1973-12-04

PRIVILEGE


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege on a matter affecting my rights as a member of this House. I shall not go into the question in detail as I have already done so in the notice I have given Your Honour. Briefly, Sir, yesterday at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc), refused to hear me on a point of order when I attempted to obtain agreement to have the committee sit beyond the agreed time of five o'clock as the committee was late in commencing its proceedings.
The committee had before it vote 15a of the supplementary estimates, Canadian Radio-Television Commission, which gave me the only opportunity I will have this session to examine the commission on its failure, in my view, to comply with the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts on children's television advertising, which were concurred in by the House on July 24. Standing Order 65(10) states:
In a standing or special committee, the Standing Orders of the House shall be observed so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.
I am not going to go into the matter of the improper use of an illegal timing device. I leave that to Your Honour, although it is worth mentioning because it has to do generally with what I consider to be the unsatisfactory conduct of the chairman of the committee. This timing device was obtained, believe it or not, from a discarded coin operated laundry drying machine. I am not going to go into that, Mr. Speaker, although I cannot resist suggesting that in the case of this committee I believe we have been taken to the cleaners.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I feel that as a result of the conduct of the chairman of the committee my rights were denied me because of his failure to adhere to the provisions of Standing Orders 6(5)(a), 12(1) and 34(1). If Your Honour finds that I have a prima facie case, I am prepared to move that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East gave notice of his intention to raise this matter by way of a question of privilege and the Chair has given it very serious thought in the meantime. I am ready to make a ruling now but, in accordance with the practice, the hon.
member whose conduct is being questioned has the right, if he wishes, to reply. Apparently there is no suggestion that he wishes to do this, so I am prepared at this point to make a ruling.


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to reply.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, is the Chair going to invite comment from other members of the House who could also file proper notice with Your Honour if that is the way the Chair wishes it to come about?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The practice is well established that there should not be a debate when a member raises a matter by way of a question of privilege. This is a long-established practice. If a suggestion is made by an hon. member that he has a question of privilege I am willing to hear that hon. member but I suggest, as I have before, that there should not be debate on the matter unless there is a finding on the part of the Chair that there is a prima facie case of privilege. I would hope that hon. members would recognize the value of this practice and allow the Chair to proceed on that basis.
[ Translation]


Mr.   Fernand-E. Leblanc@Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the minutes of the proceedings of yesterday's session of the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates will speak for themselves. As for the incident mentioned by the hon. member, I believe that the facts are somewhat different from what he has said, because we applied the rules as we always do in the committee, that is when the time has expired, the debate is closed, when it was called at the proper time. Obviously, there are many other things which I could say before the Committee on Privileges and Elections; if you wish me to appear before this committee, I shall be happy to do so.
[ English]


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Laurier has replied to the hon. member and has put on the record his comments in regard to the motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's East. I am prepared to make a ruling on whether there is a prima facie case of privilege, and I suggest to hon. members that the Chair should be allowed to do so at this time.

I thank the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who, in accordance with the Standing Orders, gave notice of his intention to raise this matter by way of a question of privilege. As is usual and traditional in such a case, the Chair gave the hon. member whose conduct is being questioned the opportunity to answer briefly. I am therefore ready to make a ruling. The ruling that the Chair must make is simply to determine whether there is

December 4, 1973
Privilege, Mr. McGrath
a prima facie question of privilege requiring a motion which would then be put to the vote. If the motion were agreed to by the House, it would then naturally be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
In view of the precedents, the Standing Orders of the House and the books pertaining to the proceedings of the House to which I have referred, I doubt whether it would be possible for the Chair to say that there is a prima facie question of privilege.
[ English]
The hon. member for St. John's East, in the notice he supplied to the Chair and in the explanation he has given, states that the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Laurier, adjourned the committee sitting at five o'clock yesterday, thus preventing the hon. member for St. John's East from asking on a point of order that the sitting be extended beyond five o'clock. The hon. member further states that as a consequence of that action he was denied an opportunity to oppose an item in the supplementary estimates which concerns the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. The hon. member has taken exception to that proceeding and seeks to move that the conduct of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
As hon. members know, this is not the first time that certain aspects of proceedings in committees have been brought to the attention of the House by way of a question of privilege. I refer hon. members, for example, to rulings reported in Votes and Proceedings for January 12, 1972, and also in Hansard on another occasion, Friday, March 3, 1967, at page 13697. On the basis of the precedents to which I have alluded and on the basis, also, of citations and the Standing Orders, the ruling of the Chair has always been that such matters cannot be resolved in the House under the heading of privilege.
It is well established practice that committee proceedings cannot be brought into consideration or debate in the House except by way of a report from a committee. If a point of order or a question of privilege should arise in a committee, it should be settled there rather than by way of an appeal to the House. Hon. members are also referred to Citation 295(1) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition which reads in part as follows:
On July 24, 1956, an appeal was taken to the House from the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, and the Speaker ruled that the chairman's ruling should be settled in the Committee and not reported to the House.
This ruling led to the enactment of Standing Order 65(11) which, as all hon. members know, reads as follows:
The chairman of a standing or special committee shall maintain order in the committees; deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the committee; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the House, on receiving a report thereof.
Essentially, the hon. member for St. John's East, by way of question of privilege, would propose that the conduct of another member ought to be the subject of an investigation by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. It is a long established practice, as I have said, that the conduct of another member cannot be subjected to the

scrutiny of the House by way of a question of privilege. On this point I refer hon. members to the well known and often quoted ruling of Mr. Speaker Michener reported at page 584 of the Journals of June 19, 1959. Also, I have always had serious doubts as to the advisability of having proceedings in a committee investigated by another committee of the House.
For all these reasons the Chair must rule that there is not a prima facie case of privilege, so the motion proposed by the hon. member cannot be submitted to the House at this time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In view of the disastrous earthquake on the island of Pico in the Azores, where some 1,500 homes were destroyed, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Madill):
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration do send a special team to the island to take in and process applications from refugees who wish to immigrate to Canada and that the government do such things as may be appropriate to assist the government of Portugal in alleviating suffering.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Peel South. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the motion cannot be put at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell the House whether, when the technical advisory committee on petroleum supply and demand was established by the government, he designated a specific person to represent his department
December 4, 1973

on that committee? If this was the case, can he tell the House who that person was?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this committee reports to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I think the question ought to be referred to him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: This was a government decision to establish the committee.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to apologize to the Leader of the Opposition. I was in conversation and did not hear the full question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question was directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It was a very simple question. I asked whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when the technical advisory committee on petroleum supply and demand was established, designated a person to represent his department on that committee. If this was the case, will he tell us the name of that person? I think this is a question that only the Secretary of State for External Affairs can answer.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my information is there were representatives of a number of departments designated on this committee. Except for Mr. Jack Stabback, a member of the National Energy Board, I am afraid I cannot say who the individuals were at the moment. However, representatives of various departments have been designated.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have frequently been critical of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but I do not think I can properly criticize him in this regard. I am directing the question to the minister in charge of the department concerned and asking him whether he designated a specific person to represent his department on this committee and, if so, will he tell us who this individual is. This is a perfectly simple, straightforward question that the minister can either answer or not answer.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if I may attempt to answer this question, I was not asked by the cabinet to designate an official on the committee. The government established a committee which included a representative of the Department of External Affairs. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has said, I do not know who it is who has been designated for this purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: Nobody knows what is going on.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: I know a hell of a lot more than you guys. I know who the fellow is.


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


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Secretary of State for External Affairs has finally said he does not know. I accept that he does not know. However, I wish to ask the minister whether he receives regular written reports from the representative of the Department of External Affairs sitting on this technical advisory committee on the deliberations of the committee. I ask that question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in view of the obvious importance, or what ought to be the obvious importance, to the minister of the deliberations of this committee with regard to his responsibilities as Secretary of State for External Affairs of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Department of External Affairs is represented on many inter-departmental committees and this is one of them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: In the ordinary course of events, these reports would be made to the head of the department if he himself were not attending. If he felt there was some matter of importance to bring to my attention, he would do so.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources having stated that the decision he took with regard to seeking mandatory allocation measures was founded upon the advice of the technical advisory committee with regard to supply from abroad from Arab and other sources, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he was specifically informed by the representative of his department on this committee that the committee would give the advice that Canada would have to share not only in the direct cut-back of oil to Canada from Arab sources but also share in the general world shortfall from Arab sources? Was the minister given this information, or did he interest himself enough to make inquiries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may answer the question in this way. My colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, has put before the House the worst possible situation that might arise-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: -if we were to be cut off from the supplies of oil we would otherwise have expected. In this respect I think he was very wise as it is most important the public should understand, not a view which might be overtaken by events but the sort of contingency this country might have to face. I believe this was a wise decision on his part and I fully support the way in which he has presented it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: The minister has also said that he does not yet have any reason to believe that these circumstances will arise.

