F.B.I. convictions of organized crime and racketeering figures were several times higher than during any year before 1965. The bugs weren't necessary.
With regard to organized crime in Canada, we had a royal commission studying crime in Ontario in 1961. In their report they said that organized crime was virtually non-existent in Canada. In 1969 the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police stated that organized crime in Canada was in its infancy. We must, therefore, ask whether it is necessary in the circumstances to give the police such wide powers in these fields. What worries the members of my party, Mr. Speaker, is the procedure that will be adopted with regard to permit applications to a superior court judge. Such applications will be made ex parte by way of affidavit, and the procedure will involve an application to a superior court judge. When there is an ex parte application, there is a one-sided type of justice. The decision is made on the basis of an affidavit prepared by a police officer, in most instances, and there is no right to cross-examination, which is contrary to our adversary system. The judge will need to make a decision on the basis of an application made by one person or group of persons.
In the United States, especially in the state of New York, they have had the experience of police officers who wanted to make application for wiretapping permits going judge shopping. In other words, they have gone to judges who were sympathetic and who have issued permits on evidence that was very scanty. I do not think that this will happen in Canada. Certainly, it is not in keeping with our concepts of Canadian justice. We think that all parties should be represented in court. We think the adversary system is necessary and we think that examination, cross-examination, legal argument and judgment should be part of our system. All these factors are most important, but yet are missing when a police officer applies to a judge on an ex parte basis.
The bill also provides for a private communication, intercepted without authorization, to be not admissible as evidence, but that information or things disclosed as a result of unauthorized interception may be admitted as evidence. In other words, the direct evidence is inadmissible, but the derived evidence may be admissible. We are departing from the usual rule which states that all relevant evidence is admissible, regardless of how it is obtained. It has been suggested that the rule should be that the evidence should be admitted only it does not offend the fundamental concepts inherent in our ideas of ordered liberty under the law. We should consider whether it is reasonable evidence, whether it is just evidence and whether it is in accordance with the Bill of Rights before it is admitted in court. Surely, there could be a voir dire to determine this issue.
May 7, 1973

It has been indicated that most police wiretapping is not designed to gather evidence, but to gather information from which evidence can be developed. Professor Beck of Osgoode Hall put it into sharp focus when he said:
The only real control over the police is self-control. To achieve self-control over illegal wiretapping the law should provide that all charges arising from illegal wiretapping must be dismissed in court. This would have a magic effect in assuring that whatever wiretapping legislation is passed by Parliament, it will in fact be obeyed by the police.
I think the members of the New Democratic Party agree with the sentiments contained in that statement by Professor Beck.
Perhaps the most frightening parts of the bill deal with the amendments to the Official Secrets Act. All the safeguards relating to police wiretapping disappear. I quote: The Solicitor General of Canada may issue a warrant authorizing the interception or seizure of any communication if he is satisfied by evidence on oath that
(a)	the purpose of such interception or seizure is related to the prevention or detection of espionage, sabotage or any other subversive activity directed against Canada or detrimental to the security of Canada; and
(b)	such interception or seizure is necessary in the public interest.
A provision follows that under which the application for the warrant is made by an officer of the RCMP. The warrant is issued by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). The accounting procedure, the report aspect, is, and I quote:
The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police shall from time to time make a report to the Solicitor General of Canada with respect to each warrant issued pursuant to subsection (2) setting forth particulars of the manner in which the warrant was used and the results, if any, obtained from such use.
In other words, all the safeguards which we have applied to the police in general do not apply to the Solicitor General or to the RCMP when the wiretapping is for the purpose of prevention or detection of espionage, sabotage or any other subversive activity. We find that this provision is repugnant to most Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: The last speaker indicated that the views of his party were much the same. He has asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) to consider amendments at the committee stage to this important section. What has happened is that they have lumped together even home-made radicalism. Giving the RCMP the opportunity of maintaining surveillance in universities and other places really strikes at the very roots of political democracy. One should recall that a former Prime Minister issued a direction to the RCMP that no surveillance should take place on university campuses. Past experience indicated that the RCMP were keeping many students under surveillance who did not have the views that were generally accepted throughout the country.
When one reads the words "detrimental to the security of Canada", one wonders if the RCMP and the Solicitor General will apply this section to other segments of society. I wonder if they could ever direct a warrant against
Protection of Privacy
International Nickel, Domtar or any of the other polluters in this country when, in fact, their conduct militates directly against Canada and is detrimental to the security of the environment. I wonder if the RCMP and the Solicitor General will be worrying about General Motors, Ford and Chrysler when they enter into subversive activities with regard to price fixing. These are some of the dangers that are attendant upon this type of section. However, one feels that their attention will not be directed to International Nickel and the other great polluters of the environment or the big corporate enterprises, but against ordinary folk, young students in universities and other groups which are trying to make this a better country. Therefore, we find this section repugnant and not worthy of support.
I have outlined in broad detail the position of our party with regard to this bill. Other members will zero in on particular sections and aspects that are of major concern to them. In closing, I think it would be fair to say we support the bill in principle, but we are certainly concerned about some of the provisions and procedures presently contained in it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is long overdue. Finally, the arduous efforts of many law reformers to provide a meaningful form of protection of privacy in Canada are about to be rewarded. This is not to say that I support all the provisions of this bill before us, but merely to indicate that I support wholeheartedly its general legislative thrust as a valuable and necessary reform to an area of law which until recently was largely ignored in Canada.
In my remarks I will outline, in general terms, some objections to some of the specific provisions of the bill with the hope that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will entertain appropriate amendments following second reading with the same constructive and non-partisan approach that the committee followed in its proceedings during the 28th parliament. However, the minister and hon. members will be only too aware that this is a new parliament, with many new members having new or different ideas. Under no circumstances will the opposition necessarily feel bound by the proceedings taken under Bill C-6 in the 28th parliament when this government had a majority in the House and in the committee. Indeed, it is my hope that the end product of our labours here and in committee might reflect improved protections against invasion of privacy and further limitations on authorized interceptions than are in the present bill.
To put my jurisprudential premise at its simplest, I believe that in a free society the right to privacy should be protected by law and that there should be derogations from this protection only where public need is clearly demonstrated by those who seek to use means to invade privacy in a rational way for the public good. The onus should always be on those invading privacy, not on those seeking the legal protection of the right.
Compared with the United States and the United Kingdom, Canada got off to a relatively late start in this field. However, in the past five years, a great deal of ground has been covered. I refer not only to the hard work of the
3478

May 7, 1973
Protection of Privacy
many able and responsible members from all parties who participated in the work of the standing committee in the last parliament, the initiative of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) when he was Minister of Justice, or to the continued interest and open-mindedness of the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). Of equal importance, I refer to the pioneering work of the Ontario Law Reform Commission in 1968, with its now famous study and report on protection of privacy in Ontario, which laid much of the groundwork for the subsequent activities of the standing committee at the federal level and the resulting initiatives of the government. The Ontario study was prepared largely by my friend and former colleague, Edward Ryan, who was quoted so ably by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), who later became counsel to the federal standing committee and assisted in the preparation of its report which forms the basis of the bill before us. Mr. Ryan and members of the Ontario Law Reform Commission certainly deserve a share of the credit for the bill we have before us today. Canadians will always be in their debt.
However, the concerns which precipitated the interest of law reformers five years ago are much greater today. Canadians should know that technological advances have led to the production of bugging and photographic devices which permit a man's every movement or word to be recorded without his knowing about it. Canadians should also be aware that it is now a relatively simple matter for telephones to be tapped, offices to be bugged, files to be photographed, physical movements to be monitored and communications to be recorded. Yet until this bill is passed, there is virtually no right of recourse or protection in law against this sort of activity. Indeed, had the type of bugging activity which took place during the Watergate affair last year taken place in Canada there would have been absolutely no legal recourse against the perpetrators of this heinous conduct. Unlike the United States law, Canadian law provides no constitutional right to privacy. However, in the context of today's society I would submit that erosions of privacy of the kind I have mentioned, certainly in the political context, constitute the beginning of the end of political freedom as we know it in this country.
The bill before us goes a long way toward providing the protection which Canadians want and need. For the first time, wiretapping is made a crime, punishable by way of indictment and liability to imprisonment for a five-year term. Second, the exceptions are specifically defined, the most important being the carefully-defined authorization of wiretapping carried out by law enforcement officials acting under the instructions of the Attorneys-General of the provinces or the Solicitor General, or their agents specially designated in writing. The bill makes a bold attempt to rationalize, structure and confine the method of requesting an authorization and the person who can give the authorization. However, I have grave reservations as to the specific method proposed in the bill particularly its reliance on the judiciary to provide ultimate authorization, as opposed to the Solicitor General or the Attorneys-General. I shall elaborate on this point later.

Third, the bill provides another valuable protection by making possession, sale or purchase of bugging devices an indictable offence, subject again to certain clearly-defined exceptions in the public interest. Also, the bill makes provision for the forfeiture of such devices in cases in which a person has been convicted of wilful interception or unlawful possession. Another important feature of the bill is that it creates the offence of disclosure of information obtained by unlawful wiretapping or bugging.
Perhaps one of the most innovative aspects of the bill is the introduction of the concept of civil damages, both punitive and actual, in situations of unlawful interception or user disclosure. This means that a person whose privacy has been invaded in this fashion not only has criminal sanctions at his disposal but can proceed against those responsible to recover a monetary amount equivalent to the actual damage to his reputation, and also punitive damages to the extent of $5,000. This may prove to be an important additional deterrent to anyone contemplating illegal invasions of privacy of the kind under consideration.
Unfortunately, though, the bill fails to provide any means by which a person whose wire has been tapped by public officials can find out that his privacy had been invaded in this fashion. There is no provision requiring the Solicitor General, the Attorney-General or their authorized agents to notify the person subject to a wiretap even after an investigation has been completed.
As a practical matter, therefore, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for a person to seek the prosecution of a public official, or to claim damages against him under the suggested changes to the Crown Liability Act. The present draft seems to be based on the premise that what a man doesn't know won't hurt him.
It is significant that the standing committee in its 1970 report recommended that notification be made within a reasonable time by registered letter, subject to reasonable exceptions where there is a continuing investigation or where the wiretaps are related to espionage or sabotage on behalf of a foreign power. At the very last, the bill should require that in the annual report of the Solicitor General or of the Attorneys General an accounting be made of the number of people who were not informed following the completion of the wiretap investigations surrounding their cases.
I support wholeheartedly the elaborate annual reporting requirement of the Solicitor General and the Attorneys General in this Bill. If invasions of privacy are to be authorized in accordance with the mechanisms proposed, it is absolutely essential that the responsible political officers account to the public for the number of times and the circumstances under which they have initiated wiretapping, and give some indication of the extent to which wiretapping has been successful or unsuccessful as a means of law enforcement. Any Solicitor General or Attorney-General who has been over-zealous in his use of such techniques will obviously be directed toward his rightful place by the force of opposition scrutiny, press vigilance and public opinion. While it is good that these annual reports are required to be tabled or made public "as soon as possible after the end of each year", I would
May 7, 1973

like to see the insertion of a more specific time limit of not more than six months after year end. The unfortunate practices of the present government with respect to the filing of annual reports are surely evidence of the need for further protection. Also, the Solicitor General's report should include information as to the number of persons to whom he issues licences each year to lawfully possess bugging devices which are otherwise illegal.
The public accountability aspects of the bill bring to mind what is perhaps the most reprehensible provision before us, one which allows the Solicitor General to drive a truck right through even the reporting safeguard. I refer to the provision which allows a Solicitor General to issue a secret warrant authorizing the interception of communications if he is satisfied that the purpose is "related to the prevention or detection of espionage, sabotage or any other subversive activity directed against Canada or detrimental to the security of Canada." There is no reporting requirement respecting these secret warrants. All that is required is that the Commissioner of the RCMP report from time to time to the Solicitor General; other than that these secret warrants will never see the light of day.
In any event, what does the term "any other subversive activity" mean? Clearly, it means whatever the Solicitor General wants it to mean. Anything that varies from the status quo could be swept into the net under this elastic formula, whether it be taking a trip to Mainland China or reading the wrong kind of books or knowing the wrong kind of people, as defined by the Solicitor General. We need only contemplate the experience in the United States during the Red scare and deportations of the early twenties, the Red scare of the McCarthy era in the fifties, their disastrous Asian tragedy of the sixties in Viet Nam and the Pentagon papers revelations of the seventies, all of which resulted from the abuse of secret powers directed against subversive activity, to know how dangerous is this provision in the bill before us. The Solicitor General need not even apply to a judge for the issue of these warrants. He does not even report to parliament about his use of these absolute powers of secret surveillance. He need not state how many times he has exercised these powers.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would the learned member not agree that the words "subversive activity" have been held by the courts in the United States to be so vague and indefinite as to be unconstitutional?


Ronald George Atkey: The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) is a constitutional authority for far greater notoriety than myself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Notoriety?


Ronald George Atkey: I believe the statement you have made is correct.
The standing committee of the twenty-eighth parliament recognized the need for a strong power to guard against subversive activities. But the committee also recognized that parliament must be kept informed in order that it might assess the propriety of the use of the power which it grants and the effectiveness of the safeguards, so
Protection of Privacy
as to maintain vigilance in preventing the erosion of civil liberties. Yet this government has persisted in maintaining the same sort of secrecy that so characterized its methods of operation during the October crisis of 1970 when civil liberties were reduced to one of the lowest levels in Canadian history. Surely, something is wrong in the state of Canada at the present time if this is allowed to remain in the bill.
At the very minimum, parliament must be informed of the number of times the Solicitor General sees fit to use this dangerous power. Secret surveillance of the sort contemplated by this section has no place in a free and democratic society.
There is another glaring inconsistency in this bill, already referred to by the hon. member for Broadview, relating to the evidentiary provisions as to admissibility. This bill as drafted would preclude direct evidence obtained by illegal wiretapping from being admitted in court proceedings against the originator of the communication intercepted, but it would allow the fruits of such illegally obtained evidence to be admitted, that is the evidence obtained directly or indirectly as a result of information acquired by such illegal interception. In my view, this is totally inconsistent with any rational application of the exclusionary rules of evidence, no matter what the jurisdiction. Either you admit all evidence from illegal wiretapping or you exclude it all.
To exclude it is to admit that such a rule of evidence is necessary in order to control the behaviour of police and public officials in their use of wiretapping. To admit all such evidence, whether direct or indirect, is to leave to the discretion of the court the weighing of such evidence as to its relevance in the context of the case before it. But the legislation as it now stands contains a serious analytical defect. My own preference would be to exclude both direct and indirect evidence which has been obtained by illegal wiretaps, and I was encouraged to note that such an amendment was proposed following second reading by the standing committee of the last parliament and was narrowly defeated by a vote of six to five. Hopefully, this matter will be given serious reconsideration once again.
No further proof of the futility of the present provision is required than to refer to the evidence of the chief of police of Toronto on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police before the standing committee, there he indicated that in some 155 cases of wiretapping leading to criminal prosecutions in the courts in Toronto, in not one instance was the actual intercepted conversation used in prosecutions, but only the indirect evidence which was obtained as a result of having received that conversation. Clearly, the present evidentiary protection in the bill is totally illusory.
Perhaps the most debated aspect of this bill when it was before the last parliament and in committee was whether the final authorization for wiretapping by the police and public officials should be given by a judge, or by the Solicitor General or the Attorneys-General or persons designated by them. After much debate and division of opinion, the committee opted for the final authority to be given by a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdic-
26314-3}

May 7, 1973
Protection of Privacy
tion, but only after the request for authorization was initiated by the Attorney General, the Solicitor General or persons specially designated by them. Later the committee went on to broaden the range of judges who could provide this type of authorization. Included were all county and district court judges in Canada and all provincial court judges or judges of the sessions of the peace in the province of Quebec. I believe the term used in the legislation is "a judge as defined in Section 482 of the Criminal Code".
In my opinion, it was a mistake not to vest the final authority in those political officers who the public hold responsible for the conduct of the government in this country. It should be the Solicitor General or the Attorneys General who have the final say. The exercise of the power to grant authority to invade privacy can affect the critical balance between the government and people. Surely, then, the people must be able to hold a responsible minister to account for his use of the power. Under this bill, the minister can take shelter behind the judge's decision.
The bill provides that the Solicitor General, the Attorney General or agents designated by them will apply to a judge in a secret ex parte hearing for authorization to wiretap. In most cases it will be the agent applying, not the Solicitor General or the Attorney General. One can expect that most agents to be named would be justices of the peace, Crown Attorneys or even chiefs of police. In any event, all of the records of the application are sealed. Surely, this is a blatant abuse of the traditional judicial process. Secret ex parte hearings have no place in our judicial tradition, and they can place a judge in a very difficult and embarrassing position. This may well undermine the traditional function of our judiciary. The judges will have no data to go on other than a written accusation or statement of suspicion by the agent. They will not know both sides of the story and they are not allowed to weigh both sides. In other words, they are not judging; they are being told to make the minister's decision for him. Responsible police officials told the standing committee that they did not want to go to judges. They wanted the Solicitor General or the Attorney-General to take the responsibility, as he should under our parliamentary system. The idea of using a judge, I am told, is borrowed from the United States, and the experience there, as the hon. member for Broadview has pointed out, has been a sorry one.
A New York District Attorney noted recently that the police in his state seemed to know which judges required strict proof and which judges were to be avoided. Throughout Canada, there are 255 Supreme Court and Superior Court judges, 181 county and district court judges, and close to 200 provincial court judges in Quebec, well over 600 in all, who would be qualified to authorize wiretapping under this bill. There is no reason to believe that a similar type of judge shopping would not take place here. As one who prefers greater restrictions on authorized wiretapping, I would strongly urge the committee and this House to give reconsideration to vesting ultimate authority in the political officials, and not the judges.
A final concern with this bill is that the range of the offences for which wiretapping may be authorized by a

judge may be unnecessarily broad. The standing committee proposed that the use of this power to lawfully intercept communications be limited to 19 extremely grave crimes, including the control of syndicated crime. Eighteen of the 19 offences listed by the committee carry possible penalties of 10 years or more in prison. This bill before us will allow the police to seek authorization to intercept communications in the case of any indictable offence. In other words, the extraordinary power of invasion of privacy could well become a routine investigative tool and, contrary to the recommendations of the standing committee, wiretapping could be used on such matters as petty theft, income tax evasion, impaired driving, the possession of marijuana and theft over and under $50. While I would not for a moment condone any of these offences or attempt to impair the attempts of law enforcement officials to arrest and convict people committing them, I would seriously question whether authorizing wiretapping for such matters is not really the equivalent of using a shotgun where a rifle would do.
In the same vein, I think that the demand of the Association of Chiefs of Police to extend wiretapping to summary conviction offences is an example of unnecessary and dangerous overreaching of law enforcement goals at the expense of civil liberties of the public generally. I sincerely hope that the committee will avoid this broad shotgun approach.
As one last matter, I want to express some reservation about the provision in the present bill permitting emergency permits to wiretap to be granted for up to 36 hours by an agent designated by the Solicitor General or the Attorney-General without the necessity of having to go before a judge. My fear is that in some provinces the use of such emergency permits may become more the rule than the exception, unless the Attorney General there takes an extremely firm position against such a practice. My own preference, if emergency permits must be part of the legislation, would be to require authorization by the Attorney-General or the Solicitor General personally. Otherwise, the bulk of authorized wiretapping activities may consist of 36-hour taps approved and then revoked by the local agents in each case. These are difficult to detect except ultimately through the Attorney General's annual report to be made public each year, but always after the event.
In closing, may I say that this is one of the most significant pieces of legislation to come before this House this session. It is to the minister's credit that he responded to the pressure applied by the opposition in committee last month and promptly came forward with this bill before Canada is faced with a situation similar to Watergate, with no legislative sanctions to remedy it.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to compliment the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) for what I regard as one of the very best speeches I have heard in this House. I have only been here since 1968, but it is one of the best speeches I have heard on the very important question of human liberty and the related subject of human privacy. I think it was an excellent speech. The question with which we are faced with respect to this bill really is part of the larger
May 7, 1973

question of what limits if any are to be placed on human privacy. That question is a root question, a philosophical question, which must be faced by any society at any time in history. It is a question, however, which democratic societies are inclined to think they need not deal with because democracies, as forms of government, ttiink they are not liable to the problem of the invasion of privacy associated with other types of regimes.
I find it unfortunate, in a sense, that this debate in this House at this time in the history of North America should in fact have aroused such little interest from the point of view of attendance in the House. I realize there are important matters which must be attended to and with which members have to deal. However, I think the attendance here is indicative of the attitude of many people, including Members of Parliament, toward the question of privacy and toward the question of human liberty itself. There is a basic assumption, so prevalent in our land as well as in others, that one need not be concerned about the question of a human right until one is hit personally or until one's group is hit. Then, there is a psychological response.
I suggest that the specific matter with which we are dealing now is one which could open up in a fundamental way the question of the invasion of privacy on the kind of systematic basis that was alluded to by the previous speaker; and in such a way in terms of its long-range consequence for Canadians that all of us in this House, if we cannot be here physically for this debate, should take great care in reading the debate and of course in looking at the bill with which we are dealing before we cast a final vote. Privacy is essential to individuality itself. It is fundamentally important to what is known as the integrity of the personality. This is a notion philosophically as old as the Greek philosophers and medieval theologians and as recent as the intellectual concern of the 20th century psychoanalysts. People as diverse as Plato, J. S. Mill, Bertrand Russell and Sigmund Freud have all recognized that without a sense of privacy, without a distinction between public concern, public involvement, community concern and community involvement on the one hand and the basic right in other instances to have privacy in one's life, that without this distinction being legitimatized and institutionalized in society what you really end up with is the abolition of individuality in people, the abolition of freedom and the abolition of creativity in the human 'being.
I try to avoid rhetoric as frequently as possible in my speeches and avoid exaggeration, but I think this type of issue is of just this importance. If we take steps in terms of the laws of this parliament which lead to the systematic invasion of privacy, we are really taking steps which can lead to the systematic elimination of the individuality in people. For the purpose of the debate, I define the right of privacy as the recognition of the legitimacy of man's right to think, to speak and to meet with people under circumstances from which all others but those whom he himself has selected are excluded. That, as I say, is privacy. As I have said, I see this as being essential to human individuality.
To state the opposite circumstance I think illustrates the case. That is, if we have a state in which no privacy is permitted, liberty and creativity are also non-existent. The
Protection of Privacy
most recent, in terms of the 20th century, standard works of art one cites for this are, of course, the works of Kafka and, in the English language, Huxley's "Brave New World" and George Orwell's "1984". The book "1984" I remind hon. members is a novel written by a man in this century who was responding not, as is frequently thought, simply to capital "C" communism but indeed to the possibility of any totalitarian society which has at its disposal the technological means of the total elimination of privacy. It has at its disposal the possibility, therefore, of the total control of the individual. I think the elimination of privacy, as I said a minute ago, leads clearly in that type of direction. The danger is that, as Canadians, we tend to associate that kind of danger simply with the Nazi regime with which Germany and western Europe had to live in the 1930's and until the mid-1940's. Or we think of Stalinist Russia as another form of totalitarianism.
However, the phenomenon of the threat of privacy is not to be restricted to those countries in those parts of the world. In my view, the United States at the present time is undergoing, in terms of its own internal life, its most significant crisis perhaps of this century as a democratic society. The United States now has the technology to totally invade the privacy of all her citizens virtually any time of the day or night. Not only that, but we are witnessing in what people all over the world have called "that great democracy," the United States, the fact that technology can be used by a democratically elected president, or if he has not authorized it directly himself it is clear that it has been used by officials appointed by him and directly responsible to him.
The point I am making is that in the United States there is the systematic use of modern, technologically sophisticated devices for the total invasion of people's privacy and hence of their freedom, and that is taking place not in a totalitarian society but in a democratic one. It is taking place in part-and this is an important point to make in the context of the central weakness of this bill which is to be found in clause 6 which gives such extraordinary powers to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), totally unimpeded by normal judicial processes-in a democratic country in the form of what is now known as the Watergate affair. It is taking place, I would argue, in part because the men and women who were directing the operation believed in the legitimacy of what they were doing. As de Toqueville said in the last century, and since by a number of other serious commentators, but de Toqueville was the first observer of mass democracy, he saw then the dangers of a democratic society using instruments or devices, because they believed in the overwhelming legitimacy of their case and had majority support, which other kinds of governments in previous times would have been reluctant to use.
The point is that in a democracy, precisely because we mobilize public support for causes, precisely because there is a danger that once you have the majority on your side you might point to those who disagree with that majority as being the enemy, as being in a sense alien, there is a danger of using the full support of a democratic majority to attack the roots of human freedom, namely the right to privacy. I, for one, believe that a lot of people

May 7, 1973
Protection of Privacy
acting under the orders of President Nixon, or-and I hope this turns out to be the case-under the orders of senior officials appointed by him, believe that it was right to spy on Senator McGovern, that it was right to violate the basic legal rights of Mr. Ellsberg, that it was right to engage in undermining the political processes because they believed that a man named McGovern was last year undermining the democratic objectives which the regime of the time was trying to further.
The point I am trying to make is that many of the Nixon officials did not believe that they were doing evil. They believed that Mr. McGovern somehow, instead of bringing peace for which he was working, was going to bring in a kind of society which was the very contradiction of what they thought was in the spirit of the basic American principles of democracy. As I see it, as a democrat in a democratic country, this is the kind of broader issue with which we should be concerning ourselves in this kind of debate. When we give, for example, under the provisions of clause 6 of the bill, the authority to the Solicitor General to use all the modern devices such as wiretapping to invade the privacy of individuals and of groups without going, at least initially, through the judicial route of applying to a superior court judge for a warrant or without having to consult any other person, I would argue that we are leaving ourselves open to the kind of situation which occurred in the United States. I stress the words "in principle", and I do not mean of course that the present Solicitor General or the present government would deliberately embark on such action.
I wish to repeat the point I was making a minute ago about democratic societies. I am convinced that a majority of the members of the U.S. Congress, if this debate were taking place in that chamber a year and a half ago, would have thought it inconceivable in principle that the systematic corruption which is now being revealed by the investigations of the Watergate affair could take place. The point, then, is that if we are going to justify, under certain extreme circumstances, the invasion of privacy, then we have to take extreme precautions in terms of the procedures that will be used by a democratically elected politician in so acting. I suggest that it is a glaring and unacceptable weakness of this bill that the Solicitor General can, relying on his own definition presumably, decide what is going to be defined as a "subversive activity directed against Canada", which is the wording in this bill. This can lead to the kind of thinking by certain eminent politicians in the United States which clearly enabled them psychologically, in a country which is now at the centre of world history, to perceive themselves as being profoundly threatened, not only from without but from within, and to use measures which we find totally unacceptable.
Therefore, to guard against that eventuality in Canada, I think that the minimum we need in terms of implementing the provisions of this part of the act is a safeguard provision that would make it mandatory, at the very least, that the Solicitor General obtain a warrant from a superior court judge and, beyond that, that he must provide to this parliament on a regular basis a full and documented report on all the instances in a given period when action has been taken under the provisions of clause 6 of this bill. If such a change is not made in the bill, judging from

what the previous speakers from the Conservative and NDP groups have been saying, I am sure that we will not get this bill passed at all. I hope that the minister is listening with care to what hon. members are saying in this debate if he wants to get it passed.
There are two good provisions in the bill, and we join in praising the minister and his predecessor for prohibiting under this bill private wiretapping and the sale, possession or purchase of equipment to be used for that kind of activity. These are good provisions, but I have entered what I regard as a very important caveat. We expect a change in the provisions of clause 6 which enable the Solicitor General to act in much too sweeping a manner.
I want to conclude with a recent instance, not from American, German or Russian history, but one which occurred in Canada. About three weeks ago a conference was held in this city, Ottawa, organized by the Canadian Society for Industrial Security. It was a three day affair attended by representatives of Northern Electric, Comin-co, International Harvester, Bell Telephone, Eaton's and a number of others. The ostensible purpose of it was to discuss security. We do not know what aspects of security because we were excluded from this conference by a group of Canadian businessmen who held it here in the capital city.
* (1640)
I went down to the conference. I was told that the assistant-commissioner of the RCMP, H. C. Draper, was to deliver a paper entitled, "The Threat from Subversive Elements." I was told that he was going to deal with subversive elements in the trade unions. As a Canadian and Member of Parliament, I thought it would be interesting to hear what an assistant-commissioner of the RCMP was going to say about Canadian workers to a group of businessmen. But when I got there I was barred entry. I was told that this was a security matter. I ask what kind of security matter it was. What right did the RCMP have to collect information on Canadians from one coast to the other, information which if revealed or spoken about outside this chamber would probably be subject to the laws of libel? And what right does a state police official, a senior one at that, have to divulge information of that kind about one group of Canadians to another group of Canadians? In this instance, I am told that it was about a group of Canadian workers in the trade union movement, and it was to be divulged to a group who usually are on the other side of the bargaining table, a group of businessmen who will be confronting the workers at different times when negotiating employment contracts. What can justify such action?
After this issue was raised in the House of Commons, I was pleased that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) informed me that there will be no more such conferences. But, Mr. Speaker, this body has met each year for the past number of years. This body of businessmen has been concerned ostensibly with security matters. It is little known in Canada. It is little talked about. The conference was interesting, not only in terms of the papers delivered but in terms of the literature that was made available, advertising courses which representatives of the companies could take. The literature included brochures from a certain institution in the United States inviting represent-
May 7, 1973