December 4, 1973
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I take it from the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he did not make inquiries himself with respect to the advice being given by the technical advisory committee and that he did not feel it necessary to interest himself in the prospect of oil from non-Arabian sources being cut back to the extent of 125,000 barrels a day and the principle upon which this cut-back might be based?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost confidence in my colleague-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: I have full confidence in the statements he has made in the House and I repeat what I have said before, that the minister is, it seems to me, acting in a very prudent way which should have the support of all parties in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PROPOSED ACTION BY ALBERTA TO INCREASE CRUDE OIL
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on a subject of direct concern to all the people of Canada arising out of the announcement by the Conservative premier of Alberta yesterday of certain steps that his government is taking and is intending to take for the purpose of increasing the price of crude oil to all the consumers of Canada. Have the steps proposed by the Conservative government of Alberta been discussed with the federal government, and what is the reaction of the federal government to these steps by Sheik Lougheed of Alberta?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in the course of the discu-sions in the last several weeks we have received a general description of the legislative framework proposed by the premier of Alberta. We have expressed our concern on two principal points, namely, that the structure of such legislation should not interfere with the general responsibility of the government of Canada for trade and commerce within the country and, second, the possible impact of these proposals from the standpoint of federal taxation and equalization. There are obviously a number of serious and important questions to be discussed in this connection. It is for this reason we have continued discussions and will be expecting to discuss the further implications both this week and next.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, since the legislation proposed by the Conservative government of Alberta means a very hefty increase in the price of all oil products to Canadians, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he has agreed to lift the price freeze as of January

31 and has agreed with the government of Alberta on price increases after that date and, if so, at what level?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there has been an exchange of views on these questions but there has been no agreement as to the position taken on either side.


David Lewis: Since the future of Canada and not merely the game in this House is involved in the question of energy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Woolliams:: Who is playing the game?


David Lewis: Obviously all the Conservatives in this House support the Conservative government of Alberta on higher prices.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. The hon. member for York South has the floor.


David Lewis: In view of the fact, as I have said, that the future of this country is involved in the supply of energy and in the price that is gouged out of the Canadian public by the multinational corporations, with the assistance of the Conservatives in this country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. It seems to me the hon. member should ask a question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Athabasca is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member who is supposed to be asking a question, but I think that the leader of a national party should not promote disunity in the country by making childish references to the premier of a province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope that we might try to return to the question period. The hon. member might ask his question now so that we may make some headway.


David Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but that last statement on an alleged point of order is not going to go unanswered.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is rising on a point of order and will be recognized.


David Lewis: The fact is, Mr. Speaker-

December 4, 1973


Mr. Fairweather:: That you wanted an excuse.


David Lewis: -that on two or three occasions in the last couple of weeks the Leader of the Official Opposition has raised peripheral issues in order to cover up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: And you're the latest gas well in this country.


David Lewis: As far as I am concerned, the only people who bring disunity to this country are those who want to gouge the rest of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has procedural doubts about the validity of both points of order. This is obviously debate. I would hope that all hon. members would try to restrict themselves in asking questions and making replies to straight inquiries and straight answers, without argument.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: May I then ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to inform the House whether he has indicated to the government of Alberta the intention of the federal government to eliminate the price freeze on January 31, and has the government of Canada agreed with the government of Alberta to permit increases in the price of conventional crude oil in Canada after January 31, whether in one increase or staged increases?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, at the moment there has been no agreement between the two levels of government. We have had discussions with regard to both the question of pricing in the Canadian market, whether before or after the date stipulated, and the question of economic rent and appropriate royalty and tax structures for Canada. There have been exchanges in this regard. Our preference obviously would be to arrive at an agreement which would meet the regional ambitions of the government of Alberta and at the same time protecting all Canadians. I must say that at the moment such an agreement has not been reached.
[ La ter;]


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, arising from the questions posed by the hon. member for York South, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he will do his best to get an answer to the questions asked by that hon. member before Friday, or not later than Friday, so that the leader of the NDP and those following him will be able to swallow themselves on Monday?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baldwin:: If you don't give them some oil, give them some castor oil.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
The minister stated yesterday that the Department of Manpower and Immigration would be strict enough with Chilean immigrants who wish to settle in Canada. Is the department considering the advisability of suggesting to Chilean immigrants to go rather to the USSR, Cuba, the People's Republic of China and Algeria where ideologies would be more in keeping with their deep convictions and yearnings?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
He may not have heard the news on Saturday that people like Chartrand, Pepin and Laberge had made a call to arms to liberate the Canadian people. Is the government taking any steps to find out how serious are the comments made by these fellows in Montreal?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the question is not put properly. These are not serious but rather weird statements.


Erik Nielsen: Throw the War Measures Act at them, Pierre.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


DESIGNATION OF TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE TO SERVE ON TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PETROLEUM SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and it arises from a question posed by the Leader of the Opposition in respect of the technical advisory committee on petroleum supply and demand. Has his department designated a representative to serve on this committee, and can the minister provide the name of that individual or individuals to the House at this time?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there are meetings held between the departmental officials and officials of the oil companies and the railway companies in order to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

December 4, 1973
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: Is that what you are referring to?


An hon. Member:: You have the wrong committee.


An hon. Member:: And you have the wrong department.


George Harris Hees: Turn on your earpiece.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. It seems to me the minister was not given much of a chance to answer the question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will simply repeat my question. Has his department designated a representative or representatives to serve on the technical advisory committee on petroleum supply and demand and, if so, will he give the House the names?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there is one person or more than one. Many persons serve on many committees.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: You know, it is so long since members opposite have been the government that they do not know how these things work. There are many committees. I will have to inquire as to the name of the member and I will report back to the hon. member.


George Harris Hees: It was never like this in the old days, Jean. We knew where the boys were.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: You are saturated with guile.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding is that the hon. member for Vegreville has the floor.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In view of the minister's answer, Mr. Speaker, and his knowledge of the committee, can he indicate to the House whether his representative or representatives have been attending meetings regularly and, if so, have they been reporting directly to him?


Jean Marchand: I will inquire of the representatives and make a full report.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVE OF DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES TO SERVE ON TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PETROLEUM SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question, and perhaps the direction of this question will ensure that we do not strike out completely over there. I direct the question to the Minister of Supply and Services. Does he have a representative of his department who is concerning himself with the problems confronting Canadians in respect of the oil shortage? If so, what is his name, what is his profession, and does he report regularly to the minister?

[ Translation]


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. Not just one person' but a good many of them are at our disposal, depending on the nature of the problems to be discussed.


EFFECT OF POWERS OF ENERGY SUPPLIES ALLOCATION BOARD WITH RESPECT TO POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS AND PROVINCIAL PERMITS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Can he assure the House that the provisions of Clause 24 of Bill C-236, whereby the Energy Supplies Allocation Board is empowered to override environmental laws, will not apply to pollution control standards or to permits issued by provincial governments?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: No,
Mr. Speaker, I cannot assure the hon. member of that. However, we are working very closely with provincial authorities and we have the closest liaison possible with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that over some years this government by its own neglect has drifted into this energy crisis-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask his question.


John Allen Fraser: In view of the fact that for a good number of years some hon. members, including members on the government side, have worked very hard to establish good environmental laws, can the minister advise whether Clause 24 will apply? Will he make a statement to make it clear to the House that environmental standards are not going to be sacrificed across this country just because of an energy shortage in some parts, and will he tell the House why the power to regulate relaxation of environmental law is given to five appointed officials without any provision for appeal or public discussion?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is correct in suggesting that that clause can suspend environmental standards. At the same time, I know of no existing federal or provincial legislation which will in fact be overridden.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I seek the co-operation of hon. members. We are not moving very quickly this afternoon. The hon. member will be recognized for a supplementary and then I will see the hon. member for Skeena.