atives of business companies to go there and learn all about bugging, to learn all about listening devices, to learn all about means of, in effect, spying on Canadians who work in offices and factories.
What I am concerned about in this context is that a national police force, the RCMP, should have had a spokesman at that conference, speaking about one group in our country and disclosing what, if used in a different context, could conceivably amount to libellous statements. There is no place in our society for our national police force to perform that kind of act. Little concern has been expressed about that matter by the average person, or by the Canadian newspapers. At times I am at a loss to understand the lack of concern about individual rights that is so widespread in our country. Little concern is expressed about these rights by institutions or people to whom one would look for some kind of leadership. I cite this as merely one instance, simply to show that in the broad course of history Canada is by no means Simon pure. We cannot, therefore, look at Watergate in the United States and say that nothing like that could happen here.
The speaker who preceded me said that the present provisions in the laws of Canada would make a Watergate a clear possibility here. I would like to say that this bill, which in part does deal in a positive way with the invasion of privacy, would still leave the possibility open to the Solicitor General of Canada to initiate the same kind of situation in Canada, and so long as that kind of legal possibility remains I do not think the bill merits support.
Mr. Terry O Connor (Halton): Mr. Speaker, the re-introduction before this House of legislation governing electronic surveillance has been welcomed by virtually all commentators. I join in this general commendation, but would add the comment that such action is long overdue. The subject has received lengthy scrutiny in previous parliaments. At least three previous Justice and Legal Affairs Committees have heard evidence and considered the matter of wiretap legislation, as it is generally called. It would be redundant to examine fully all of the arguments for and against such legislation at this time, nor is it necessary at this stage to examine in depth all of the particulars of Bill C-176. But I do wish to make a few comments of a general nature on the bill before the House.
The nefarious practice of the invasion of the personal privacy of the individual, without his knowledge or consent and without the authority of law, is surely an area which should be the subject of the most stringent government legislation. Yet as the law now stands such practice is not illegal, is not contrary to the Criminal Code and is not, per se, even the subject of civil action in eight of the provinces of Canada. These facts are sometimes not recognized or not understood by some of those who view the introduction of such legislation only in its permissive aspects, that is, as the allowing of the electronic surveillance of private conversations by police agencies.
This bill should be looked upon, as it definitely is, as a codification of something which most people take for granted as a fundamental human right, that of protection of the personal privacy of the individual and his freedom from interference with his personal conversations, his
Protection of Privacy
comings and goings, and his private affairs. Perhaps because of the inherently despicable nature of wiretapping, of bugging and the use of electronic recording equipment to learn of private communications, the general public seems to assume that these practices are illegal. But not so, Mr. Speaker. Thus, legislation in this field is welcomed wholeheartedly. One can only wonder why it took the government so long finally to put together Bill C-6 of the last parliament and now Bill C-176, the latter being substantially the same as the former.
In proposing rules and regulations of this type, however, the government must resolve the age-old and perhaps insoluble conundrum which faces the law when dealing with matters of this nature, the conflict which results when the interests of the individual are pitted in opposition to the interests of society as a whole. The extent and limitations of each, and the degree to which a contemporary society feels the already hazy line between the two should shift one way or the other, is a dilemma which has been faced by lawmakers in free countries over the centuries. A variation of this question is seen presently, especially in the United States, in the debate being waged over the freedom of the press to report, and thus the public to be informed, when such right may conflict with the right of the individual to receive a fair and equitable trial under the law. Thus, this bill must determine clearly for the courts the extent to which, and under what conditions, the public, through its authorized agencies may encroach upon the privacy of the individual.
It cannot be said that one right is paramount over the other, although we must start from the premise that the right of the individual to privacy is a fundamental human freedom which cannot be subrogated arbitrarily. But, to the extent that conflicting interests are diametrically opposed, there must be some compromise. The areas where clearly each is paramount must be spelled out and the hitherto hazy no man's land must be clearly defined. This bill, as did its predecessor, has attempted to achieve this goal in several commendable ways. First, it establishes as a criminal offence punishable by up to five years imprisonment, the use of electronic devices to intercept private communications without the consent of those involved. This operative section obviously refers to the wiretapping of telephone calls, the most common type of interception, but is broad enough to include the use of hidden microphones, long distance microphones and hidden recording devices. To these extents, it establishes as part of our codified law, the right of an individual to privacy.
Second, the bill permits exceptions to the general rule in the case of police and other security agencies, provided authority has been obtained to do so in accordance with the Criminal Code. The significant feature of this provision is the fact that the onus is clearly on those who wish to except themselves from criminal sanction, to establish the necessity to resort to such methods of collecting evidence. The application for the authority is made to a judge and must be signed by the Attorney-General of the province or his personally delegated agent. This requirement of political approval, which was not contained in the former Bill C-6, is an attempt to meet the objections of a

May 7, 1973
Protection of Privacy
number of groups and individuals who have commented on the old bill. Groups with as traditionally disparate points of view as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, however, managed to agree on this point.
The CACP brief to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs stated:
The responsibility for the issuance of permits or warrants must rest with the elected representatives and not with the judiciary ...
The civil liberties brief submitted to the committee on this point concludes:
We submit that the initiative for wire tapping application should reside with a political authority such as the Attorney General...
As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Bill C-176 has been changed apparently to achieve this effect. In fact, under the bill, electronic surveillance authorization would require the consent of the Attorney General or his agent and a judge. In the tried and true tradition of Liberal governments, they have tried to satisfy everyone and be all things to all men. But in the process they have compromised themselves into an error-one of the few in this legislation.
The whole question of the invasion of the sacredness of individual privacy is extremely delicate in nature. Its use or non-use should be determined by someone who is immediately accountable to the people-in other words only the Attorney General of a province or the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Allmand). A judge and our judicial system together with all of its built-in safeguards for those accused of crime, will eventually become involved in the process when examining the evidence adduced as a result of the wiretap. But the initial infringement of the state into the individual's private communications is a decision of the highest political order. It should, therefore, be made only by a politician, after which it may be the subject of public scrutiny and criticism in the public forum of a legislature or parliament. It follows, further, from this argument that the Attorney General should net be permitted to delegate this authority or if he is to be permitted to do so, such delegation should be to a severely limited number of individuals only and who would be known to the public either by name or position.
The bill in its present forms permits the delegation of this function, which should be properly that of an Attorney General, to as many agents as he so chooses. Presumably these could include every Crown Attorney, justice of the peace, or even chief of police in the province of the Attorney-General if he so wished. Clearly, there must be some statutory restraint in this area, either by the limitation of the function of granting such permission to the Attorney-General only or at least a limitation of the number of agents he may appoint, to a publicly known few. Surely, it is not anticipated that the use of such investigatory methods will be so broad as to unduly take up the time of a provincial Attorney General in examining the signing consents to proceed. And surely there can be few pursuits of greater importance to an Attorney General than the determination of such fundamental questions as the rights of the individual to prevent the indiscriminate delegation of this most important and onerous responsibility as the bill now does is wrong and ought not to be part of the legislation.
Five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 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 Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-National Capital-Proposed Ottawa-Hull rapid transit-Position of federal government respecting contribution to cost; the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas)-Transport-Adequacy of Tofino lifeboat station service in light of drownings; the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey)-Information-Possibility of use of Retail Credit Corporation by departments to obtain information.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS


Claude Wagner: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of taking steps under the appropriate programmes to designate Saint-Hyacinthe as a special area in order to provide for the economic expansion of Saint-Hyacinthe by means of incentives to its industries; to bring about substantial industrial growth; and, by means of financial aid, to construct community facilities such as water, sewers, roads, and schools.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour to introduce this motion in the hope that its importance for the population of Saint-Hyacinthe will be apparent to all my colleagues and will obtain the necessary approval, thus breaking with the unfortunate tradition by which such motions are debated to death, or until the debaters are exhausted.


Mr. Prud'homme:: That is what will happen!


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I note the words of the member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), who says: "That is what will happen!" It will be a sorry thing for the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe if that does happen.
Mr. Speaker, I should like right away to say what should be the spirit of this debate. We should take steps to have the Saint-Hyacinthe region designated as a "Special area", so as to provide economic development, and give a considerable boost to the agricultural, manufacturing and industrial sectors; that, briefly, is the spirit behind my presentation of this motion.
Through the words of its Member of Parliament, the whole population, the whole Saint-Hyacinthe area is now asking the federal government, first to help it boost the industries that area already there, second to help it bring
May 7, 1973

new businesses to it, and lastly, to help it bring about improvements in its community services.
The citizens of the Saint-Hyacinthe economic "subarea" can ask for a special intervention by the federal government with legitimate pride, for they have first helped themselves.
In the opinion of economists, the manpower of my riding is, and rightly so, recognized as stable and reliable. The infrastructures are in place, all ready to receive and support expansion projects or any new development plan.
The mayors of municipalities, particularly Mayor Gre-goire Girard of Saint-Hyacinthe, most municipal councils, the secretary treasurers or clerks, the agencies honourably representing our workers, the Chamber of Commerce, the Industrial Development Board and its dedicated officers, and, finally, the local news media well rooted in the riding, such as CKBS, Le Nouveau Clairon and Le Courrier, or because this paper also serves our riding, La Voix de VEst, they all support us, they all stand behind me as far as the submission of this request is concerned, rather, I should say, they are before me, because they preceded me.
They and others believed in the potential of Saint-Hyacinthe and, as early as 1969-70, they fought with my deserving predecessor, the hon. Theogene Ricard, to secure justice for Saint-Hyacinthe. I am quite aware of the fact that the Saint-Hyacinthe file is already bulky and significant in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The former minister, now Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), will recall having received on April 20, 1970, an impressive delegation from Saint-Hyacinthe, led by the common front of that have-not area. The minister, although he did not grant the request of the delegates, recognized that the situation was unfortunate for the Saint-Hyacinthe area, stating, and I quote:
The situation is abnormal and dangerous.
Mr. Speaker, three years after this April 1970 action of its common front, Saint-Hyacinthe is still in a bad way. Because of its designation as a "C" area, Saint-Hyacinthe offers little interest for the expansion of industry. Granby and Drummondville, closely related to Saint-Hyacinthe as to industrial stagnation, because of certain qualifications-so much the better for those towns and areas- have been designated as "B" areas. This, these two subareas, which are close neighbours are more attractive to industries wishing to locate south of Montreal.
On another plane, the decision taken by the minister in charge of housing on August 14, 1969, to bring an abrupt end to the urban renewal program has been dearly paid by the people of the Saint-Hyacinthe area in particular. Urban renewal studies had then cost the city of Saint-Hyacinthe $11,000, and the other levels of government $33,000. What is more, Mr. Speaker, the federal government's refusal at the time to allow the program to go ahead, would have caused at least a delay in the economic development of Saint-Hyacinthe and its surroundings. Building, business and, quite simply, all industry could have been boosted with investments.
Regional Economic Development
What lies ahead for Saint-Hyacinthe is even more disquieting. The study by the Quebec Planning and Development Bureau suggests that in the south of Montreal, in areas like Valleyfield and Saint-Hyacinthe, unemployment and stagnation have set in for a long time. The study carried out by the National Institute for Scientific Research even says, and I quote:
There will be very little increase in employment in Bagot, as the economy is predominantly agricultural. Unless there is some exchange with neighbouring counties, or some definitive migration, this part of the federal county of Saint-Hyacinthe will have a high rate of unemployment.
In the (provincial) counties of Saint-Hyacinthe and Rouville, the available manpower will seek work elsewhere because of the slow growth of employment.
In a word, the outlook seems favourable only in the constituencies located to the south of Montreal, along the river, from Chauteauguay to Sorel, and in the areas around Granby and Drummondville.
However-as the minister knows very well-the urban area of Saint-Hyacinthe, to name but one, has at least as many advantages as Granby. Indeed, from 1966 to 1971, Granby, whose town councillors must here be commended for their dynamism, created at least three times as many new jobs as Saint-Hyacinthe and Valleyfield together.
All this brings us to wonder whether the distance from Montreal is a very valid criterion for a zone to be designated or not by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
At a time when it is about to renew its programs, it is fitting to call the Department of Regional Economic's attention to certain features.
First of all, considering Quebec as a whole, it is obvious that the province needs a master plan, and also close consultation with provincial and municipal authorities and with the main intermediary bodies concerned.
Considering the situation of Saint-Hyacinthe specifically the department should be made aware of the urgent need for more equitable administration of the master plan, particularly regarding neighbouring Granby and Drummondville and for greater autonomy in relation to Montreal itself.
That, Mr. Speaker, is why in my plea-and it is a plea- on behalf of the population of Saint-Hyacinthe, I should just like to point out a few reforms the department could consider implementing.
In the first place, consideration should be given to a contingency for regional stabilisation fund. This would be an instrument for assistance through public investments to industrial towns at times of economic crisis or when industrial economy is functioning normally, to towns dealing mainly in services.
Government interventions should be concentrated in locations which have better opportunities, due to their own facilities, to resist the Montreal attraction, especially Saint-Hyacinthe, to name one among others.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that Montreal should become an economic monstrosity or any such thing. Not at all. It would be advisable, for example, to consider the
3486

May 7, 1973
Regional Economic Development possible substitution of regional industrial parks for municipal industrial parks. We should for example consider industrial diversification which must also become a more inportant criterion of regional development.
From another point of view, Mr. Speaker, the partly agricultural vocation of Saint-Hyacinthe must hold the attention of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. We must consider the possibility of producing beef in the Montreal area and as again suggested by the National Institute for Scientific Research the other Quebec farming districts would recover most of the manufacturing milk production from the Montreal area. And above all, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, when it does consider the case of Saint-Hyacinthe in particular, will have to think about the definite establishment of a food farming industry, for sure, which will eventually create new jobs at home.
And before concluding this much too succinct analysis, I would like, still in the perspective of the economic development of Saint-Hyacinthe, to remind the government ministers about these urgent requirements: first, an urgent requirement for an expansion of the veterinary medicine school in Saint-Hyacinthe; second, an urgent requirement for a federal legislation concerning the production of sugar beets in order to enable farmers of my riding, in particular, as well as the Saint-Hilaire refinery, to enjoy more stable and considerable incomes; third, as requested by the Chamber of Commerce of Saint-Hyacinthe and the municipality of Beloeil, among others, to proceed with the integral of partial development of a master plan for an express transport system linking Montreal, Beloeil, Saint-Hyacinthe and the other municipalities involved.
Mr. Speaker, I become here only the spokesman for the people of the Saint-Hyacinthe area to ask, in closing, to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion that, in the decisions he will soon render in conjunction with the Quebec provincial government, Saint-Hyacinthe be considered very seriously as a "special area".
There are nonetheless some factors that are obvious. The rate of unemployment which last June was 13.2 per cent; the fact that the regional industries are unable to absorb the ever growing number of young people who complete their education and want to join the labour force; the fact that the district of Saint-Hyacinthe is classed as zone "C" by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which places it in a lower position than the neighbouring cities of Granby and Drummondville, which, in fact, are not much farther from Montreal than Saint-Hyacinthe. All these, and many others that I will be glad to give to the minister by hand, plead in favour of Saint-Hyacinthe.
Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful if this plea were not without results. I want to continue increasing the contacts I have already established with the minister himself and with the officials of the department, in order to multiply industries in the Saint-Hyacinthe constituency, to make maximum use of resources available at the federal level and, finally, to reach the point where this worthy cause of the Saint-Hyacinthe population will be heard, accepted

and fostered by the officers of the department, not only for the benefit of the people of Saint-Hyacinthe but for the benefit of all our fellow citizens.


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) for the brilliant plea he has just made to have his area designated as a special area. It is my humble opinion that the department is now looking for reasons which could warrant the designation of areas in most of low growth areas in Canada.
In my first speech to this House I talked about my area. I note that what was pointed out a while ago by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe strangely ressembles what is happening in my riding of Sherbrooke; the unemployment figures are the same. During the last two and a half years, or even three, studies were made by university researchers as well as the Sherbrooke city council to have the department designate the Sherbrooke area and, on a larger scale, the Eastern Townships as a special area.
We know quite well that our area-here I am thinking mainly of the Sherbrooke area-is in great need of secondary industries. As early as 1954 we developed a tertiary sector which, in my humble opinion, stands second to none in other big Quebec cities. The University of Sherbrooke as well as the University Medical Centre have contributed for a large part to the development of our area.
But if we consider what has been done in the field of processing industries we realize that in the past 10 years, if we figure out the number of industries which settled in the area and the number of those which left, we are minus one. Therefore, our area as well as that of Saint-Hyacinthe have been disfavoured in that respect in comparison to other areas of the country.
In my humble opinion-and I hope the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe will forgive me-the Eastern Townships and more particularly the area of Sherbrooke which is the queen of the Eastern Townships is in the great need of industries and its designation as special area would help enormously in setting up an infrastructure which would allow secondary industries which we lack to settle there.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe has indicated a few minutes ago that almost 13 per cent of the population was unemployed in his region. We have the same figure for the Sherbrooke region. However, we have a problem in our region which perhaps is not found in that of Saint-Hyacinthe since it is close to the metropolis of Canada, and it has benefitted for many years from some developments on the outskirts of Montreal; Saint-Hyacinthe has even been described as being or becoming a bedroom town, and I agree with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe when he says that development is much slower when such things happen.
Mr. Speaker, I will support such a motion provided the Eastern Townships be designated at the same time, that is to say that slow growing regions include-and that is the responsibility of the department-all developing regions- and let us put these words between quotation marks-"of Quebec and the east of our country" as well as other regions which have been disadvantaged in many respect because of big poles of growth.
May 7, 1973

Mr. Speaker, while I agree with the proposal of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, I think that representations now being made by the department to the government of the province of Quebec will have some results, aware as I am that a "special area" cannot be designated without the approval of provinces, and that during the next few weeks, the premier of Quebec as well as the federal Minister of Regional Expansion (Mr. Jamieson)-


George Albert Proud: -as well as the parliamentary secretary!


Irénée Pelletier: -and the parliamentary secretary will hold discussions to gain an insight into what can be done about slow growing regions in the province of Quebec. I hope that at that time, not only the city of Saint-Hyacinthe but that of Sherbrooke as well will be considered, since we have been making representations for three years already to the minister so that our region be taken into account. I am not the only one to say so; studies made recently by the Quebec Planning and Development Bureau show that the Eastern Townships are economically ill, need a lot of economic assistance as well as an input of capital. This could be done by designating our region as a "special area".


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I express sympathy with the two hon. members who are seeking to have their particular areas designated under the auspices of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. If this debate were to continue for two or three days, I am sure every Member of Parliament from every comer of the country would like to see his area designated. This does not speak well for the last one hundred years of economic development in Canada, though it does speak well for members who present a case for their areas.
I would point out to the hon. members who have spoken that a year or two ago the government proposed to deal with the question of the designation of areas under the DREE program. There has been, since then, a suspension of that revision process. Certainly, the two cases presented by the preceding speakers ought to be reviewed by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson). I am not well acquainted with those areas, but undoubtedly some day I shall enjoy visiting them. I do say that the question of the revision of designated areas should be dealt with by the minister as soon as possible.
There are certainly questions which need to be asked in terms of designation as they relate to unemployment, to the migration of population from rural areas to urban areas and the continuation of that migration in many parts of the country. If you look at my home province of Saskatchewan you will find that the designated area might well be expanded across most of the north. There are only two areas picked out for designation, in a sense; one in Meadow Lake and one east of Saskatoon. They happen to cover the two seats which were held by two Liberals in that province, but I will not go into that.
The question of regional expansion is one with a far more expansive perspective than merely where lines were
Regional Economic Development
drawn in terms of incentive grants. There is a real need for a review and revaluation of those very grants to determine how effective they have been in regional development. If you study the statistics related to poverty in Canada, if you studies the statistics related to development in areas which have been economically deprived in this country, you will find, Mr. Speaker, that in the last four years in the operation of regional development there has been no substantial change in the situation in those regions of Canada which need development, that is to say, regions which lie outside the Ontario golden horseshoe.
We need far more concrete answers about the operation of this program than we have been getting from the minister so far in the committee on regional development. We have had no information about the evaluation of the program which supposedly has been taking place in the last three years. There has been no indication of when those studies are to take place. The minister stated in his forty-page statement to the committee when the committee was dealing with the department that there would be a reevaluation, a redefinition of the type of grants given, a decentralization of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. He stated that the question of equity would be dealt with.
I need only refer to the Ottawa Citizen of April 5 of this year in which the minister is reported as saying that DREE might take back shares in aided firms. There has been no answer whatsoever from the minister to these questions as they relate to economic expansion. I hope that when the committee begins again tomorrow we shall get assurances as to an evaluation of this program up until this point in time. This is needed in order to improve it and develop it for the future. An assessment should be made showing how many of these grants have in fact been give-aways. The minister stated that 70 per cent of the grants made so far were needed in order to create jobs. This simply means that 30 per cent was, in a sense, not needed and that the jobs would have been created anyway. This could represent a loss or a waste in a sense to the Canadian taxpayer of some $100 million. I am sure the new minister is sincere. He comes from a region which itself needs assistance. He has to give the committee some concrete evidence on which to work, a concrete proposal to convince us there is to be some redirection of this department which has come under such severe criticism in the last few years.
We have heard a great deal in answer to questions in the House and in committee to the effect that certain things will be done or will be considered, but we have not received from this department one concrete proposal, other than in respect of decentralization, for real change in the future. I hope the committee will deal with the criteria to be used in the designation of areas, as well as with the question of whether the federal government should take action in respect of equity in the use of Canadian tax dollars in spite of the pleas of multinational corporations. This matter is particularly important in respect of publicly-owned corporations in all parts of the country.
The committee should also deal directly with the freight rate structure as it affects regional development. The
3488

May 7, 1973
Regional Economic Development Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) was previously minister of transport and knows the effect of the freight rate structure on my area of the country, on northern Ontario and the Maritimes. Prominent people have told me that when it comes to developing industry in southern Saskatchewan such as distilling and using products from the area, the fundamental obstacle is not lack of incentives or grants for regional development but freight rates on the finished product. If policies of regional development are to work they must take into account questions such as transportation.
I could make a long speech about the effectiveness of DREE grants, but I would sum up by saying that in many instances, although not all, these grants represent nothing more than corporate write-offs. I hope the committee will in the coming weeks inquire into the equity of our transportation policy and will obtain concrete proposals from the minister and his assistants for the development of a truly regional development program.
During our discussions on designation of areas I hope the matter of unemployment will be seriously taken into account. In addition, I hope the question of the emigration of regional population will be taken into account, Hon. members from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, as well as members from the Prairies, know it is not easy to assess the unemployment situation in these areas because of the movement of population to industrial centres resulting from lack of employment in regional areas. This situation must also be considered.
Designation should not be based on only one economic year. A good example of this is found in the western regions where because of grain sales by the Canadian Wheat Board the economy of one year may be relatively high yet within less than a year it can take a severe drop. One year of adverse weather conditions can result in substantial economic change in some areas. When it comes to designation, consideration should be given to the instability of certain economies within Canada.
In conclusion, I wish the hon. member well in his attempt to obtain for his area recognition under DREE. I hope that in the weeks before the summer recess we will receive concrete proposals from the minister. If we believe these proposals represent a move in the right direction, I can promise the House that we will not be as critical as in the past; we will openly welcome any substantial changes in this direction.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, I was indeed pleased to hear the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) indicate that he will not be as critical in the future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Provided you do something.


Mr. Blais:: I was pleased that the hon. member for Assiniboia, who is one of our more active members on the committee on regional economic expansion, participated effectively in this debate. However, I hope his initial criticism, probably unjustified, will not mislead him in future discussions to frustrate the studies being conducted by that committee. I am sure he recognizes that the program

being reviewed by the committee, pursuant to the declaration of the minister, was initiated in 1969 and that some time must be taken in order to ascertain its effects. I agree that there will have to be some amelioration of the program.
I come from an area similar to that of the hon. member for Assiniboia and I hope that in the future we will be able to work together to adopt the best measures for our respective regions. I am pleased, in view of the initial criticism of the hon. member for Assiniboia, to note how readily the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) agreed on the effectiveness of DREE as put into effect by the government. As a result of his ability to argue and plead his case with sincerity, we are convinced that he really believes this program is of great economic benefit.
However, I was somewhat apprehensive about the intentions of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) since his motion was placed on the order paper on January 12, 1973, while he was asked to introduce it on three occasions, namely on February 5, on February 19 and on March 19. And each time since he would not introduce it, I kept thinking that he was reluctant to seek for his constituency the program's advantages since he thought that maybe this program was not so good.
In the light of the comments he made immediately prior to the intervention of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight), it is evident that he has great confidence in the program and in looking at his "rejuvenated" appearance and at his tan, I realize that he simply wanted to go on a vacation and rebuild the strength he needed to bring forth his arguments with his well-known eloquence.
In any case, I thank him for having supported the governmental program and I would like him to try and convince the members of the committee who are from his party of the merits of the governmental policy because in spite of my brief experience in this committee, I have realized that there are some objections to the program.
I should also like to indicate that today, when I realized that the motion was going to be introduced, I hastened to take the floor, because I am against, in principle, urban areas like Saint-Hyacinthe, which is only 25 miles from Montreal, being offered special assistance whereas the far northern areas like mine and those of Northern Quebec, are denied these advantages. I want to oppose the motion of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, because I believe that the available funds to encourage economic expansion are limited and that they should be affected to areas which should be able to ensure in the future a development which is likely to favour all the other areas in Canada.
Moreover, I would simply like to say that the Saint-Hyacinthe area has the same advantages as the Montreal area. In fact, as of December 31, 1972, the Department had offered ten grants which were accepted by applicants in Saint-Hyacinthe. The amounts involved totaled $618,000 and was to create 281 direct jobs. The Saint-Hyacinthe riding as a whole accounted for, as of December 31, 1972,

16 grants offered and accepted, for a total amount of $763,591 and 425 direct jobs having been created.
To designate Saint-Hyacinthe as a "special area" for financial aid purposes, both for infrastructure building and, after June 1973, for maintaining of subsidies to industry, is a question which deserves the greatest attention within the economic structures of the Montreal area and of the province as a whole.
And I want precisely to talk about that subject because the whole of the Montreal area is considered as one economic region. If we start offering special advantages to what in fact are the dormitory areas of that large urban centre, we could be in far trouble. We know-and I would have believed that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe who has once been a member of the provincial government and a member of another party should have known that-that large sections of the province of Quebec do need financial assistance, as does all my own area. And again on the subject of my own area, I will say that it is just like any area in Northern Quebec. Let me quote from the report the minister filed with the committee when he appeared for the first time. This is what it said:
In a large area of the province, encompassing the bulk of provincial territory and almost 800,000 people, economic performance has been more like that of Manitoba or New Brunswick than that of the rest of Ontario. Northern Ontario has experienced a growth rate in population of less than one per cent per year throughout the decade of the 1960's, slightly below the average for the Atlantic region. It tends to be characterized by a dual economy comprising urban centres such as Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, North Bay and Timmins, where incomes are at or above national averages, and rural and remote areas and resource towns, where incomes tend to be substantially below the Canadian average and where economic growth depends almost entirely upon primary resource production.
And this area is not designated as a special area, as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe would like for his own area.
Mr. Speaker, I am truly sorry to hear from the honourable member for Saint-Hyacinthe, that there was a 13 per cent unemployment rate in his riding last winter. I deeply sympathize with those people who were so badly tried. However, his is a metropolitan region, and he has access to the provincial government, and he knows very well that the program he wishes to see implemented requires a preliminary agreement between the provincial and the federal governments. True enough, he knows several of the members sitting in the Quebec national assembly and he could certainly approach them and ask for assistance.
Obviously, the motion before us requires to be very seriously considered and I think that all those who took part in the debate have done so.
Mr. Speaker, I only want to say, as every one speaks about his own church belfry, that mine needs to be repainted and that the sound of the bell is not as clear as it should be. In fact, in my area as in most other areas of the country there is a need, not only for temporary stimulants but for one that will favour providing a substructure enabling the manufacturing industry to settle down permanently.
As the Minister of Regional Economic Development has very ably indicated, Northern Ontario has to be developed in order to provide for the development of the far-north-
Regional Economic Development
ern areas of the Western provinces, including Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. And, in fact, it is in my area that the mid-Canada passage, as we now call it, will be developed.
Mr. Speaker, I have been very happy to take this opportunity once again to bring not only my riding and its problems but also all the surrounding regions to the attention of the whole country.
Let's come back to the riding of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. At the outset of discussions held in 1969 and 1970 with the Quebec government concerning the designation of special areas in the province, they deemed advisable not to concentrate efforts on the Montreal region, because the employment situation in Montreal and the neighbouring areas had not yet deteriorated enough to warrant its designation under one of the departmental programs. Since then, chronic unemployment has spread to all Quebec regions and the provincial unemployment rate climbed from 6.9 per cent in 1969 to 8.2 per cent in 1972 and 8.3 per cent in 1972. Consequently, since January 1971, the Montreal region is eligible for financial assistance under the industrial incentive grants program. In March 1971, the region of the new Montreal international airport was added to the four existing "special areas".
Whether the Montreal region will be eligible, after June 1973, for some kind of industrial incentives or whether "special areas" will designated is a question that will be dealt with in the program review undertaken by the department.
Mr. Speaker, needless to say, this will be done with the co-operation of the provincial government and, here again, I encourage the member for Saint-Hyacinthe to address himself to it in order to obtain the advantages he is entitled to.
If the economic situation of the province, and particularly that of the Montreal area of which Saint-Hyacinthe is part, does not improve considerably in the next few months, certain steps will surely have to be taken with regard to Montreal and vicinity.
So, once again, Mr. Speaker, we discuss the fact that we must absolutely find out what will be the results of the general policy of the government as regards its economic expansion program. We are still in its early stages; we must absolutely find out how those amounts of money will be spent and what the results will be. This applies to the Montreal area as well as to other urban and rural communities throughout Canada.
Still, it goes without saying-and I will not budge from my position-this program should be oriented towards the development of the far and middle north. The program must indeed strive towards the economic development and decentralization of our industrial "effort".
Mr. Speaker, I have just been told that other hon. members wish to speak. I merely want to say that Canada is a vast country, that the regional development policy is wise, and that in the next few years we should see to it that even more public funds are assigned to it.

May 7, 1973
Regional Economic Development
Mx. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion): Mr. Speaker, I followed very closely, as did most of my colleagues in this House, the observations of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner). I believe he fulfilled his task very spiritedly, making representations that go beyond the usual requests and that are based on what is going on in Saint-Hyacinthe.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, who is obviously fully informed about the various regional development programs, knows I am sure that it is in a joint action with provinces that special areas can be designated. His representations to the federal Parliament, to the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), as well as the urgent pleas, the daily representations from the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier), who is also asking that the Sherbrooke area be designated as a special area, are obviously well received by the minister.
I must say however that, when it comes to comparing one area with another and given the choice between the Saint-Hyacinthe area, which is very close to Montreal, and the Sherbrooke area-obviously the decision would be difficult to make and non-partisan I believe-I wonder if we might not conclude that it is more urgent to designate that area. But since there has to be priorities everywhere, I believe, as regards the Sherbrooke area, that the representations have come to such a point at the provincial and federal levels, that it would very probably be designated before that of Saint-Hyacinthe.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, and rightly so-


Mr.   Yvon@: Why not both? The Saint-Hyacinthe area borders on my constituency.