John Allen Fraser: In view of this abdication of responsibility, can the minister advise whether as Minister of the Environment he has an arrangement or any provision whatsoever whereby he can veto a decision of this group of five


December 4, 1973

officials when it comes to abrogating or overriding environmental law in this country?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that when a law is passed by this House no minister has a right of veto, but I can assure him the closest co-operation will exist-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Davis: -and that the officers of Environment Canada will be consulted at every step and the provincial officers likewise.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. At the end of last week did he receive a telegram from Premier Barrett of British Columbia to the effect that the railway transportation situation in British Columbia is critical, that there is an inability to obtain sufficient railway cars from either the CNR or the CPR and that there are approximately 6,000 cars of lumber standing on sidings and at sawmills that the industry is unable to move that lumber because of the shortage of boxcars? Can the Prime Minister say what his response was to the telegram and what action the government is taking in respect of this continuing request?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the telegram was acknowledged and I have referred the matter to the Minister of Transport for discussion with him. He also had received a copy of the telegram. We are trying to get an answer for Premier Barrett as soon as possible.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Inasmuch as he made a commitment in the latter part of October, more than a month ago, to Mr. Nunweiler, ML A for Fort George and to this House that he would take under advisement the possibility of appointing a transport or boxcar co-ordinator to ensure availability of boxcars, and inasmuch as he has not given any response to anybody yet about this matter, can we expect a reply about what he is doing other than simply examining the situation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we have been doing more than examining the situation. We have asked the railway companies to try to find ways and means so that more boxcars may be made available to the lumber companies there. We are advised that the CPR and CNR are in exactly the same position as the British Columbia Railway headed by Mr. Barrett, which cannot supply more boxcars than the CNR or the CPR.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Trinity.
Oral Questions


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member. I have to interrupt him. The hon. member for Skeena rises on a question of privilege.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege is that the minister has done this on two other occasions. He attempts to duck his responsibility as Minister of Transport for national transportation in this nation by making reference to a provincial government-owned railway. I would like to point out that this province is currently using every means it can to acquire boxcars, while the CNR and the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. It seems to me this is debate and not privilege.



NAME OF REPRESENTATIVE OF DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE ON TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PETROLEUM SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister give the name of the representative of his department on the technical advisory committee on petroleum supply and demand and indicate whether or not the representative has attended all meetings?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, following well established precedent, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to divulge his name. But I should like to tell the hon. member who asked the question that I have satisfied myself that we have a leading, able and very effective official on that committee.


Some hon. Members:: Who?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have to try to make as much headway as we can in the last few minutes of the question period. The hon. member for Trinity will be recognized, followed by the hon. member for Champlain.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the minister. Will he indicate how fully he has been informed and, if not more fully than indicated by his previous answer, how he manages to keep abreast in monitoring the possible impact of the oil shortage on the manufacturing industries of this country?


Alastair William Gillespie: I am very well served by my officials, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A final supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked a supplementary and I recognized him for that purpose. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Champlain.

December 4, 1973
Oral Questions



AGREEMENT WITH QUEBEC ON FINANCING OF CONSTRUCTION OF NUCLEAR PLANT AT GENTILLY

Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Energy.
Can he tell us whether there has been an agreement between the federal government and the province of Quebec regarding the construction of an atomic plant in Gentilly, and how much money the federal government is contributing to this project?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, an agreement to that effect was concluded with Quebec a few months ago. Generally speaking, the federal input in such a project amounts to 50 per cent of capital costs. An atomic plant is already being built in Gentilly.



SUGGESTED SUBSIDY TO QUEBEC AND ATLANTIC PROVINCES TO PERMIT THEM TO REDUCE TAXES ON GASOLINE AND HEATING OIL

Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the leader of the government.
Has the federal government the intention to grant subsidies of a sort to Quebec or other eastern provinces in order that they can reduce their taxes on gasoline and heating oil and thus dampen the impact of price increases on consumers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, assistance to those who cannot support themselves in these circumstances because of higher prices for heating oil is a very important matter. The Department of National Health and Welfare has already been in contact with the provinces to determine means that could be taken to help consumers. As to the suggestion that provinces should not change their own tax structure, especially in this period of increased prices when consumers must pay more, I find interesting that the provinces cannot act on their own to alleviate the burden of their own taxpayers without grants from the federal big brother.
[ English]



EXISTENCE OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether there is now a national emergency in Canada as established by clause 11 of the new allocation of supplies act and, if so, when did that national emergency occur?


An hon. Member:: Where were you?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to a bill which is before the House, I think the simple answer is that it will be brought on tomorrow for debate. At that time we will have occasion to indicate our position on it, and we hope the opposition will be forthcoming with its own position.


Gerald William Baldwin: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of hon. members are seeking to ask supplementaries on this question. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Peace River, but I bring to the attention of hon. members that there are just three or four minutes left before the end of the question period.


Gerald William Baldwin: If the right hon. gentleman finds it difficult to answer that question I will now ask him this supplementary. In light of the fact that any shortages or disturbances in the market exist, according to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, because of dislocation of supplies outside Canada, can the Prime Minister indicate why the government did not take advantage of the existing import-export law which is now in place and covers petroleum products? Was it because of a feud between the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that a question in those terms is not in order.



JUSTIFICATION FOR GASOLINE PRICE INCREASE-REQUEST FOR WORKING PAPERS COMPILED BY DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS

Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with reference to the justification for the price increases in eastern Canada, with Saturday's increase now amounting to a total of 7 cents per gallon. In the committee on Thursday night I asked the minister if he would table the working papers justifying such an increase and he said he would not because they included confidential information supplied by the oil companies. Is he now prepared to table the working papers compiled independently by members of his staff?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the hon. gentleman that traditionally information of this kind supplied by competing firms has not been made public, and since the documents prepared by the government officials would be founded on the same information it seems to me the same principle should apply.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, it seems strange to me that there is no independent study made by the department. In light of sources of information I have which say that increased costs only justify an increase of 41d cents per gallon, with the remainder representing a rip-off of the Canadian consumer totalling $400,000 a day, is the minister prepared to dispute this claim with relevant data from the studies available to him?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am content to dispute it by saying I have relied on the best judgment of my advisers, and I think it is sound judgment.
December 4, 1973



ACCEPTANCE BY MINISTER OF ADVICE BY TECHNICAL


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and is based on his earlier answer this afternoon. May I ask him why he would accept the advice of the technical advisory committee on petroleum supply and demand when the membership of the committee and the qualifications of the members are unknown to him?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has had some experience as a Privy Councillor and knows that within departments, under existing departmental structures, the best men would be selected for the job.


Some hon. Members:: Who?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would contest directly the hon. gentleman's implication that the officials representing the various departments are anything less than competent.



GASOLINE AND HEATING OIL-SUGGESTION THAT PROVINCES REDUCE TAXES

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister with regard to the question previously asked by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. In view of the fact the Prime Minister has talked about a just society, and in view of the fact he established a special Department of Regional Economic Expansion because of the regional economic disparity that exists in the Atlantic Provinces, how can he now suggest to the House that the provincial governments in those regionally depressed areas of Canada should reduce their taxes in order to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is clearly argument. The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a question of privilege, and also the hon. member for Lotbiniere. I will hear the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North first.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, this question is vital. If I do not get an answer, there is no reason for my being here. This government has stated it has taken special action to try to eliminate regional economic disparities in our area. At the same time the Prime Minister stands up and suggests that the provincial governments cut their taxes even though the taxes are not sufficient in themselves to look after the people in that region. I am asking the federal government what it is going to do to reduce taxes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have indicated that a question asked in those terms is not in order. The hon. member rises on a question of privilege. The right hon. Prime Minister wants to rise on the same question of privilege. I will recognize him and then the hon. member
Oral Questions
for Lotbiniere on a question of privilege, after which we will go to the order of the House which we have for consideration at this time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not get into debate on the question of regional economic expansion because I think the record of the government stands for itself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. member, I must recall the facts to him. Last September 4, because of federal government action, we were able to assure that there would be a price freeze in these eastern provinces, a freeze at the then existing level in spite of the fact that prices of international oil were going up considerably. After a long period of time during which those provincial governments have had very high taxes on petroleum products in their provinces and when the people of Ontario and the people of the west were paying high prices for petroleum from Alberta, I think it is pushing it a bit far and it is a little bit much that now those provincial governments expect the federal taxpayers to bail them out when the sheikhs of Araby have increased their prices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Transla tion]



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Is it true that before Christmas the federal government plans to introduce in the House an important fundamental bill to establish a policy on the regionalization of capital, and if so, when will it be announced?


Mr. Speaker:: I thought the hon. member was rising on a question of privilege. He has put his question; the minister may reply to it, after which I shall call orders of the day.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I do not anticipate bringing in legislation in precisely the form the hon. member has referred to, at least as I understood him amidst the din. On the other hand, there will be announcements made-some have already been made-with a view to assuring that there is in fact additional capital in the slower growth regions of the provinces. If there is anything more specific I will be glad to discuss it with the hon. member.
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member on a question of privilege.