George Albert Proud: The hon. member for Chambly, who would surely have representations to make to have his area designated, says "Why not both"? Theoretically, Mr. Speaker, why not all the slow-growth areas in Canada? However, I hope that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe who, on many occasions, always raises the question of the privileged situation of Montreal, has nothing against the urban constituencies vis-a-vis the semi-rural constituency he wants to represent.
On several occasions, statements by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe have scared me because he consistently alludes to the seemingly privileged situation of Montreal and the Montreal area vis-a-vis the Saint-Hyacinthe area and the semi-rural constituencies. Of course, I will not attribute him any political consideration; maybe after having eliminated the whole Montreal area from the Progressive Conservative election map he would rather concentrate his energy on the rural or semi-rural areas. In any event, his own strategy is up to him.
However, I would like to tell him a few convincing facts and I will refer to a speech delivered by the minister to the Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion to the effect that contrary to the rest of Canada, the Montreal region is extraordinarily sensitive to any economic change. When you know that 56 per cent of the Quebec population lives within the Montreal region, that 65 per cent of provincial taxes are paid by the Montreal region,

and that 72 per cent of the manufactured products and industrial labour are in Montreal, you must conclude that the Montreal situation is most important to regional development.
I hope that, in the mind of the member for Saint-Hyacinthe, it will be possible to reconcile his justified requests in favour, of course, of the Saint-Hyacinthe constituency which he now represents here with the basic interests of the Montreal region which is, as I always say, the center of eastern Canada. Surely Montreal is the economic center of all eastern Canada and should the Montreal economy collapse all eastern Canada would be in jeopardy, including of course the Saint-Hyacinthe constituency. I hope that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the Chair, until eight 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 the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-176, to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr.   Terry@: Mr. Speaker, prior to private members' hour I was pointing out what in my opinion is the one major flaw in this bill, that is, the provision to refer an application for authorization to wiretap to a combination of both a judge and the attorney general of a province. I feel this requirement as set out in the bill is the result of an attempted compromise by the government to satisfy those proponents of authorization being granted by a judge and at the same time to satisfy those proponents of authorization being granted by an attorney general.
In its attempt to compromise, the government has tried to spread the responsibility for making decision. It is neither that alone of the attorney general, his agent or a judge, but of both or perhaps all of them. This approach, in my opinion, is a worse alternative than leaving the decision solely to a judge. At least then one person alone is responsible for the decision taken. The bill now invites a buck-passing exercise with perhaps no one being accountable for a foolish or harmful use of the authority.
If we recognize that the individual's right to privacy can only be interfered with in the event of public necessity
May 7, 1973

where harm to the public or members of it will possibly follow without its use, then someone must be directly responsible for ensuring that individual rights are protected. The buck must stop somewhere. In my opinion it should be with the Attorney General or Solicitor General alone.
The bill quite properly limits the duration of the use of individual instances of electronic surveillance, requires periodic public accounting of the use of such electronic devices and allows the emergency use of the right to intercept a communication where circumstances do not permit a formal application to be made. There is provision for the awarding of damages to a person aggrieved by one convicted of employing electronics surveillance equipment contrary to the bill, and this again is commendable.
The thrust of the bill, with which I agree, is to make an offence the odious practice of intercepting private conversations except where such practices are necessary in the combating of crime, and only then after close scrutiny and authorization by a properly designated and responsible person. The increasing sophistication of criminal activities and organized, syndicated crime, all equipped with mechanical and electronic equipment, demands that police agencies be allowed the use of equally effective equipment. If the rights of the individual can be safeguarded by judicious and scrutinized use of such equipment, then such use should be a permitted exception to the general prohibition. But for the reasons I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is necessary that the person responsible for the decision to allow the use of such investigatory methods must be the Attorney General or the Solicitor General of Canada.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, much of what has been said by my colleagues in this debate so far has gone to the merits or demerits of the bill and has dealt with some of the particular facts and circumstances of the proposals. I think the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), the hon. member for Halton (Mr. O'Connor) and the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) have dealt exceptionally well with the detail of the bill and I associate myself to a considerable extent with what they have said. I do want to point out that in our examination of this bill we must not forget that it does in fact constitute an extension of the right of the state to secure from people involuntary information or involuntary statements.
I know that the minister said, and I accept his statement, that there is a limitation on the extent to which information derived from electronic surveillance and so-called bugging can be taken. Nevertheless, by this bill there is an extension of the right of government, the right of the state to secure information which in the past it might have had the legal right but certainly it did not have the moral right to obtain.
In my view, in the long run, particularly after the circumstances which we have seen displayed in recent days in other parts of the world, there is a growing body of public opinion opposed to invasion of privacy by means which are unknown to the people whose statements are being obtained in that way. All through the centuries states have attempted to secure facts and information by involuntary means. Any historical examination of this
Protection of Privacy
phenomenon will go back to the days of the Inquisition. I do not limit only to the Inquisition but I use the Inquisition as an example, as an historical incident best known to people in the modern day who have read about it. Many methods have been used in an attempt to secure information-by force and by torture both mental and physical. Over the years a repugnance has grown up to this form of acquiring facts and information even in the course of securing information for the prosecution of criminal offences and protecting society.
There has been this conflict. You need to protect society, it is true, but you need to do it by means which are acceptable, not repugnant, to the individual. You may sometimes gain by purporting to guard the state but you may lose infinitely more through the means of securing that information if you brutalize society and the individuals engaged in obtaining it. Before and during the last war we saw evidence of this in the totalitarian states. There are totalitarian states today, of course. I am not going to go into detail about them, but it is common knowledge that they are engaged in securing information not only by electronic surveillance but by other means as well.
This constant struggle has not been won nor, I suppose, will it ever be won because of the very nature of government and the innate character of any kind of government. I confess quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that if I were a member of a government I would not trust such methods without taking steps to ensure that the strongest possible protection was taken through checks and balances and countervailing forces. What we have here is simply an extension of that principle. When this debate is over, it is true that within the four corners of the bill will be found certain restrictions upon the extent to which the state can go to secure information, without the knowledge of the people involved, by means of electronic and mechanical devices of surveillance. In the result, we will have codified a right of government. By this bill we are saying, in effect, that government has a right to certain types of information without the knowledge, suspicion or consent of the people involved, the right to secure information and statements from them by means of such devices.
I would like this bill to have contained a preamble stating that it is contrary to the rights of the people of this land that there be any electronic surveillance, bugging of any kind except subject to certain exceptions; in other words, an extension of the Bill of Rights. The bill should start on the basis that it is wrong, it is improper, it is not the right of government to secure information by these means unless subject to certain rules. We do not have that; we have a recognition by this bill, not only by implication but by expressed statement that it is right, it is proper and it is legal. I am concerned about this question even though that statement is coupled with other language which restricts the right.
I suggest to the minister that he include a preamble-it might be possible to put it in the Bill of Rights or other legislation-to the effect that the innate principle of securing involuntary statements through electronic surveillance is wrong to start with and can be approved only on certain conditions, some of which would be contained in the bill. As it is now, we have a codification and an

May 7, 1973
Protection of Privacy
admission. By this legislation this House is saying that in fact we approve the right to do it under certain circumstances. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that while we may give very limited blessing to this proposition and may comfort ourselves by saying we have so hedged it with restrictions that it can be done only under certain circumstances, the whole history of parliamentary legislation is that once entry is made, slowly and inexorably the practice grows.
Some of my colleagues may remember when the original income tax bill was passed. 1 was not here at that time nor, I believe, was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I think it was called the war income tax act and was referred to as temporary, as an act for the purpose of securing certain funds to carry on the war. That was during the First World War, and the people who passed that legislation were probably beguiled by statements of the government of the day, which I believe was a government of a persuasion which should have known better. But at least it was a unionist government. It said that the legislation was temporary and would be withdrawn as soon as the war was over. If Members of Parliament of that day had seen the miscalled tax reform legislation recently introduced in this House, I think they would have given it a terrible time; those people who observe cemeteries might have noticed that the ground was rather disturbed where some of these legislators now are.
When this legislation has been in effect for some time, Mr. Speaker, I wager that people will be coming to governments of the future pleading special cases which will suggest that the principle of the bill should be extended. I make the prediction, confident that it is correct, that in ten or fifteen years from this small beginning of a legislative approval the right to electronic surveillance with be substantially extended. That is why I would feel much more comfortable with the ultimate passage of this legislation if it were preceded by a preamble which said that the principle, to start with, was wrong and only under certain circumstances could it be allowed.
I leave that part of the bill and the debate, Mr. Speaker, because I want now to deal with another aspect which was referred to by my hon. friend from Fundy-Royal. He said that in dealing with this matter the government should deal with a companion question of the right of freedom of information. These are Siamese twins; they are inextricably bound together and cannot be dissociated one from the other. The government secures all kinds of information, not only that given on income tax forms but data on various questionnaires and documents sent out by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and by Statistics Canada. Ask any small businessman. There is an undue, continuing encroachment upon the rights of individual citizens of this country who wish to retain information of a private nature. Indeed, today there is little information that an individual cannot be compelled to give to some appropriate authority of government, particularly the federal government. This applies also to provincial governments and to the governments of some cities.
If one were to make a detailed, itemized list of all legislation passed by parliament for compelling an

individual to provide information to governments, one would be astounded at the extent of legislation which compels one to divulge facts. This may be necessary; I do not know. In any event, the government comes into possession of a tremendous amount of information. If this bill passes, it is obvious that the government could come into possession of a great deal more information. What, then, is the responsibility of government in the use of that information?
There is a growing feeling on the part of governments all over the world, which includes this government and the government of the United States, that the executive branch of government stands in some rare, exclusive and esoteric position vis-a-vis the rest of the people of the country. This administration is gathering facts and information and feels it has no responsibility to make known the facts which it has obtained. I consider that to be a dangerous and pernicious doctrine, particularly as it is held by a government which is now seeking this means of compelling further facts and information to be divulged involuntarily.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal referred to a statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) before he assumed his onerous responsibilities. At that time he was much more liberal in his views and spoke as a small "1" liberal about social and legal problems in this country. He was not the only one who held that view and made statements of that kind. While luxuriating in the freedom of not being the prime minister of this country and being free to say what he thought, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), writing in the Montreal periodical Cite Libre, took a strong stand on the need of the public for true and complete information. Although dealing with Quebec politics, he made a statement that basically referred to any democratic government. On that occasion he said:
Democratic progress requires the ready availability of true and complete information. In this way, the people can objectively evaluate their government's policies.
To act otherwise is to give way to despotic secrecy.
Those are the words of the leader of the government which we face every Monday and Wednesday in our attempt to obtain answers to written questions and to secure documents. Many questions are asked. I would be the first to admit, and I see the parliamentary secretary pricking up his ears, that without doubt many questions are asked which should not be asked.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I am prepared to admit that. But that shortcoming is only minimal when compared with the extent to which this government hides behind the age old answer, "It is not in the public interest to reveal this information and it should not be provided."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Hon. friends to my left have asked a good many questions. I thought perhaps they might know all the answers by now. I assume they are still genuinely seeking information. We ask questions. I submit that a casual survey of the records of this House for Mondays and Wednesdays will lead one to bring in an appalling indictment of the present administration in that it has
May 7, 1973

failed to live up to what the Prime Minister said before he became prime minister, before he even undertook his responsibilities as a member of this House. Many people hold the same opinion. Former United States president James Madison once said:
A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both.
In speaking of the government he was referring to the legislature. Any country in which the legislature, the people and the press are inadequately informed of what the government is doing or what it plans is not a good country, because if information is withheld from parliament there is no forum wherein the affairs of the nation can be debated adequately and properly.
That this is so has been demonstrated by what has happened in the last few weeks in the United States. I do not intend to become involved in what is happening there. The trouble is not so much what some individuals are alleged to have done in their electronic surveillances and in the securing of facts; it is that they are alleged to have taken extravagant and unusual steps to withhold that knowledge from the people. That is the trouble they are in today and that is the reason for their difficulty. The question at issue involves not only what was done, juvenile, stupid and silly though it was; it also involves the failure of certain people to impart frankly and honestly the facts to the people. The attitude of that government is much the same as the attitude held by members of this government. It is alleged that that administration feels that certain facts and information which may be too esoteric, too embarrassing, too difficult or too damaging must not and need not be disclosed.
Before this House complies with the request of the government to give the government or its emanations the right to secure further information, the minister some time before third reading, possibly in committee, should say that the government will take a serious look at the idea of codifying the rights of parliament, of the people and of the press to secure facts and information from the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I have proposed a bill dealing with this area. I do not for one moment suggest it is the final answer. To be honest, I have some doubts myself about parts of my proposal. This is the third time I have mentioned this bill in the House, which in one form or another has been before the House for about three years. I call it the right to information act. The term "public business" is defined in the bill. It contains a simple statement about the rights of Canadians. I suggest there should be a statement in this bill about the rights of Canadians to be free from electronic surveillance except under certain conditions. The rights in my bill are as follows:
Any Canadian, or any person not being a Canadian who resides in Canada, may apply to the government for a record made in the course of public business and the government shall, within a reasonable time thereafter, provide a copy of such record to any person who so applies or make such record available for inspection by him.
Protection of Privacy
There are certain exceptions; I admit that. In addition, I propose that if the government cannot bring itself within the four corners of those exceptions there is the right of the citizen to go to court in order to have the issue settled. If the court makes a declaration, there is then a mandatory duty upon the government, department or Crown corporation involved to furnish that information or face the penalty of a jail sentence. I do not think you would have to use the penalty provision very often, probably only once or twice.
The salutary effect of legislation of that kind becoming part of the law of this land would, in my opinion, have a very useful effect on a government which, because it is the government, is secretive to begin with and, because it is a Liberal government, is even more secretive than most governments. I suggest that this is not very far from the subject matter we are debating. The members of the standing committee to which this bill will be referred will be free to secure a statement from the government and the minister at that time. The former minister of justice, now Minister of Finance, made it quite plain; he said in the simplest and clearest language that it is essential that there be a legislative proposal of this kind. The time has long passed for this country to have on the statute books legislation which gives that right to the ordinary citizen of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I have said all I want to say. There are others who want to participate in this debate. I shall vote for second reading with some mental reservations. I have some reservations about the bill. I have given voice to some of them. I concur with what has been said by some of my colleagues in this party and some of my friends from the New Democratic Party and the doubts they have expressed.
In light of events south of the border, I think this matter is of sufficient importance to take a good, hard look at it. I would like to see this bill regarded as a white paper, or simply refer the subject matter to the committee. Before this debate is concluded, the minister should pledge in the clearest and most unequivocal terms that he will listen to reasonable proposals. I have heard enough from hon. friends to my left to believe that we could get together and come up with some reasonable amendments which the government would be compelled to accept.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: This government loves office so well that it would swallow itself inch by inch and day by day in order to stay in power.


John Mercer Reid: Not half as much as you want to get in.


Gerald William Baldwin: If hon. friends to my left, and this party get together there will not only be the moral strength but the numerical strength of our conviction which will have a very strong effect on my friends opposite.
While coming back here the other day I was listening to the news. What struck me was not so much the Watergate case in the United States but the case of the Pentagon papers, the prosecution of two men. One does not need to

May 7, 1973
Protection of Privacy
agree with them ideologically, politically or otherwise. It has now been pretty well established that the documents they took had in large part been published beforehand. Expert witnesses called at the trial of these two men testified beyond any question that the documents which they took and caused to be published were not secret documents in the sense they had any value or endangered in any way the prosecution of United States' participation in Indo-China. Most extraordinarily, we find that people high in the government and security agencies in the government were involved in burglary attempts and attempts to obscure information about these two defendants in order to try to favourably impress the judge and jury and forward the prosecution's case. These are the kinds of dangers we face in the matter we are dealing with today. We only see that part of the iceberg above the surface of the water.
This is an admirable opportunity for all members of the House to look at the whole problem in a non-partisan and objective way. The standing committee which will consider this bill is an excellent committee. I hope the committee will have the courage to be objective. It would be well advised to come back with very strong recommendations which the government would have to accept.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, as a new member of this House I am surprised to learn that this is the third time this bill, in substance, has been before parliament. I understand that it has been dealt with extensively on three other occasions by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Having had that much time in committee and in this House, I find it incredible that the extensive rights to wiretap under the Official Secrets Act have not been removed from the bill.
I was impressed with the approach taken by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) in dealing with this subject as a matter of a bill of rights or a matter of being positive, rather than negative, in guaranteeing one's right to privacy. This is a most useful approach that could be taken.
It is also interesting to note there have been at least four private members' bills dealing directly with this subject; one from the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather), one from the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), one from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) before he held that post, and one from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). That persuades me there is some merit indeed in private members' bills. I am convinced this subject would probably not be before the House now without the pressure that has been put on the government by private members both now and in the past.
There is no doubt that severe regulation must come into the law with regard to the continuing flagrant abuse of privacy by electronic devices. This bill, which has many weaknesses, is still long overdue. I intend, as I believe the majority of the members of the New Democratic Party intend, to vote for this bill in principle and have it referred to committee. However, I must say we are most unhappy with many provisions in the bill. In fact, this is

just a little better than nothing. I would characterize this as still being basically Big Brother legislation.
We have to look upon this bill as only the beginning of a concerted attack upon violations of the right of privacy- violations by big business, by the large technocracy which is developing around us, by government itself. In the last 30 years the pendulum has been swinging away from individual privacy. It cannot swing back unless there is government help, governmental intervention.
I was most impressed by the position taken by the hon. member for Peace River. I was impressed by his argument that we should look at this question from the positive point of view and bring in a bill which would guarantee privacy, rather than the kind of bill we are now considering. The bill before us fails to deal with many areas of privacy violation. For example, we are still faced with flagrant abuses by credit reporting agencies affecting the rights of citizens across the country. What is needed is a bill to require the disclosure by all credit agencies of the files they keep on individuals.
We need a bill which gives to individual citizens the right to take action against such agencies when the information they possess is inaccurate. In addition, we need legislation giving the private citizen the right to clear his record, in the same way as a person convicted of criminal offences has a right to clear his criminal record. There may be items in a man's financial past which hurt his credit indefinitely. There should be some provision here to protect him from the disclosure of information by these agencies which could cause him serious harm.
We need legislation which would allow a citizen to challenge in the courts the release of private data about himself without his consent. I think, too, we need a bill of rights for employees so that employers are prevented from invading the personal lives of employees and interfering with their right to privacy. We do not need big corporations whose employees are expected to go to the company church, the company picnic, and so on. It seems to me that here, too, a right of independence and privacy is involved.
Last, but not least, we should consider protecting the right of privacy where the news media are concerned. I realize the news media should be entitled to get the news fairly when they can, but there are times when they step over the boundary, as it were, as when for example they take pictures of a mother grieving over a dead child. On many occasions in times of personal tragedy the news media impose upon a family that awesome thing, a television camera. In a way this, too, is an infringement of personal liberty and it is an area which those engaged in the media should themselves be considering very carefully.
To deal with the bill before us, there are still many points of weakness in it. First, it seems to me the bill gives authority for wiretapping to be carried out in all cases of indictable offences. I do not see why it should be allowed in all cases. I believe wiretapping should be limited to cases where the most serious offences are suspected. Are we to allow wire tapping for the purpose of catching marijuana smokers? Apparently, under this bill we could.
May 7, 1973______________COMMONS DEBATES_____________________3495
It seems to me that only the most serious crimes should be covered by the legislation and that these should be listed. Something in the order of those carrying at least a ten-year prison term should be considered.
There is no provision for the attorneys general of the provinces to be required to report to their legislatures in connection with the permits they have issued. This is a fundamental issue. If a political authority is to be allowed to issue permits for wiretapping, the final political authority should be the parliament. When an attorney general is not required to report back to parliament, a dictatorship situation arises.
The most severe weakness in the bill is one most speakers have already touched on. It involves the Official Secrets Act. In spite of the criticism which has so often been levelled at the government, this kind of legislation is foisted upon us. It is not good enough. Earlier I described the bill as Big Brother legislation. The clause I had in mind begins on page 21, and it provides:
The Solicitor General of Canada may issue a warrant authorizing the interception or seizure of any communication if he is satisfied by evidence on oath that. .. the purpose of such interception or seizure is related to the prevention or detection of espionage, sabotage-
These are the operative words which are so dangerous: -or any other subversive activity directed against Canada or detrimental to the security of Canada.
Under the provisions of this clause there is no responsibility to go to a judge. It is entirely an internal matter between the Solicitor General and the police force. This is most dangerous. We have no right to be smug about the Watergate case. Under our present laws, as other speakers have pointed out, there could be a Watergate, and I submit that we could just as easily see a Watergate under the bill before us, because of some solicitor general who was not able to draw the fine line between opposition and subversion. Exactly the same thing could occur here. This clause gives the Solicitor General the right to determine which organizations in the country can be placed under wiretap surveillance. It immediately brings to mind the question of political radicalism on campus, debating societies, and so on. We have already witnessed interference with political freedom on campus. I can see no protection for political freedom on campus in the terms of this bill. The RCMP has over and over again shown itself to be completely unsophisticated when it comes to determining what are political rights and what is sabotage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: They simply do not have the background or in many cases the education to understand it, and this can become a direct threat to academic and political freedom in this country. So I would repeat what the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) said earlier, that unless there are substantial changes, particularly in the clause to which I have referred, I do not think the bill will pass after it has been considered by the justice committee.
I want to deal briefly with one or two other clauses. We say that evidence obtained by wiretapping is inadmissible in court, yet evidence derived from wiretapping is admissible. Surely all we are doing here is encouraging illegal
Protection of Privacy
wiretapping. The least that should be given is a voir dire in connection with such evidence, so that the judge can inquire as to the rights of the individuals concerned before that evidence is considered.
I hope these matters will be dealt with positively by the justice committee. We in this party intend to vote for the legislation in order to get it before the committee, but very few of us are satisfied with what we read. I conclude by saying that I would hate to see the bill defeated because it is something, after all, and the present law is hopelessly inadequate in terms of protecting private citizens. Nevertheless, I feel it could be defeated unless there are changes, particularly in the clause dealing with the Official Secrets Act.


Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, there are certain elements in this legislation the thrust of which most of us agree with. I disagree with the previous speaker in that he is more inclined to put emphasis on serious offences. I agree with the legislation to the extent that it must relate to illegalities per se, whether the offence being investigated is major or minor, because interference with the right of the public to privacy must be protected and upheld. I think it is the function of parliament to maintain that privacy.
There are one or two technical matters to which I should like to refer. The first relates to an application for an ex parte motion. Any lawyer will know that ex parte motions are open to the public, and with a little contemplation this legislation could properly be altered to take care of that situation. It can be left to the committee to make some of these changes to which other speakers have alluded, but this is one which to date has perhaps been overlooked.
This bill calls for notice to be given an accused if this type of evidence, either by transcript, by tape or by whatever method is used, is to be used; but it does not say when. All the power of the state is being pitted against the accused. He must have some time to prepare his defence. Such a notice should not be handed to him at the time the evidence goes in, as that is hardly fair or in keeping with our concept of justice. Under the Ontario Medical Act, for example, in respect of medical evidence at least an accused is given seven days' notice. I think there should be some kind of time limitation, in respect of when notice is given, that such evidence is to be used against an accused. The accused should be given a copy of the transcript or the tape, as the case may be, in order that he will have fair warning and be in a position to prepare his defence.
I am worried about another aspect of this legislation. Although I am not an electronics expert, having watched television at times I am aware of how tapes can be doctored, and this bothers me. Tapes can be cut, spliced and put together, entirely changing the context of a conversation. This legislation in itself or through its regulations must have some safeguards to protect the accused and others if such evidence is to be used. I am not a cynic but, rather, a realist and having been in the courtroom day after day I know how some officials operate. Among the safeguards we have for accused, this legislation must

May 7, 1973
Protection of Privacy
require some scientific proof that there has been no tampering with or doctoring of such tapes or transcripts.
Perhaps another minor point is the aspect of this legislation relating to the doctrine of possession. I have been greatly concerned about the word "knowing" in reference to the primary use. What is "primary"? How close is it to secondary or tertiary? This is a difficult question. The accused must show that possession was not for that primary use. From the accused's point of view, I think that part of the legislation must be further considered.
I am also bothered that peace officers would be authorized to have such equipment in their possession, but the legislation does not spell out that they must only be in possession when so authorized; it merely refers to possession as long as the peace officer is in the course of his employment. Most police officers are employed on a shift basis and may not have the authority to have such equipment in their possession, but if they do so this will not be an offence under the proposed change. Again, I do not want to appear cynical but we must realize that police officers are human and do have temptations. There must be safeguards to protect the general public, making sure that policemen do not abuse the privileges given them. This legislation must relate to the situation I have just outlined as well as to John Q. Public. It must also relate to policemen whether they are on duty or off duty, and those that do not have the authority must be treated in the same way as any other member of the public.
I am surprised by the degree of trust and equanimity we display in respect of those in charge of our communications in this country, telephone and telegraph. We accept them like we accept God and motherhood and believe they can do no wrong. Apparently they can interfere with communications because that is their business and they should know what is going on.
Our memories are very short indeed if we forget what was so well documented recently in respect of the state of IT&T and the way it operated during the last war. It owned 28 per cent of a German aircraft company which produced planes which shot down our aircraft, while at the same time producing communications equipment to protect our ships and planes. Apparently Colonel Ben did not worry about that situation. If we think our communications system is not tied up with IT&T, then we are naive to the point that we should not be sitting in this honourable chamber. All you need do is talk with employees of Northern Electric or Bell Telephone to find out what the connection is with IT&T.
In any event, that is the way IT&T operated during the last war. Its communications and espionage system was the best in the world. It initiated the first entente with Hitler right after he came to power. A committee of two from the United States made a visit in that regard, and Colonel Ben of IT&T was one of them. They were put in touch with the right people.
We must take a long, hard look at what I consider to be the very naive way in which we view communications conditions in this country. Parliament and the people have a right to be protected against the actions of such corporations. I frankly admit that I have no love for IT&T or for what it does. It sucks the blood of any person who comes along and tries to play both ends against the

middle. It forecast that Germany would win the war in 1941, yet in the middle of 1948 it claimed $27 million compensation for damage caused by our bombers to its aircraft plant. In any event, I believe we must take a more serious look at that aspect of this legislation.
In a philosophic way-others have referred to this-the section dealing with the Official Secrets Act actually codifies and allows the government to carry on what happened in the Watergate affair. I am sure hon. members across the way would suggest to me that this is all right if it is necessary in the public interest to keep them in government.


An hon. Member:: That's right.


J. Trevor Morgan: There is your answer, Mr. Speaker. The wording of the legislation is such that if the Solicitor General thinks it is necessary and in the public interest, the government can do what it wants to do. I do not know who the hon. member was who interjected just now, but I am glad he answered my question, because this is what can happen when a government thinks this legislation is necessary and good in the public interest. It can undertake any surveillance it wished: this legislation makes it possible. If John Stewart Mill were alive today, he would certainly roll in his grave.
I have become rather distrustful of politicians, because politicians too often want power, and power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and this is the temptation which this legislation places in the government's hands. I am afraid my mind wanders a bit, but while I was sitting here tonight I was concerned about the politician, what he actually does and what he stands for. A little limerick came to mind, which I would quote with your permission, Mr. Speaker:
Of politicians we are told to beware,
For they are all so full of hot air;
For instance, the diapers of Justin are as dry as a dustbin,
For, you see, he's the son of Pierre.
This legislation and this particular clause remind me of 1984. It can happen so easily, where you have listening in and where government can do what it wishes to do when it believes it to be in the public interest and necessary for the public good. That clause is so loosy-goosy that any government in power can do whatever it may wish with it. Certainly, the committee must get down to hard facts and really tighten up that clause before we find ourselves in very serious trouble. That particular clause is coated with corruption; it is there. I think that unless that clause in the legislation is changed we will be changing the whole aspect of a free parliamentary system. The system will not last, and could not last, if that power is given.
We see what has happened in respect of our neighbour to the south with regard to both the Pentagon papers and the Watergate situations. I do not know how the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), having seen what has happened there, could codify it and make it possible for government to do it. I wonder whether they have read the legislation and have seen what it says. We object violently and point
May 7, 1973______________COMMONS DEBATES_____________________3497
the finger to our neighbour, but we should first look more deeply at our own backyard and criticize ourselves before we have the temerity to criticize our brother. We should take the mote from our own eyes.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the fact that this type of invasion of the rights of the people of this country must be stopped. This legislation is a step forward. There are many changes which must be made to it in the committee. I hope the necessary corrections will be accomplished.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, it is surprising in a country such as Canada that we should be speaking in the same breath about two things: first, the right of the individual liberty of the citizen and, second, the right of Big Brother to supervise this liberty and the extent of it. I am sure most Canadians, no matter what walk of life they come from or what part of Canada they live in, will agree that they have the right to privacy and that that right is probably their most fundamental right as human beings. With the loss of privacy one becomes no better than an animal in a cage in a zoo.
I was pleased to hear the reference of the previous speaker to the year 1984 as being an indication that he also agrees we will soon reach that stage where the ability of Big Brother to direct and influence the lives of every individual will be accepted. I object to the docility of the Canadian public in a number of fields, and this is one. The other one which bothers me very greatly is the invasion of privacy which takes place when a person is searched at an airport. I know why people are searched; I know that we are trying to provide a deterrent. But we are providing a deterrent for a very limited number of incidents where hijacking might take place.
At the same time, however, we allow people to sit in our airports and sell life insurance. Over the years this has been one of the major causes of disasters in the air. It has been violently opposed by all the people who work for the airlines. It is very easy to insure your wife and then send her on a trip with a small parcel containing a bomb. This is allowed, and we know it has been a big factor in air disasters. We allow it because it is a form of business, and we really cannot interfere with the large insurance companies! We search people and we know what we are searching for. However, a metal detector is used. Anyone in his right mind would not carry a hand grenade; he would have to have a mental problem before he would board an aircraft with a bag full of hand grenades. He would carry a plastic bomb which could be contained in a pocket or which could be carried in a number of ways. It certainly would not be detected by a metal detector. I do not believe most people would attempt to carry sophisticated weapons on board an aircraft. If so, we should be using a totally different approach for them.
No one becomes angry about being searched, or objects to it. No one will object when the day arrives when people are searched in a supermarket. They do not object because it happens very occasionally and usually does not happen to them. It is always somebody else who is involved, and that really does not matter. I suggest that if the government wishes to bring in a bill, such a bill should totally outlaw eavesdropping by electronic devices.
We made a great hullabaloo when we stopped hanging criminals in this country except in the case of murder of a
Protection of Privacy
policeman. But have we hanged any one who has murdered a policeman since that time? No. We wrote that provision in merely to satisfy the law enforcement people. Two sections are being written into this bill. One will allow the police to carry on surveillance activities against almost anyone. Then we cover that up by allowing the security people, who are a totally different group, to go to the attorney general of a province or to the Solicitor General federally and ask permission to carry on surveillance in the case of national or provincial espionage. That is window-dressing. The people who are responsible for security in this country do not need to ask the government for the right to exercise that kind of surveillance, because we have provided them with the necessary type of equipment and training and with that very elementary device whereby they can go to the Attorney General and ask for permission to use that kind of information.
This right would only be provided once. The Minister of National Defence would go to the Attorney General of Canada and say that the use of certain surveillance equipment was necessary in the interest of national security for the army, navy or air force and he would be allowed to use it. This would be a blanket authorization and it would be carried like warrants and carried by RCMP officers. Once they are given, they are given for an indefinite period. They can do all sorts of things under those warrants.
Most crooks would not be caught by the equipment that is being used today to bug a room, a telephone service or other equipment. If you think your telephone is being bugged or the room in which you are is being bugged, ask somebody to build you a small oscillator. It will cost perhaps $10. Anybody who is using a tape recorder to record a conversation in the room would find that the tape recorder cannot pick up the conversation if on the oscillator you use decibels higher than the human ear can hear. There will be nothing on that tape except a high pitched screech which will destroy everything that is being recorded.
You can get such a device for about $10-any kid can make you one. Children today have a high awareness of electronic devices and can not only dial long distance but place international calls through satellites and perform all sorts of manoeuvres, simply because they know something about the theory of sound, which is really what we are talking about when we refer to eavesdropping. The eavesdropping to which we refer is so elementary and unsophisticated that in my opinion it is not being used by many people.
The privacy that is being invaded and that has been mentioned by other people is not covered by this legislation. This is something for which every member of the House should have some responsibility. I am referring to the new kind of invasion of privacy which is taking place, in particular through the setting up of memory and data banks as well as credit banks and all the other types of data processing information centres which provide information on people from the cradle to the grave and is completely legal and of great value to the person who may be using it.