December 4, 1973
Oral Questions


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Over the weekend, at a meeting held in Drummond-ville, the parliamentary secretary to the' minister announced to the population that such an act would be introduced in the House before Christmas and that important statements would be made in this connection. I want to protest against the practice of making unfounded statements elsewhere; I also object to that same policy being pursued in this House merely to serve the interests of that "politicking" parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Bell:: On a point of order-


Mr. Prud'homme:: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are going to establish a record for questions of privilege today. I will hear the hon. member on his question of privilege.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, you will admit with me that this is surely a prima facie question of privilege. The hon. member, as he usually does, has wrongly reported to the House my comments which appear in the newspaper before him, La Tribune. It is true that I spoke to several hundred Liberal supporters in Drummondville Sunday night. I would therefore urge the hon. member, if he wishes to deal with the question of privilege in the House, to quote exactly what has been reported by the newspaper. I merely said that before Christmas we would be signing agreements with some provinces, including Quebec naturally. Now, I say that the hon. member is interpreting what he read in La Tribune and I maintain that it is not quite fair for this House of Commons-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member for Lotbiniere be kind enough to resume his seat? He raised the question of privilege. The member concerned answered. It seems to me that the interpretation of a report in one way or another gives rise to a debate between both members. I must rule that there is no question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.

I will then recognize the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster and the hon. member for Central Nova on points of order. We will hear all these points of order and questions of privilege in order, one by one.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I think I should reply to the hon. member because he said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to reply to the parliamentary secretary, I must tell him that I have already ruled that this is not a question of privilege. The parliamentary secretary pointed out to the hon. member that he was misunderstanding a newspaper report. The hon. member now wants to rise to give his own explana-

tion. Perhaps another hon. member will seek to challenge the interpretation of the hon. member for Lotbiniere. This is not a question of privilege. I do not think it is in the interest of the hon. members to pursue this dispute.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I, although a day early, ask the government House leader to keep this exciting mood going and to clear the decks for action. Can the government House leader tell us that Monday will in fact be an official allotted day for a vote of non-confidence?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I would designate the day; if the hon. member wants to designate non-confidence, that is his opportunity.


Thomas Miller Bell: Assuming that it will be Monday, will the House leader take the opportunity to clear away measures such as the family allowance bill this week, which we will pass very quickly without debate, so that members will be able to vote on Monday without any excuses or inhibitions?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that my hon. friend was approaching Monday with such timidity.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I say a brief word on the same point of order. The other day when I asked the government House leader if he would call these two items for third reading, the Canada Pension Plan No. 2 and the family allowances bill, to which we would agree without debate, he said he was interested in some quid pro quo. May I offer on behalf of our party also to give him, without any further debate, the second reading of Bill S-4. These three things could be done in a minute and a half.


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise again on a question of privilege.
I asked the hon. minister, at the end of the question period, whether he intended to submit a legislation. As you clearly heard he categorically replied no. The hon. member suggested that I did not repeat his words exactly. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I want it to be understood that I have repeated only facts and that I said nothing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is again raising a question of privilege. I think this is the same question that was raised previously. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member but I fail to see how we should proceed further about this matter of interpretation of a press report between the hon. member and the parliamentary secretary. The hon. member knows that under a House order we should proceed with votes on Bill C-176 and I
December 4, 1973

trust I may rely on the co-operation of all hon. members so that we can proceed with the House order.
[ English]


Mr. MacKay:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and I will ask you to bear with me for a moment as I do not do this very often. I am quite disturbed at the action taken by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) in relation to the widely publicized head tax for travellers and the proposed charges under the Aeronautics Act. The minister was in the House yesterday, then he went out and made this announcement. He should have made a statment on this important matter because it involves taxation which, after all, is one of the fundamental reasons for parliament's existence.
I do not intend to go on at any length but I should like to say, through you, that I would respectfully request you to suggest to the minister that he follow what I believe to be the better practice, one which has been followed by custom in this House of Commons, that is, to make announcements of this nature in the House of Commons or at least have the courtesy to do so in committee, instead of leaving the House to make an announcement of such fundamental importance to the newspapers.
[ Translation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, a bill has been passed by the House three years ago under which the government could levy an airport tax. The only amendment brought in by the Progressive Conservative Party at that moment dealt with levying a fixed rate tax, and that amendment had been brought in by the hon. member for Edmonton West. That bill was passed by the House, and its coming into force has not been proclaimed by the government. The House was then fully aware of that situation, as evidenced, Mr. Speaker, by the fact that the opposition did not even ask me one question about the tax that has been levied.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, November 30, consideration of Bill C-176, to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to an order made November 29, 1973, the House will now proceed to take the deferred divisions in relation to Bill C-176, to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act. Call in the members.
And the members having been called in.
Protection of Privacy


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With the agreement of the House, the divisions will be called in the order in which they are listed on pages 5 to 8 of this day's order paper. The question is on motion No. 8 standing in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.	Haidasz	Mackasey	Sauve (Mrs.)The House will	now proceed to the vote on motion No.	Hales	MacKay	Schellenberge:18.	Haliburton	MacLean	SchumacherHamilton	Macquarrie	Scott


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the consideration of Motion No. 13. Before putting the question on that motion we must consider the amendment thereto and the amendment to the amendment. Therefore, the question is on the amendment to the amendment to Motion No. 13.
8396

December 4, 1973
Protection of Privacy
The House divided on the sub-amendment (Mr. Lalonde) to the amendment to Motion No. 13, which was agreed to on the following division.
	(Division No. 55)
 YEAS Messrs.	
Allard	Guay	OuelletAllmand	(St. Boniface)	PelletierAndras	Guay (Levis)	(Hochelaga)Basford	Guilbault	PelletierBeaudoin	Haidasz	(Sherbrooke)B6chard	Herbert	PortelanceBlais	Hopkins	PoulinBlouin	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoisvert	Jamieson	RailtonBoulanger	Jerome	ReidBreau	Lachance	ReynoldsBuchanan	Laflamme	RichardsonCaccia	Lajoie	RompkeyCafik	Lalonde	RoyCampbell	Lambert	(Timmins)Caouette	(Bellechasse)	Roy(Charlevoix)	Lang	(Laval)Caouette	Lanjglois	Saltsman(T6miscam ingue)	Laniel	Sauv6 (Mrs.)Caron	La Salle	SharpChretien	Leblanc	SmithClermont	(Laurier)	(Northumberland-Comtois	LeBlanc	Miramichi)Corbin	(Westmorland-	SmithCorriveau	Kent)	(Saint-Jean)Cote	Lefebvre	StanburyCullen	Lessard	StewartCyr	L'Heureux	(Okanagan-Danson	Loiselle	Kootenay)Davis	MacDonald	StewartDe Bane	(Cardigan)	(Cochrane)Demers	Macdonald	StolleryDionne	(Rosedale)	ThomasDrury	MacEachen	(Maison-Dube	MacGuigan	neuve-Rosemont)Dupont	Mackasey	TrudeauDuquet	MacKay	TrudelEthier	MacLean	TurnerFaulkner	Macquarrie	(LondonFleming	MadiU	East)Fortin	Marceau	TurnerFoster	Marchand	(Ottawa-Fox	(Langelier)	Carleton)Gauthier	Marchand	Walker(Roberval)	(K am loops-	WatsonGauthier	Cariboo)	Whelan(Ottawa East)	McRae	WhicherGendron Gillespie Godin Goyer	Morin (Mrs.) Munro (Hamilton East) Olivier	Yanakis-115.NAYS	Messrs.	Alexander	Baldwin	BeattyAlkenbrack	Barnett	(Wellington-Andre	Bawden	Grey-Dufferin-Arrol	Beattie	Waterloo)Atkey	(Hamilton	BellBaker	Mountain)	Benjamin
Messrs.
Blackburn	Hueglin	MuirBlenkarn	Hurlburt	MunroBrewin	Jarvis	(Esquimalt-Carter	Kempling	Saanich)Clark	Knight	Murta(Rocky Mountain)	Knowles	NealeClarke	(Winnipeg	(Vancouver(Vancouver	North Centre)	East)Quadra)	Knowles	NeilCoates	(Norfolk-	(Moose Jaw)Crouse	Haldimand)	NelsonDanforth	Korchinski	NesdolyDarling	Lambert	NielsenDiefenbaker	(Edmonton West)	NowlanDinsdale	Lawrence	NystromEllis	Leggatt	O'ConnorEpp	Lewis	OlaussenFairweather	Lundrigan	OrlikowFirth	MacDonald	PaproskiForrestall	(Egmont)	PattersonFrank	MacDonald (Miss)	PetersFraser	(Kingston and	ReillyGilbert	the Islands)	RitchieGillies	Maclnnis (Mrs.)	RondeauGleave	(Vancouver	RoseGrier	Kingsway)	RowlandHales	MacKay	RynardHaliburton	MacLean	SchellenbergerHamilton	Macquarrie	Scott(Swift Current-	Madill	StackhouseMaple Creek)	Marshall	StanfieldHarding	Masniuk	StevensHargrave	Matte	StewartHarney	Mazankowski	(Marquette)Hees	McCain	SymesHellyer	McCleave	TaylorHigson	McGrath	WagnerHolmes	McKenzie	WhittakerHoward	McKinley	WiseHowie	McKinnon	WoolliamsMorgan	Yewchuk-114.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House will now proceed to the question on the amendment (as amended) to motion No. 13. Is it the wish of the House that we proceed immediately without calling in the members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is the following:
That motion numbered 13 be amended by deleting therefrom the words "is relevant and that to exclude it as evidence may result in justice not being done in the matter to which the proceedings relate," and substituting therefor the following:
"(a) is relevant,
(b)	is inadmissible by reason only of a defect of form or an irregularity in procedure, not being a substantive defect or irregularity, in the application for or the giving of the authorization under which such private communication was intercepted or by means of which such evidence was obtained, and
(c)	that to exclude it as evidence may result in justice not being done,"


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am not certain that the amendment as amended has been put.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that we are now putting to the House the amendment to the motion as amended.