May 7, 1973
Protection of Privacy
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) mentioned several instances, such as the espionage that is taking place in industry and the ability of smart, young engineers with initiative to use the communications system to tap information banks and obtain any kind of information in almost any part of the world illegally, and use it to make a huge profit. If you have the ability to enter into the memory bank of a large multinational corporation, then you really have the equivalent of the ability to print money. Incidentally, this is being done by many multinational corporations to obtain information on whether or not they should buy a company or play monopoly with other companies, with workers lives and with the very economics of a country.
The provisions of this bill do not cover this type of activity which is an invasion of privacy. If some credit agency states that you are a poor risk because when you were 20 years old you had a nervous breakdown while you were going through college, and if that information in a memory bank somewhere was made available, it might stop you from obtaining a loan or it might do something which happened in another country, namely, stop a young, progressive person from becoming the vice-president of one of the major political parties in that country.
That is the kind of invasion of privacy from which this government should be protecting us. I am referring to protection against the invasion of privacy in the industrial world and in various government agencies where the storing of information is taking place. It is getting to the stage where, if you have access to unemployment insurance data you will know a considerable amount about any person on whom information is stored in that data bank, information about where he works, how long he has worked, what his address is, how many kids he has, what his status is, etc. You would then have unlimited knowledge about him which I am sure he would not want you to have. That information would be available to you if you could invade the privacy of the data bank.
The government has not given any consideration to that matter in the bill before us. I have heard members refer to espionage. We have had only one case of espionage since I became a member, namely, the Spencer case. Would it not be a great thing for the Attorney General, working closely with officers of the Department of Justice who had already decided that here was a poor, harmless, dying man, to state the RCMP should be allowed to attach all the necessary listening devices and to harass him by listening in on his private conversations and following up any contacts that poor Mr. Spencer had. This is a beautiful case of espionage, the only one that has been made public!
In the United States there are two controls that would be available under this kind of legislation and are not available in Canada. In Canada, judges are appointed by the government, although I understand there are exceptions and on rare occasions advice is being given by law societies in the provinces which occasionally make recommendations, although very seldom. Often, defeated political candidates become judges. They are always people who have an obligation to the government and they are not really the kind of people whom you would want to entrust with the responsibility of granting a warrant.
It has always impressed me that when a man goes on strike he has very little chance of getting an injunction against the company involved, but as soon as he goes on strike it is very easy for the boss to see the judge and ask him for an injunction against such and such a union or such and such a plant. He gets that injunction almost invariably without any justification at all. This is true with search warrants. It has been true with regard to every invasion of the rights of workers in this country, Mr. Speaker. It has always been true so far as the workers are concerned but never, never, never applies to the management of the companies.
This reminds me of the will of God clause which is written into many labour and insurance contracts. As an individual, it always seems to me that God is never on my side in those contracts but is always on the side of the companies. This is true whether it be the case of a labour dispute or a dispute over an insurance policy. I think in the present instance God would always be on the side of the Department of Justice, never on my side, and I would be getting the short end of the stick.
In the United States, judges secure office in two ways. In the case of Supreme Court judges a recommendation is made to Congress. Congress has to approve the appointment of a Supreme Court judge. Who appoints such judges in Canada? It is the Minister of Justice. He is always coming before us and asking for the appointment of another three judges somewhere, and he appoints three of his friends. Invariably the appointments are made in that way.
In the United States there is a second way by which judges secure office, and that is by vote. I do not agree that it is a very good system but at least the public has some say in appointing a judge and some choice in getting rid of a judge. With respect to the Watergate case in the United States, why would anyone have any hesitation asking the approval of John Mitchell, the Attorney General responsible for the security of the nation, for permission to engage in wiretapping? Nixon, as President of the United States, represents the top security of the nation, and in such a case anything done to defend him, no matter what it is, would be in the interests of the nation. Therefore, he would go to John Mitchell, as he did or as someone did and ask about this matter. And then he fires them. He says, "I am above all of them. God is on my side. I don't have to resign, but the rest of you had better resign." Mr. Speaker, it could happen here very easily.
I can remember ministers of justice in this House not too long ago who were not the kind of people in whom the average citizen could put much faith. I also remember that a very short time ago we had a solicitor general who was so contemptuous of the representatives of the people that he would not allow us to visit the jails. Not only would he not let the public go in, but he would not let their representatives go in although that right was written into the law of this country for 100 years and was removed only because a former solicitor general said, "You won't need that. That is British law and it will always be there."
I do not think that the individual in this country will be protected by this legislation, but the police will be protect-
(Mr. Peters.]
May 7, 1973

ed with respect to something they already do. The police will not be any more effective against the Mafia or against anybody who is influential. I am not suggesting that a judge will not give authorization in such a case, but such people are also pretty sophisticated and I am sure they will take precautions against electronic surveillance devices. Such precautions are simple to take.
Progress in this whole field is taking place so rapidly that every time you visit an exhibition of such electronic equipment you find new devices that were not there when you visited it the previous year. The crooks know this and the police know it. There is not a heck of a lot of difference, in many cases, between organized crime and the police force. One is organized on one hand and the other is organized on the other hand, and they both play a real game. But, Mr. Speaker, that game should not affect the individual. The individual should not lose his right to privacy because of the game being played between the police and organized crime in this country.
It is the little guy who gets hurt, the guy who may be cheating 10 bucks or 20 bucks on his income tax. He is the guy who is going to get hurt here. The bootlegger is going to get hurt. The prostitute is going to get hurt. It is very easy to listen to their conversations. The Mounties don't get red ears; they don't mind listening into a conversation in somebody's bedroom. As I say, prostitutes can get hurt. I can see Jarvis Street, with all the mobile listening units. The old judge will be issuing the mobile unit licences, and they will be up and down Jarvis Street in Toronto without number. I can see the accidents taking place between these mobile units in Jarvis Street, and the same will be true of Craig Street in Montreal and of several other streets in that vicinity.


An hon. Member:: How about Timiskaming?


William Arnold Peters: Well, Mr. Speaker, not even prostitution is organized in Timiskaming; it still remains a relatively unorganized operation, with everybody for themselves. I think the police will probably engage in the free enterprise system of getting a contact here and a contact there and getting some information here and some information there, so nothing in Timiskaming is really going to happen in that field. But I suggest that in other places the police will have a field day.
I have not heard anybody say anything about the other security agency that we have built up in this country, and I am not talking about S and I. Everybody knows about Security and Intelligence. Everybody knows what it does. It is a pretty open book. It handles normal security and intelligence connected with police matters. But now we have another agency. This other agency was set up by the government to look after the security of government against espionage. I do not know the name of one person in that agency. I have not heard that it has even reported to the responsible minister. I do not know if it has ever reported to a committee. I do not know any activity that it has investigated. I do not know if it operates in conjunction with the RCMP or not. But I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that agency, operating in the dark, may not be too far away from the CIA in the United States, and I would not be too surprised if there are a number of people in that agency who are also counteragents for the CIA.
Protection of Privacy
Also, I would suggest that, operating under the Attorney General of Canada, they will probably not have much difficulty in getting any type of sophisticated equipment approved by the Solicitor General and that they will not have much difficulty in operating in a pretty free and easy way, without any kind of protection for the public.
I am opposed to this kind of bill. I have no faith in the ability of our police force to police what are truly matters of security. I have seen them chase red herrings for 20 years. I have seen members of the RCMP at every major union meeting that I attended for ten years. I am well aware that they have attended university campuses in about the same haphazard manner. I am quite sure that their purpose there was to write voluminous reports on a number of people and that this was an invasion of privacy that was not justified in the realm of national security. I am sure it was an undue and unreasonable invasion of the privacy of young people, of the privacy of individuals, of the privacy of Canadians in general.
Mr. Speaker, every time there is a demonstration on Parliament Hill we see about one and a half times the number of the members of the press gallery out there taking pictures. Half of that number is press gallery members but the other half is always the same people; they always look the same-they carry their guns the same. They are the same people and they take pictures of the crowd from all angles and by telescopic lens from the tops of buildings across the street and from the top of this building. They have taken pictures of every crowd that has gathered in front of parliament for the last five or six years. If anyone doubts this they should ask themselves how they got those pictures when Mr. Kosygin was here. The same pictures of the same person were being taken at every demonstration in the United States, Toronto, Montreal and elsewhere.
When these pictures were matched it was found that the same guy had been at four or five of the rallies. The RCMP got this information because they are there taking pictures, keeping files and maintaining a record on everybody who attends every meeting. In my opinion, that is an invasion of privacy. Another example is when Mr. Nixon was here and pictures were taken of him. Who takes them? The RCMP takes them, or agents of the RCMP, and they keep a file. This makes things easy for the police. That might be an advantage in a police state. In some countries it is very easy, because when you go to town the first thing you do is not just look for a hotel but for the police station. You give your name, state your business, who you are going to see, how long you will be staying. This makes things very easy for the police, but it is not the kind of country we want to live in. Most of our citizens came to this country to get away from that sort of thing. They do not want Big Brother. Mr. Speaker, what we want is the very maximum right of liberty and of privacy for the individual.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: When you take that away for no reason at all, you are taking the right of the individual to be free. I believed that when we brought in the War Measures Act.

May 7, 1973
Protection of Privacy
The things that took place under that act were a disgrace and an indication that government never operates on behalf of the people but only operates on behalf of government and the perpetuity of that government. That was a clear case where violent abuses took place because we developed a hysteria. If we again develop a hysteria against organized crime and allow invasion of privacy, again the individual loses.
Mr. Speaker, every time I go the airport I am shocked, concerned and saddened to see people submitting, like sheep, to being searched. I do not care if they take the plane to Cuba. We have a non-scheduled flight every day from Halifax, or perhaps two flights a day. If Air Canada flies me there, I would like them to keep me in a hotel for four or five days so that I could have a holiday, and then bring me back. I am not concerned, either, about the person who hijacks the plane to some place other than Cuba but I am concerned about the nut who gets on the airplane and wants to destroy it. If anyone wants to destroy an airplane flying 50,000 feet above the ocean, all he has to do is kick out a window. Seat belts would make no difference; the pressure on every person would be about four or five tons and the plane would crash. There is no need for a bomb; everybody knows that. The person to be worried about is the one who is going to steal the airplane and hold it to ransom.
I am willing to take the risk of somebody hijacking the plane. Well, nobody is going to hijack the one that goes to northern Quebec, so I am fairly safe; nor is anybody going to hijack the one that my colleague uses to go to Val d'Or, Rouyn, Earlton, North Bay or Toronto. However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that people are searched and that their luggage is searched on the strength that something has happened once or twice.
If you get on a bus and the bus has an accident, they do not then give the driver a breathalyzer test every time, nor do they check the tires every time. The Ontario Northland is recapping tires on its buses six times. One caused an accident and killed many people not long ago. No commercial vehicle has tires that are recapped more than three times. Well, we ride that bus and do not search it or do some of the things that we should for our own protection, but we docilely let the police or security people search us. They have the right, as well, to go before a judge and get the authority to wiretap.
Mr. Speaker, nobody has even suggested that we have an ombudsman to represent the public as the Auditor General does in regard to public accounts. The minister will get the file. But the minister was foolish enough to take on such things as the Wheat Board as well as the Department of Justice, so he is not going to have time to read about all the telephone calls that have been made and make a decision on whether the judge should allow it or not. A third party is not even allowed to represent the individual.
I am violently opposed to the invasion of privacy that we, as Members of Parliament, are allowing for no reason. If there were a demonstrated need for this, then maybe we should consider it. I think this government should be introducing a bill to eliminate the right to wiretapping with rare exceptions, those exceptions to be stringently policed. The police force should not be allowed to get a

search warrant or injunction, but the individual's privacy should be retained at all costs.
We should stir the people of this country to object to the invasion of privacy, to object to the benefit control officers of the UIC asking the personal questions they do. Once you have been asked all those questions, Mr. Speaker, once somebody listens to your telephone conversations, once you no longer have privacy in your own home, then you are no longer master in your own house and you have really lost a great deal of your individuality; you become close to being an animal. That animal will be 1984 and it will be Big Brother who will make the decision for you. You will be trained to like it, accept it and even to appreciate it.
'


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear my hon. friend from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) speak of the new philosophy of the New Democratic Party. He suggested the government acts only on behalf of the government. I am most impressed if that is that party's position in dealing with regulatory legislation. Presumably, those members will now be voting with my party, the party of freedom, the party that is concerned with individual liberty. It is in that respect that I wish to make some remarks tonight.
The matter of electronic snooping has been raised in the press in the last few weeks in connection with the Watergate affair in the United States. I commend the minister for bringing this matter to the attention of this House at this time. The people of this country are totally unhappy over the use of bugging or electronic snooping devices. They have no reason to wish for this kind of activity and are most emphatically in favour of laws protecting privacy.
If this bill contained only section 178.1 and 178.11 and nothing else, I would commend it entirely to this House and say it is a terrific piece of legislation. Under those two sections, conviction for electronic snooping brings a penalty of up to five years in jail. Electronic snooping is pretty clearly prohibited. Nevertheless, the bill goes on to authorize electronic snooping not only on the part of officers of the Crown but, as pointed out by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Morgan), by private and public telephone and telecommunication companies. The authorization of such invasion of privacy leaves a great deal to be desired and the entire matter must be examined seriously in committee.
It is surprising that the government continues to put forward police state type electronic snooping measures as proposed in this legislation. This is the third time a bill like this has been before the House and, presumably, this bill will go to committee for the third time. Each time provision has been made whereby officers of the Crown and others will be entitled, under certain conditions, to eavesdrop on every bit of private conversation that you and I, Mr. Speaker, may have. It is in that respect also that I wish to address the House tonight.
Not only is the eavesdropping of the government under certain conditions permitted; all of a sudden the results of this eavesdropping will now become legitimate evidence in court. According to section 178.14, if an ex parte
May 7, 1973

application is granted by a judge of the superior court and eavesdropping is undertaken, the evidence in connection with the eavesdropping can be introduced in court and is to be treated as proper and valid evidence. This is an amazing extension of the laws of evidence as relating to courts. All of a sudden the private conversation in someone's living room, the private conversation in someone's office, say in the Confederation Building between members of this House, or the private conversation over a telephone may become evidence. If a constituent says over the telephone that the Prime Minister should drop dead, that statement may be treated in court as evidence if there is a charge of espionage or something like that.
What will happen, Mr. Speaker? Sure, the tape will be given to the accused; the accused will have access to that information. But the tape will be produced in court and entered as evidence and what was said will be loud and clear, almost like a picture. The court and jury, if there is a jury, will have the right to hear that kind of evidence. Such evidence will not have been obtained by someone directly seeing the subject; it will not be direct evidence given by someone who heard somebody else say something. It will be the evidence of a machine. The machine will have heard something said. The machine will be played in court, and what is recorded may lead to a conviction. That is the kind of thing authorized under this bill. That is a serious extension of the law of evidence, and a very serious infringement of liberty. That is the kind of thing we find in this bill. Therefore, this bill is not properly named as clause 1 says-"This act may be cited as the protection of privacy act." Here is a bill that legitimizes wiretapping evidence. That is a serious provision that will have to be expunged from the bill in committee.
May I deal with the next subject. Authority to conduct this kind of invasion of privacy is to be obtained by way of ex parte application to the court. Every lawyer who has practised law knows that you always go to a friendly judge if you want a friendly order. Really, the friendly judge is always there as my hon. friend from Timiskaming pointed out. I have lots of faith in our judiciary, I have practised law and have gone to friendly judges on behalf of my clients to get friendly orders. There is really not too much difficulty in getting such an order if you want one. Now there are to be ex parte applications for permission to bug.
Under this government we have seen the proliferation of all sorts of ex parte applications. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), who I see is here, gets ex parte orders every day to garnishee citizens' wages of this country because they happen to have been overpaid by his department in the matter of unemployment insurance. All of a sudden people find that their bank account is lighter by a couple of hundred dollars or so because the minister has obtained an ex parte order of garnishment. Those are the kinds of ex parte orders I am talking about. You never find out about them until they hit you.
The same holds true for the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury). If he wants to make a seizure because you have not paid your income tax, the minister obtains an ex parte order and makes an ex parte seizure. This is done all of a sudden. There is no due process of law here;
Protection of Privacy
there is an ex parte order and seizure. That is the kind of thing that is creeping into our statutes. There is an ex parte order and that is it. And this bill is supposed to protect the rights of the citizen!
I referred to the kinds of orders the Minister of Manpower and Immigration obtains to garnishee people's wages. I dealt with one such order the other day involving a constituent who had already gone bankrupt. The minister's department had been advised of the bankruptcy yet the minister authorized that ex parte garnishee and it went through. Even though I told the minister that the constituent had gone bankrupt, the minister said, "I have a court order, old boy, and I would garnishee him anyway." That is the kind of attitude that prevails under these kinds of ex parte proceedings. Provision is made for them in other statutes, and there is no reason to believe it will not happen under this statute.