December 4, 1973


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is my understanding, but in the reading I did not catch the words that had been adopted by the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is clear to all hon. members that what we are putting to the House is the amendment moved in the name of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) as amended by the vote of the House a moment ago. I appreciate that perhaps I did not read it correctly but followed the words before me at that time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. Should we proceed with the division without the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment carried. The House will now proceed to the consideration of the motion standing in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang).
8398

December 4, 1973
Protection of Privacy
The question is on motion No. 13, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion, as amended? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay?


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. Is it again the wish of hon. members that we proceed without ringing the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion, as amended, carried. The question is on the amendment (Mr. Cullen) to motion No. 2 (Mr. Atkey).


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will therefore proceed to motion No. 20 (Mr. Lang).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The question now is on Motion No. 22 in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).
The House divided on Motion No. 22 (Mr. Leggatt) which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 60)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Barnett	Knowles	NelsonBenjamin	(Winnipeg	NesdolyBlackburn	North Centre)	NystromBrewin	Leggatt	OlaussenBroadbent	Lewis	OrlikowGilbert	Maclnnis (Mrs.)	PetersGleave	(Vancouver	ReillyGrier	Kingsway)	RoseHarding	Neale	RowlandHarney	(Vancouver	Symes-27.Howard Knight	East)
NAYS Messrs.	Alexander	Caccia	DiefenbakerAlkenbrack	Cafik	DinsdaleAllard	Campbell	DruryAllmand	Caouette	DubeAndras	(Charlevoix)	DupontAndre	Caouette	DuprasArrol	(Temiscamingue)	DuquetAtkey	Caron	EllisBaker	Carter	EppBaldwin	Chretien	EthierBasford	Clark	FairweatherBawden	(Rocky Mountain)	FaulknerBeattie	Clarke	Fleming(Hamilton	(Vancouver	ForrestallMountain)	Quadra)	FortinBeatty	Clermont	Foster(Wellington-	Coates	FoxGrey-Dufferin-	Comtois	FrankWaterloo)	Corbin	FraserBeaudoin	Corriveau	GauthierBechard	Cote	(Roberval)BeU	Crouse	GauthierBlais	Cullen	(Ottawa East)Blenkarn	Cyr	GendronBlouin	Danforth	GillespieBoisvert	Danson	GilliesBoulanger	Darling	GoyerBreau	Davis	GuayBuchanan	Demers	(St. Boniface)
December 4, 1973

Guay (L6vis)	Messrs. MacDonald (Miss)	ReidGuilbault	(Kingston and	ReynoldsHaidasz	the Islands)	RichardsonHales	MacEachen	RitchieHaliburton	MacGuigan	RompkeyHamilton	Mackasey	Roy(Swift Current-	MacKay	(Timmins)Maple Creek)	MacLean	RoyHargrave	Macquarrie	(Laval)Hees	Madill	RynardHellyer	Marceau	SaltsmanHerbert	Marchand	Sauve (Mrs.)Higson	(Lange lier)	SchellenbergerHolmes	Marchand	SchumacherHopkins	(Kamloops-	ScottHowie	Cariboo)	SharpHueglin	Marshall	SkoreykoHurlburt	Masniuk	SmithIsabelle	Mazankowski	(Northumberland-Jamieson	McCain	Miramichi)Jarvis	McCleave	SmithJerome	McGrath	(Saint-Jean)Kempling	McKenzie	StackhouseKnowles	McKinley	Stanbury(Norfolk-	McKinnon	StanfieldHaldimand)	McRae	StevensKorchinski	Mitges	StewartLachance	Morgan	(Marquette)Laflamme	Morin (Mrs.)	StewartLajoie	Muir	(Okanagan-Lalonde	Munro	Kootenay)Lambert	(Esquimalt-	Stewart(Edmonton West)	Saanich)	(Cochrane)Lang	Munro	StolleryLanglois	(Hamilton East)	TaylorLaniel	Murta	ThomasLa Salle	Neil	(Maison-Lawrence	(Moose Jaw)	neuve-Rosemont)Leblanc	Nielsen	Trudeau(Laurie r)	Nowlan	TrudelLeBlanc	Oberle	Turner(Westmorland-	O'Connor	(LondonKent)	Olivier	East)Lefebvre	Ouellet	TurnerLessard	Paproski	(Ottawa-L'Heureux	Patterson	Carleton)Loiselle	Pelletier	WagnerLundrigan	(Hochelaga)	WalkerMacDonald	Pelletier	Watson(Cardigan)	(Sherbrooke)	WhelanMacDonald	Portelance	Whicher(Egmont)	Poulin	WhittakerMacdonald	Prud'homme	Wise(Rosedale)	Railton	Yanakis
Yewchuk-200.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-176, to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Otto Emil Lang: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
And the Clerk having announced third reading of the bill.
Protection of Privacy


Mr. Atkey:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Prior to the announcement by the Clerk, I had risen to speak on third reading of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure hon. members will want to be fair to all hon. members. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, I did not see the hon. member rise. I would not want him to be deprived of his right to take part in a debate. If the hon. member was on his feet, I should have seen him and the motion for third reading was improperly put to the House. The hon. member for St. Paul's ought to have a chance to speak on third reading.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: Pursuant to the same point of order, it is my understanding there is an agreement between House leaders that there will be speeches on third reading. I am not the only member who has indicated a desire to speak. Perhaps the House leaders might confirm whether an agreement has been made.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly agreeable to the suggestion that there be a few additional comments. I might say I was watching to see if members wanted to rise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: I was prepared to say a few words myself.


Mr. Speaker:: In the ruling which the Chair made, I indicated there can be a full fledged debate on third reading. I did not only recognize the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey). If hon. members wish to have a debate, of course, there is no hesitation in any way in complying with their wish.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I want to express satisfaction at this point because within a short time we will have prohibitions against electronic eavesdropping. All members realize that until this bill is enacted, there is no law to prohibit wiretapping. There is no law to prevent the purchase, sale or possession of electronic devices with which to engage in electronic eavesdropping. Until this bill is passed, there is no law to prevent the disclosure of information obtained from unlawful electronic eavesdropping.
After all is said and done, in considering today's amendments and other amendments agreed to prior to today, we have seen an example of parliament working. In at least one instance today, we have seen parliament uphold the non-partisan work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. In another case parliament, by a slim margin, over-ruled the work of the standing committee. All members are aware there have been negotiated compromises, if I can use that term. The government accepted the principle that the term "offence" must be more specifically and narrowly defined. Another compromise which the government accepted was the principle that emergency interceptions must always be subject to judicial approval.

December 4, 1973
Protection of Privacy
I am proud to have been the author of one of the amendments in committee which the House today saw fit to uphold in the face of the reactionary and illogical attack by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: I am rather proud also to have been the one to put forward in committee the proposal to limit the range of offences for which legal authorization to intercept could be obtained, a proposal which was eventually accepted by the government in the amendment which was adopted in the House today.
I am, of course, most proud to have been associated with the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbak-er) who, drawing upon his great wisdom and experience, on May 8 first alerted Canadians to the dangers of the unsupervised 36 hour emergency permits. It was the right hon. gentleman who eventually brought the Minister of Justice to his knees with an amendment requiring judicial approval in all cases, an amendment which was little short of complete capitulation to the time honoured rights and freedoms of the individual. We in this House and, indeed, in this country, are most fortunate to have a person like the right hon. member for Prince Albert whose contribution to the advancement of fundamental rights and freedoms in Canada is unequalled. Canadians will always be in his debt for his contribution to this debate.
I should like also to acknowledge the contributions and improvements made to this bill by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), the hon. member for Halton (Mr. O'Connor), the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) and the hon. member for Windsor-Walker-ville (Mr. MacGuigan). The last named person operated under some difficulty because of the albatross of the Liberal party and the reactionary Minister of Justice, around his neck.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: He was one of the few government members who, at least at the committee stage, attempted to put aside party considerations and come to grips with the substantive issue of protection of privacy. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) who made perhaps the greatest single contribution to the work of the committee and the House on this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: While some of us did not agree with all his arguments, we were convinced he understood the goal of protecting privacy perhaps better than anyone. His arguments were always put forward clearly, honestly and without partisanship. I can say sincerely that it was an honour for me to have been associated with him in this matter.
With the bill before us about to become law, many Canadians may well ask: will my privacy now be protected? The answer to this question reveals the great fallacy underlying commonly-held assumptions about the bill.

The real answer to that question is: only to a small degree. This measure really covers only the tip of the iceberg. Granted, it is designed to prevent unauthorized electronic surveillance; sale, purchase or possession of devices used in electronic surveillance; and the disclosure of information obtained from unlawful surveillance. But that is all. There is no protection offered against visual invasion of privacy, such as the taking of unauthorized photographs of individuals alone or together with other persons on private property or in public places. There is no protection against the unauthorized taping of conversations where one of the parties agrees to the taping unbeknowns to the other party. There may be no protection against certain new devices produced by modern technology such as, for example, a laser beam which can pick up a conversation within a room by turning a window at which the beam is aimed into an acoustical membrane capable of transmitting every word spoken in that room. It remains to be seen whether such devices come within the definition of "electromagnetic, acoustical, mechanical or other devices" embodied in the act.
Even more important is the question of computers and privacy. This field is one which is relatively new. I have already given the government full marks for having the wisdom and the foresight to commission a task force in April of 1971, composed of some very able people, to examine this area. The task force came up with an excellent report in December, 1972 and I would commend this report to all Canadians. They should read it because it may alert them to some of the dangers which threaten their fundamental freedoms and liberties.
The report identified the issues on two levels. The first related to accuracy of information, the right of access to files, the control of dissemination, security standards and similar matters. The task force reported that no fundamental conceptual analysis was required in this area but, rather, a careful assessment of the precise extent and nature of the problems, and possible solutions.
The task force then went on to delineate a second level of issues, less tangible, and came up with the following questions:
What is the relationship between information, privacy and political power? Will current and projected uses of the computer lead to loss of individuality or enforced conformity? Is the desire for informational privacy fundamentally social or antisocial? How can a balance be achieved between claims to personal privacy and claims, as legitimate but sometimes conflicting, for unimpeded access to information?
These are issues to which the government of Canada and the governments of the provinces should address themselves. The computer, as developed by modern technology in this country, in the country to the south and in some countries in Europe, poses a frightening prospect. We see in this country the growth of social science and market research firms. We note the huge growth of credit granters and investigators and their use of the computer. We know that our own Income Tax Department, the Department of National Revenue, uses the computer and has compiled a great deal of data about millions of Canadians. We know, also, that universities and post-secondary educational institutions use computers to store confidential data about Canadians.
December 4, 1973

We are aware, too, that the new central police computer called the Canadian Police Information Centre is now on line, keeping files on millions of Canadians, files which may be available to every police officer, every police station in the country. We recognize that this computer system may not only contain information about offences which have been committed, but also about offences which may be alleged or suspected or about investigations which have taken place and which have not led to a conviction. I suggest there are many potential dangers to fundamental liberties emanating from this particular operation.
I might also mention the existence of medical data banks. In my own province of Ontario, and also in the State of Michigan, there are medical data banks in hospital complexes to which doctors and health centres have access. This system, too, poses great danger to individuals because it is capable of revealing highly personal and confidential information to anyone who can gain access to it. I would suggest also that the government consider the use of data banks by bankers. Most of the major branches of the chartered banks in Canada, at least in the urban centres, are linked to a computer system. It is possible, I am told, to steal large sumes of money merely by gaining access to the data stored by these computers used by the chartered banks in Canada.
Most Canadians are now familiar with various credit card systems exemplified by the Chargex card and Master Charge card all of which depend on the computer for storing of information and processing of accounts. One wonders to what extent there is security of access to this system. Finally, I raise the spectre of information kept in computers by employers. One of the largest employers of people in the country, the Government of Canada, uses computers and certainly has a great deal of data in its possession.
There is no single prescription applicable to all these systems, but there are certain problems areas which can be dealt with by means of legislation. I do not suggest that all the legislation should be at the federal level. Indeed, the provincial level might be the appropriate jurisdiction in some cases. The government of Ontario has enacted a bill called the Consumer Reporting Act, which is an act to control the storage and supply of personal information for rating purposes. The bill requires consumer reporting agencies and investigators to be registered. Persons ordering consumer reports are required to notify the consumer, and if the credit information results in adverse action the firm refusing credit is required to notify the consumer accordingly.
The bill also provides that the consumer may inspect all the information about him in the files of any consumer reporting agency, and the consumer may secure the correction of information about him which is on file. This can be done through the authority of a tribunal if necessary. Finally, the bill provides that information included in a consumer report is restricted; a standard of accuracy and decency must be maintained, and information must be corroborated. This bill goes at least part way in protecting the privacy of individuals in the province of Ontario as far as this aspect of the matter is concerned. I hope other provinces will use it as a model in their attempts to
Protection of Privacy
regulate consumer credit recording in a sensible and humane way.
May I refer again to the Privacy and Computers Report and to some of the recommendations that were made at the conclusion of the report. I suggest that the government of Canada should give very close consideration to the adoption of these recommendations. The task force appointed by the government concluded:
The principal areas of specific concern about privacy and related values which may be affected in stores of personal information reside in the accuracy or otherwise of the data, in the extent to which the individual concerned has been informed that the information has been gathered and of the uses to which it may be put, in the nature of the controls over the dissemination of data to third parties, in the quality of security techniques, and in the extent to which individuals have a right to inspect and to verify the accuracy of their own files.
In all the areas I have mentioned, for all the computer uses under both public control and private control, these are important considerations. There is much to be done by the government of Canada. It was out of concern that the government not lose sight of the need for legislative action in all these areas that I sought in committee to change the name of the bill before the House today. I thought, and I still think, that it was presumptuous of the federal government to call this bill, which deals only with electronic surveillance, the "Protection of Privacy Act". As I have said, the bill covers only the tip of the iceberg; there is so much yet to be done.
Let me, as one member of this House, warn this government, or indeed any federal government, that I will not sit idly by and allow the government of Canada to rest on its oars with the passage of this bill. I hope this is only the beginning, and that the government will forge full steam ahead to try to protect the privacy of Canadians in all the areas I have mentioned.
There are, of course, many ways of doing this, and one is to bring forth legislation immediately. Alternatively, I suggest the government might reasonably call on one of its more skilled agencies to conduct the sort of studies and to suggest the sort of implementation that would be in the interests of all Canadians. I refer specifically to the Law Reform Commission of Canada which is a body that has established itself and has attained a great deal of credibility among the people of Canada. It is a body that I think, with competent personnel, could carry out the sort of work that is needed for the government to proceed in a fairly expeditious manner..
Now, let me change direction for a moment and comment on one provision contained in the present bill which I think is capable of providing the government of Canada, and specifically the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), with certain dangerous powers. This provision should be closely scrutinized by the people of Canada and certainly by every hon. member of this House. I refer to the amendments to the Official Secrets Act which today received certain approval by virtue of the defeat of an amendment moved in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).
I do commend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) for coming at least part way to clean up the amendments to
8404



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), 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 Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Veterans Affairs-Land Act regulations respecting acquisition of small holdings; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Veterans Affairs-request that deadline for applications under Land Act be extended; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-health-possible toxicity of blood imported from United States.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[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 third time and do pass.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps before I recognize the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) who, having moved the motion in respect of this bill, may be closing the debate and depriving other hon. members of the opportunity to speak on third reading, I could have some comment from hon. members on this point.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: He does not close the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I could ask for the unanimous consent of the House in order that the minister might be permitted to speak.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Why should the House have to give unanimous consent?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there is not unanimous consent, I will not recognize the minister.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising to deny unanimous consent, but I should like to point out that other hon. members of the House should be allowed to speak following the remarks of the Minister of Justice.