Gerald William Baldwin: And that is the minister who has unlimited access to our national bank account.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Yes, he has unlimited access. It would not be so bad if the orders had to be obtained by the minister. However, from looking at this statute we find that the attorneys general of the provinces, the Solicitor General of Canada or their agents-and that could be a corporal in the RCMP or a police constable in Mississauga-could obtain, on an ex parte order from some judge somewhere, the right to bug, wiretap and do all sorts of things. It is not the minister, but the minister's agent. Almost any person could be the minister's agent. This provision is far too loose. It has far too wide an application and puts far too wide a right in the hands of the Crown or its servants. The whole matter of delegation must be looked at. There should be no right of delegation in this serious invasion of the privacy and rights of individuals.
The bill further states that you do not even need a court application. All you need is the minister's agent, his police office, to think that maybe it is a matter of urgency and for a 36-hour period, without limitation, they can go in and wiretap on their own. They do not even need an order. For 36 hours they are foot-loose and fancy free. Eventually they may get an order, but they may not. They may decide to wiretap my friend here, my friend there or any person in my constituency for any reason at all. They do not have to report. They do not have to justify their activities.
I wish to deal further with this ex parte order. Having obtained the ex parte order, does the minister or the police have to make the details of the ex parte order public knowledge? Not on your life. The whole system can be buried. The file remains sealed until it is destroyed. The accused who is charged as a result of an improperly obtained ex parte order has no right to cross-examine the grounds on which the order was obtained in the first place. The evidence obtained against him is not open to cross-examination. The fact that it was obtained without the right to have it in the first place, without the right of being open to examination or cross-examination, is used against him.

May 7, 1973
Protection of Privacy
Under section 178(2)(i) we find that on proof of conviction or illegal wiretapping the government of Canada, without the right to go into property and civil rights, declares a damage suit for $5,000. Surely a claim for punitive damages, which is a tort, should not be set out in the Criminal Code. After all, the Criminal Code should not set out grounds for civil damage or even limitations on grounds for civil damage. This is clearly a matter within the competence of the provinces. This section should be removed from the statute. If a person is aggrieved by the improper use of wiretapping and sues someone for that, there is no reason why the person so aggrieved should have his damages limited to $5,000 by the Parliament of Canada. The whole question of damage and civil litigation is a matter within the competence of the provinces of this country. It is not a matter of competence of the federal parliament. On that basis, this section must be removed from the statute.
There are a lot of things said by people on the telephone and otherwise. Things are sometimes said when they should not be said. Things are sometimes said in a way they should not be said. As a politician, I know that. Your Honour also knows it. Loose comments are made. Surely, loose comments made by people over the telephone and picked up as a result of the authority given to the police office to bug the telephone or otherwise should not be used as evidence in a court of law. Just because someone says he is going to do something that is possibly of a seditious nature, it should not be used in evidence against that person just because it was said in private.
This whole question must be looked at, and looked at seriously. It is very easy for politicians to talk about fixing a nomination. It is very easy for people to talk over the phone about fixing a horse race. Because it was very easy for my constituent, a middle-aged lady, to talk about getting rid of the Prime Minister, this idle chatter should not be used as evidence against her in a court of law. That is the kind of authority that is being given by this parliament as a result of this bill.
There is one other thing I would like to say before Your Honour calls it ten o'clock. I wish to make this point very clear. Evidence is taken on the quiet without any person understanding that it is being taken from him. It is taken secretively without his having any understanding of what is happening. All of a sudden it is used against him. This is totally against our concept of British justice. On that basis, the clauses in this bill authorizing electronic snooping must be deleted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the House is ready for the question, the Chair will now put it. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) is rising. Obviously, the House is not ready for the question. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Mr. Gleave:: No, Mr. Speaker; I wish to speak on this subject.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on March 5 last, as recorded at page 1883 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) a question the text of which appears on that page. The question relates to the necessity of a financial contribution, which I and many others have said is the responsibility of the federal government, toward the development of a rapid transit system in the national capital.
On January 30 the province of Ontario made an announcement wherein it stated it was prepared to put up a large sum of money toward the cost of developing a system of rapid transit for the Ontario side of the national capital area. At that time it invited participation by the Government of Canada. Since then, neither the government nor the National Capital Commission has made any commitment whatsoever to sharing in this type of development although I am sure there have been discussions with respect to it.
The important thing, however, was the minister's answer. Apart from the fact that he jumped to the conclusion I was assuming something that I was not, he evaded the direct question and replied that in effect there would be no contribution until a co-operative arrangement had been arrived at within the whole of the national capital region, that is, on both sides of the river, in Quebec as well as Ontario. No one quarrels with the concept that there should be development on both sides of the Ottawa River and that both sides ought to develop space. On the other hand, no one can realistically believe that what is desirable is always possible or that differences in attitudes and needs and states of readiness can be ignored.
A commitment has been made, however, by the province of Ontario which will benefit the Ontario side. A regional transport authority has been established throughout the regional municipality of Ottawa, or Ottawa-Carleton. There has long been a need for rapid transit. An invitation to the federal government to make a contribution has been made. This invitation ought to be answered now. It ought to be answered in the affirmative. It ought to have been answered in the affirmative a long time ago. It is neither fair nor reasonable that those who want such a service now should have that service delayed while they wait for another jurisdiction. I have no hesitation in saying that the reasons for delay on the part of the other jurisdictions may be reasonable. None the less, this delay should not penalize most who reside in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.
On this side of the river there are now half a million people who require rapid transit. They live in the capital of Canada. They live in an age when we should be doing our best to improve our city. The national capital ought to
May 7, 1973

be a model for all forms of services which municipalities supply. Yet in the field of transportation we still live in a dark age. The answer is obviously rapid transit. In this age, the traditional bus service will not do.
Having said this, I want to add that no doubt the federal government is experiencing difficulties in co-ordination at this time; there are two municipal jurisdictions, two provincial jurisdictions and the federal government is in the middle. This situation ought to raise, not obstacles but rather challenges for the federal government. Perhaps the time has come for us to constitute the parliamentary committee which has been talked about in the newspapers and in this House from time to time, and ask it to examine the structure and the place of the National Capital Commission. In doing this, perhaps we should consider whether the time has not come for the new types of municipalities, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton on the one hand and Outaouais municipality on the other, to be represented on the National Capital Commission.
Perhaps we should seek to determine the real place of the federal government in such an arrangement. Perhaps we ought not to turn our backs on the possibility that there may be some good come of local government involvement at the policy level, and that more could be done in the national capital than the commission's traditional role of tending flowerbeds and building highways- that its real role with respect to development and planning might be recognized by local participation. Perhaps we should take advantage of these new municipal structures so that there could be co-ordination at the policy level between the municipal governments and the National Capital Commission. Perhaps we ought to say that the National Capital Commission has a place on a regional transportation body or bodies which affect both sides of the river. Perhaps the question, the answer to which I sought on March 5, might be answered in that way.
I hope that when the parliamentary secretary rises he will announce that the government does, indeed, intend to go ahead now and act with respect to that part of the national capital area which has made a request for a federal contribution to the development of a modern rapid transit system in that part of the national capital area which has shown itself ready and able to absorb it.
The challenges that face the national capital area have been too long characterized as difficulties. My respectful submission is that this government has not been active enough in meeting the challenges. One of the great challenges it must meet in this area is the challenge before it of providing, on this side at least in the beginning, perhaps as an example to the other side, a modern, up to date and thoroughly sound rapid transit system so that we will not forever become the victim of the automobile and the expensive highways which are necessary for its maintenance.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Laprai-rie (Mr. Watson), the parliamentary secretary in this area, to present this reply.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) asked whether, in the event that one or other of the
Adjournment Debate
provincial governments is not prepared to participate in the conditions necessary to establish rapid transit to serve the national capital region, the federal government would deal separately with one of these governments in the granting of funds for a system on only one side of the Ottawa River.
The minister is not prepared at this time to accept the premises of the question. Indeed, there is considerable evidence that there is sufficient understanding of the necessity for rapid transit for the national capital region on a truly regional basis to include both sides of the Ottawa River and to be an integral part of a balanced transportation network for the whole region.
In support of this I would point out that the Premier of Ontario has made public statements inviting the co-operation of both the federal government and the province of Quebec in dealing with transit proposals for the national capital region which have been recently announced by his government. Moreover, it is also evident that the province of Quebec is initiating steps dealing with transit and is making a considerable effort to overcome the disparity which now exists between the two provinces in the national capital.
Consequently, the minister is satisfied that in the case of both provinces there is an appreciation of the necessity to plan and implement rapid transit on a regional basis and in a co-operative manner with the federal government. I am sure, therefore, there is agreement on the importance of rapid transit in the national capital region to all three senior governments, as well as to the municipalities to be served on both sides of the Ottawa River, and that these governments are therefore willing to work together on this matter.
This seems to be the appropriate time to seek a meeting to discuss public transit and transportation in the region with the other senior levels of government. To this end the minister is now making arrangements for a meeting with representatives of Ontario and Quebec at which we expect a very co-operative approach to be taken. In due course the minister will undoubtedly be reporting further to the House.


TRANSPORT-ADEQUACY OF TOFINO LIFEBOAT STATION SERVICE IN LIGHT OF DROWNINGS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) a question regarding the very unfortunate incident which happened last Wednesday, May 2, near Tofino on the west coast of Vancouver Island. At 2 a.m. four persons were making their way in a small boat, a dug-out canoe, to the Opitsat Indian reserve and the boat capsized. Fortunately, Mr. Walter Arnett, who was a member of the lifeboat crew, heard the shouting and sent out an alarm. Mr. John Shaw launched a rubber boat within four minutes of hearing the alarm and managed to rescue Mr. Henry Williams. Someone on the wharf rescued Mrs. David Henry Williams. Within 15 minutes of the rubber boat being launched, the lifeboat was launched and scoured the area but was unable to find the other two. As a result, David Henry Williams, age 33, and Mrs. Martha Martin, age 73, were drowned.

May 7, 1973
Adjournment Debate
I did not raise this matter with a view to criticizing the crew of the lifeboat station; not at all. If they were able to launch a rubber boat within four minutes and launch a lifeboat within 15 minutes of hearing the alarm, I think they deserve every commendation. I raise the matter because there is a growing feeling among people on the Pacific coast that the curtailment of the staff of the various lifeboat stations has contributed to many of the losses of life at sea in recent years.
When one considers that this lifeboat crew is on duty from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., seven days a week, and on call all the rest of the time 24 hours a day, seven days a week, one realizes it is virtually impossible to expect that these men can be found by telephone message from the marine radio station at any hour of the day or night. They go out sometimes to visit friends, to go to church, to visit the beer parlour or somewhere else. It is only between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. that persons are actually at the lifeboat station. For the remainder of the time the safety of people at sea is dependent upon someone being able to find the persons who are on call but are not really on duty.
I do not believe it was good economy when some time ago the department reduced the staff of these lifeboat stations. The men who go down to the sea in ships and do business in deep water have a right to better protection than that which they are being given. It is not merely a matter of these four persons who were making their way to the Indian reserve: there are fishing fleets 25 or 30 miles out to sea and any one of them could capsize or be involved in a collision.
There is a need for two things. There is need for a modern, up to date ship-to-shore radio service and lifeboat station crews available at all times to launch a boat and go to the rescue of those whose ship has been wrecked or destroyed. I do not raise this matter to either embarrass the minister or find fault with the lifeboat crew, who apparently in this particular instance acted with commendable speed and energy. My purpose in raising the matter is to ask the government, through the Minister of Transport, to look into this situation to see if the paring of the staff of the lifeboat stations has resulted in a situation in which people's lives are in jeopardy.
When I ask for an investigation, I do not mean public servants investigating themselves. I mean someone from the minister's office or persons familiar with lifeboat operations and coastguard services who would look into this matter. They should be people who are not intimately connected with the operation. It should certainly not be done by someone from the Treasury Board to see whether there could be a saving. This is not a case of saving dollars but, rather, of saving lives. This is what I am interested in.
I ask the minister, through the minister's parliamentary secretary, if the department will look into this question of lifeboat stations to see whether men could be on duty on three shifts of eight hours each, which would mean that they would be there and available to meet any mishap. I know some steps are being taken toward this end, but they have been very slow. There needs to be a tremendous improvement in order to achieve some radio service, particularly the ship-to-shore radio service on the Pacific coast. With those two things, adequate lifeboat

crews and up to date radio communication, I think we could reduce the loss of life that has been all too common in recent years on the Pacific coast.


Mr. loseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member that I have taken careful note of the comments he has made, of his concern and of the various other points that he outlined. At the same time, I would like to say to him, on behalf of the department, that from our review of the whole operation there is no doubt in our minds that a sufficient crew is manning the station.
In order to confirm this opinion it should be noted that it was one of the members of our lifeboat crew who first became aware of the emergency and put the rescue operation in action, which included the launching of the rubber boat and the rescue, and the further launching of the larger lifeboat, both of which took place in extremely short periods of time. Additional staff would not conceivably have improved the speed with which this whole operation was carried out.
It must also be borne in mind that all this took place during the hours of darkness. A special investigation team was sent to the scene of this unfortunate incident to look into all details relating to it. The investigation is still under way.


INFORMATION-POSSIBILITY OF USE OF RETAIL CREDIT CORPORATION BY DEPARTMENTS TO OBTAIN INFORMATION
Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, on a day when the right to privacy is being discussed in the House, and indeed throughout Canada and the United States, it is appropriate to consider whether the government's own house is in order. One of the more reprehensible types of invasion of privacy is the surreptitious investigation of persons by governments through the use of commercial credit agencies whose computer-stored data is often lacking in truth if not in substance.
On March 6 of this year I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) if he would advise whether any department of the federal government is a client of the Retail Credit Corporation or Company, or of any other commercial reporting agency and, if so, does it use the information received for purposes other than as an employer? My question was prompted by the following information which has been brought to my attention. The first information is that there is in existence an up to date, eleven-page manual of the Retail Credit Company called "Retail Credit Managers' Manual". It is my understanding that this is a confidential document which is not distributed to the public. Moreover, this manual contains words to the following effect under the heading "General Policies of the Retail Credit Company":
The company operates with the federal authorities in the United States and Canada. Requests usually come from the RCMP and other federal departments in Canada.
These departments have the right of subpoena and we try to co-operate with them. Any unjustifiable demands should be submitted to the company's legal department in Atlanta.
The passage to which I refer concludes by saying:
May 7, 1973

You should realize that the company's information is only hearsay and is not guaranteed.
That is from the "Retail Credit Manager's Manual," which is an up to date manual used by retail credit managers in the United States and Canada. In conclusion, I would refer to some statistics and a comment in the report of the task force on privacy and computers which was tabled in the House earlier this year. That report states at page 63:
Retail Credit of Canada, a subsidiary of the Retail Credit Corporation of Atlanta, Georgia, which is primarily an investigative credit bureau, has been diversifying into in-file operations. Approximately 30 per cent of the in-file business in Canada is now under its control.
In light of the information which I have laid before the House, I would appreciate it if the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) would provide a full and complete answer to the question which I have raised, in the context of the factual information and the resulting concerns arising therefrom.
Adjournment Debate


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot give the hon. gentleman the kind of assurances that perhaps he would like. I gather he would want to have assurance that no one in the government's employ has anything whatsoever to do with the Retail Credit Corporation or the Retail Credit Company of Canada. However, I can say that so far as the Treasury Board is concerned no directive, no instruction and no advice has ever been issued by that body enjoining departments to make use of this kind of service for any governmental purpose, and there have been no departments, to my knowledge, that have made use of the services of this corporation.
I am advised by the Public Service Commission that they have not, and do not intend to make use of the services of this particular corporation, either to obtain character references or, indeed, measurements of so-called credit worthiness when it comes to the matter of the recruiting of people or their appointment to the public service. So both the two control agencies at least do not make use of the facilities offered by this company themselves, nor have they given any advice or instruction to other government departments that they should use them.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Tuesday, May 8, 1973