An hon. Member:: The minister cannot close the debate on third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there is any objection, I should like to hear hon. members on the point of order. For the moment, I am asking hon. members whether there is unanimous consent to the minister speaking.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, we certainly will give unanimous consent to allow the minister to speak, but we want to clarify our anxiety in respect of the suggestion that if he speaks he will close the debate. We have more speakers on this matter. I can understand why the minister wants to speak, but I do not understand why he did not speak when the motion for third reading was made. That would have been the appropriate time for the minister to make his remarks.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. But I do not do so to deny consent to the minister making his remarks. I rise as a result of the suggestion that if the minister speaks at this time on third reading he would close the debate. In all my experience I have never heard of this proposition, or a similar request for consent for the minister to speak on his own bill on third reading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to disagree with my friend, the hon. member for
Protection of Privacy
Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), but there is a rule that states a member cannot speak twice.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Surely, that is not applicable here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a moment now. My hon. friend is not Mr. Speaker any longer. There is another rule which says that when an hon. member moves a bill even without speaking, or even if he only tips his hat, he is regarded as having spoken; that is his last chance. What we are being asked to do now is give the Minister of Justice the floor a second time. Speaking for members of my party, we give that consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is the position the Chair adopted in this instance, and that is why I asked whether the House gave its unanimous consent. When the minister moved the motion for third reading he had his opportunity to speak. However, I gather there is unanimous consent, and that it is understood others will have an opportunity to speak on third reading.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Otto Emil Lang: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the consent of hon. members and it may be understood by hon. members that at the point when it seemed a vote on third reading was imminent I rose to indicate to the House that I did not want to interrupt or prevent the passage of the bill, but I was watching if other hon. members were rising to speak on the bill. It was at that time that I deferred my remarks when the Chair recognized the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey). I recognize the privilege I have been given by hon. members of the House in allowing me to speak at this time. I hope this bill does receive third reading very shortly.
I noticed the remarks of a number of hon. members today and on previous occasions, that this debate has proven that parliament works. I would have to say as well, because of the time spent debating this bill, that it proves that parliament works exceedingly slowly. This subject matter has been before this House of Commons for approximately four years.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: And some of it has been pretty abortive.


Otto Emil Lang: Under those circumstances, it does seem to me that it takes a great deal of time to arrive at the position where we are enacting into law something a lot of members want to see in the law. I am referring to all the provisions of this bill, but particularly to the important provisions which provide an offence for the first time in the criminal law in respect of the general intrusion into the privacy of other persons, and specifically the intrusion by electronic devices.
The other important provision in this bill, and perhaps it is the more important provision, is the provision making it an offence to possess or to sell devices intended for the intrusion into the privacy of individual citizens. I suggest that with the adoption of this provision we will provide a diminution in the number of these devices for sale on the market. If we do not provide this penalty for this offence
26695-20),

December 4, 1973
Protection of Privacy
under the law we would not have confidence in the privacy extended generally to citizens by the other provisions.
There is also a change which is important and somewhat novel in the provision of damages of up to $5,000.00 against the user of unlawful wiretapping in favour of the person whose privacy has been invaded. I am delighted that we seem to be in agreement in respect of most of these provisions. I agree with the remarks to the effect that this House and the committee have worked very hard and very thoroughly to sort out the details of this bill. This work has taken place over the course of four years, and I am sure this work has resulted in important improvements in the provisions of this bill.
I am also delighted that members of parliament who have worked in this way today agreed to a rule which will be much more satisfactory to the 10 provincial attorneys general in this country. They are the people who are politically responsible for the administration of the bulk of our criminal law, and I am sure they will be delighted that we have come to this conclusion. I am sure they will be delighted that we have adopted the amendment to allow indirect evidence being accepted. I continue to have some reservations about the practicality and workability of some clauses, but I do not attach as much importance to those provisions as to the two I referred to earlier. I look forward to having conversations with Attorneys General in the near future in respect of some of these problems. I expect they will outline the difficulties they see in terms of their practicality and of the difficulty they create in the investigative process.


An hon. Member:: I am sure there will be many.


Otto Emil Lang: I do not accept the suggestion of the hon. member across the way. It is our intention that we should arrive at some reasonable balance in respect of the acceptability of direct and indirect evidence, and we think we have arrived at such a balance in this bill.
The basic principle that a judge should be involved in the process of granting permission to use electronic devices was something I grew more and more convinced about as the debate proceeded. This was something about which there was a great deal of discussion among Canadians who have outstanding understanding and experience in the law and jurisprudence in Canada. They felt it would be better to give this power to the politically responsible officers; namely, the Attorneys General. I think the experience of other countries has sharpened our understanding of the dangers and the advantages of involving a judge in this process. As hon. members know, we wanted to allow exceptions to this general rule under circumstances of emergency in order that law enforcement officers could move quickly, particularly when a judge might not be available.
I am delighted that in the process of considering this whole matter, we were able to extend the principle, to which I am becoming more and more attached, of involving the judge in this process even in emergencies. I give great credit in this respect to my colleague, but much more to that distinguished fellow from Saskatchewan, the right hon. member for Prince Albert who did a great deal toward the advancement of this bill when he eloquently expressed his views to the House. If he sometimes went a

little further than I thought right, I recognized the political talent he has so often shown during the time he has spent in this House and the experience gained during the many years he has been here.
In the course of the committee debate, and again here, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) raised the question of privacy beyond the ambit of this bill. I assured hon. members in the committee, and I am glad to say again, that I consider this merely part of the over-all fabric of protection for privacy in this country which we must erect quickly. I do not particularly follow, or think in terms of following, the suggestion that the matter be referred to the Law Reform Commission, partly because of the other extremely important work that body has before it which must be disposed of before any new work is taken on. But I do anticipate us coming forward with additional measures, both in relation to computers and in other ways, to further protect individual privacy in this country. Privacy after all is a matter which perhaps was so much easier to protect in respect of individual rights before the days of the many mechanical devices, transportation and communication techniques which so easily invade the privacy of and interfere with individual citizens. In those days the law did not create a fabric of protection for privacy, partly because privacy was rather more easily taken for granted than it is today.
We must move to meet these advances and techniques in our time. We are doing so at this particular time in respect of the devices for intrusion related to the conversations of individuals. We will do so step by step and without delay with regard to other areas. It was for this reason that we commissioned the study on privacy and computers, and followed it up with action inside the government to determine how we could most effectively carry out the recommendations or suggestions which are implicit in the work which went on in producing that report. The House will before long see the fruits of some of that labour, and with that we will continue to do what we are doing in respect of this bill in protection of privacy.
With those few words, I commend to hon. members the third reading of this bill so that it may, in this particular session after these four years of hard work, become an important part of the law of the land.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of reluctance I stand up to say I will support this bill on third reading. This is not because of the result of the votes today or the amendments made with regard to the section dealing with the use by police of wiretapping. It is only because the necessary protection of privacy from private interception is still included in this bill, and I consider this a significant and important step in the direction of the protection of privacy. I think in terms of the kind of industrial espionage which goes on across this country and is carried on, for instance, by companies against unions and by unions against companies. These are significant areas. But I am reluctant because I think we have done very little in terms of limiting the kind of governmental intrusion on privacy about which one reads so much.
December 4, 1973

Let me give some examples. We read recently about the abuse of privacy through interception, and I wonder whether this bill would have afforded any protection in those cases. Let us look at what the Montreal Gazette has to say about the wiretapping situation in respect of the lawyer's offices in Montreal. I shall read into the record part of the report:
Electronic bugs found in the offices of two Montreal lawyers last week were planted there by police officers, Justice Minister Jerome Choquette admitted yesterday.
Choquette told the National Assembly that members of Quebec's special organized crime squad had spied on the lawyers offices for more than two weeks last February.
The minister admitted there was a possible violation of professional secrecy but pleaded he hadn't been informed of the operation until much later.
'I can't control all these systems, I can't control every police investigation in Quebec. That would be impossible,'.. .
Under the aegis of the legislation this House is about to pass, we still could not control what occurred in Quebec. Therefore, in terms of the usefulness of the bill in restricting governmental invasion of privacy, it is very clear to me the bill has not gone nearly far enough. One might think again in terms of the kind of surveillance that has occurred. One example was the electronic interception in respect of the St. Jean Baptiste Society in Quebec. There is not provision in this bill that would prevent such activities. All that would be required would be for the police to make an allegation of sedition to a judge who could authorize a wiretap and electronic surveillance within the terms of this legislation. I shall support the bill on third reading because of the restriction in respect of private electronic interception, but I am most disappointed about the section which would allow governmental electronic interception.
May I make one last point about the effectiveness of this bill? One will recall the report of the RCMP in which it was shown that 663 wiretaps were used and that convictions were obtained in only 129 of those cases. These figures do not indicate this practice is very effective when one considers the amount of wiretapping that is being done by governmental agencies. As I say, I support the bill because it moves into a private area, but where we are going in the public area I think is well described by Maxwell Cohen, the noted law professor in an article which appeared some months ago in the Monreal Gazette. He had this to say:
How shall we view the police, perhaps the most immediate symbol of order, yet, in North America at least, unable to project themselves, very often if at all, as a symbol of justice. Not to recognize that 'the policeman's lot is not a happy one' is to be naive. Equally not to understand how close to the edge of the abuse of power his role places him is to shut eyes to the sense of disquiet shared not only by civil libertarians but often by wise policemen themselves.
The guts, the important and significant thing about this bill is that we must defend the rule of law. This bill has gone too far in the direction of opening the door to unlimited governmental and police wiretapping, because in a sense one cannot fight fire with fire in law enforcement. That is a tremendous error. It is an error every totalitarian state makes to cure its problems by cutting a few corners and getting at people. It does not work. The proposition that this House should have accepted, and I am sorry it did not, is that the rule of law is founded on the proposition
Protection of Privacy
that governments can protect their people without acting unfairly and immorally themselves in any respect.
The use of a wiretapping device is immoral. We cannot have lawful society unless people have respect for the law, and respect for those who enforce the law and, most important to this issue, respect for the means by which the law is enforced. That has to be a fundamental proposition of the rule of law and enforcement of the rule of law. To use this dirty method to protect citizens in this country is to erode the rule of law and respect for law and order. However, as I say, I agree with the minister that this is a significant move in the direction of controlling private electronic interception. I can therefore support the bill, but I do not really think the minister should be taking too many bows for his labours when one examines closely the provisions of this legislation.


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, among the many reactions which I find, after attending meetings of the committee concerned with this question and listening to debates in this chamber, is apprehension about what might have happened if the government had a majority in this House. It is very clear that the bill originally introduced by the minister was improved under the pressure of committee study and discussion, a committee study that was given great strength, not only by the quality of the criticism offered by various members, but also by the fact that always there was a majority of members of the other parties on the committee. We see here one of the reasons why we can welcome the fact that over a year ago the government did not gain a majority, because in this instance it brought legislation into the House that needed great improvement under the criticism and study of opposition parties.
There are two points that have been made and that need to be repeated in this debate, even at third reading. One is the need for recognizing the primacy of the judiciary in protecting the rights of people. That is a primacy that was not adequately recognized by the government in the way in which it introduced this legislation and carried much of it forward. For example, we have seen in the government's attitude to capital punishment its willingness to commute sentences passed by the courts, and how it wants to establish itself as a court. We have seen in the attitude of the government to this legislation that the government has not the full confidence in the judiciary that one would expect it to have. We welcome the way in which the minister has accepted a good amendment introduced from this side of the House. We welcome the return to some confidence in the judiciary, a confidence that recognizes that the rights of private citizens must be protected fundamentally by the courts.
I want to give the greatest emphasis in my remarks to the way in which this legislation disappoints so many of us because of its inadequacies. We have to recognize at the outset that privacy is not only a right that most of think we should claim, but it is also a right that we find difficult to define. This legislation really does not add much to the definition of privacy which we can enjoy under the law. For that reason it seems to me that the title of the bill is a shocking exaggeration. This bill really is not protecting privacy. Indeed, in many of its provisions it is providing

December 4, 1973
Protection of Privacy
for the invasion of privacy by the state, an invasion that under certain circumstances may have to be accepted in order to protect society. None the less, it is scarcely a bill that protects privacy.
We have to be all the more mindful-and I gather from his statement that the minister is mindful of this-of the need to go further than this bill will take us. We have to think of ways in which the individual's right to protection is not adequately safeguarded by this legislation, for example in the use of cameras which have become a major device or instrument used by businesses and other organizations. We have really no provision in this bill to protect the privacy of the individual against the use of computers. Because of these two exceptions we have even more reason to question the validity of the title of the bill. That question should be raised not simply because of the words used but because the bill is making a pretence that it cannot support. The bill is intended to protect the privacy of the individual, but at the same time it leaves that privacy wide open to invasion by the government or by any private organization using the kind of instruments to which I have referred. In passing this bill we are taking one step toward protecting the privacy of the individual, but it is a very short step and we ought to be mindful of the many steps that remain to be taken by government and by parliament.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, under the general heading of the inadequacy of the bill, I would point out that it is still possible under this legislation for anyone to do that for which so many criticized the President of the United States. We were shocked when the President of the United States revealed that he taped conversations of people who visited his office, without telling them even though his motive for so doing was to record for all eternity the important words uttered by visitors and by the President.
Under this legislation, any one of us is legally free to record any conversation that is held in his office, his home or anywhere else provided he consents to the recording of the conversation. Since we were shocked at the blatant disregard of the rights of individuals entering the office of the American President, I think we should become more aware that we are permitting individuals in Canada to do same thing. It is for such reasons that if we give our support to this bill tonight, we give it without enthusiasm. We cannot really feel much enthusiasm for a bill that makes so little progress in an area where one had hoped much progress could have been achieved by now.
The minister has reminded us that this bill has been before parliament previously. We realize that the complexities of the question make it difficult for legislation to cover every possible problem that could arise with respect to privacy. But, surely, after all this time and after all this work, it should have been possible for the government to come forward with a bill that would live up to its name. We have to conclude that this bill is simply making a pretence of protecting the privacy of individuals but that in fact it leaves that privacy wide open to all kinds of invasion.
We will have to return to this task in the future. In the meantime, I commend the minister and the government for the little they have done. But if they were living up to

the responsibilities of their mandate, they would surely have gone much further.


Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that I can stand up and exhibit the fact that the borough of Scarborough has solidarity in its representation in this House. I do not always find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse), but I am considerably in agreement with what he has just said. I think I know what he is driving at. I think I understand the dilemma in which the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) finds himself; and I must say I am going to do something which is quite unusual for a member of this House, and that is to confess at this stage, right here and now, that I do not know which way I shall vote on third reading of the bill.
Very obviously, like the hon. member for New Westminster, one cannot help but feel that this bill does do something in that it provides sanctions against wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping undertaken by individuals, by private corporations, by private associations, clubs, unions, and so on. Therefore, I have to respect the view of those in this House who say, as enthusiastic as they may be, that they feel they have to vote for this bill because it at least does this much.
I very much share the view of the hon. member for Scarborough East that the title of the bill is a horrible distortion of the English language. I think he knows as well as I do the very famous essay by George Orwell entitled "Politics and the English Language". That is one of the most significant pieces of writing on politics that has occurred in this century. In the essay, Orwell lays the philosophical grounds for the horrifying imagery which he was to lay out for us later in a work that we all know, entitled "1984". In that work, as we know, falsity became truth, and so on.
I think Orwell was absolutely right when he said that one of the first signs of deterioration in the politics of a nation is the degradation of the language it uses to talk about politics. The examples in his essay are manifold. Rather than talk about invasions or war, we talk about "readjustment of borders". Rather than talk about the elimination of people, we talk about "rationalization of topography"-and so on. In this case, rather than talk about a bill which should be entitled "An act relating to unfortunate but necessary intrusions into private life," we call the bill, by an unbelievable pirouette of logic and knowledge, "the protection of privacy act".
There is a point that I raised on second reading of the bill, Mr. Speaker, which has not been answered to my satisfaction. It appears on page 2, section 178.11(2), and refers to subsection (1) which is the subsection providing for supervision of electronic eavesdropping. It provides:
Subsection (1) does not apply to
(a) a person who has the consent to intercept, express or implied, of the originator of the private communication or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it-
Since this subsection (2) is in the bill, it means that in most cases the provisions further along that provide for some protection of privacy, that provide for some limita-
December 4, 1973

tions of intrusions on the part of the state on the private lives of citizens, need not and cannot apply. Let us try to follow what that subsection implies. It means that any single party to a communication, by giving consent either expressed or implied-and I do not know to this day what "implied" consent is-can have a third party listen in on a conversation originated by the first party or received by the second party.
In other words, I could if I so wished-and I assure you that I do not wish-if I sought to frame the hon. member for Scarborough East, call up a third person and say, "I will call the hon. member for Scarborough East, and you bring along your tape-recorder or just simply listen in." That would be without my notifying the hon. member for Scarborough East. Then his words could be intercepted and recorded, and thereby used against him.
I hope that somebody can stand up at this third reading stage of our procedure to indicate why what I have suggested can be done cannot be done, or indeed will not be done. I know wiser heads around this place have suggested to me outside this chamber, but in the halls of this House, that this kind of thing is done all the time. For example, an employer can rightfully say to a third party, "I shall call my employee," or "I shall be called by my employee, and I want you to listen in." If that can be done in our society, then I say it is wrong and it ought not to be done with impunity.
Surely this bill falters right at the very beginning, and from then on its temper is the same. I suggest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) that the limitations which he has put in the bill, the limitations which he has acceded to, and the limitations which have been thrust upon him through the procedures in committee and in this House, can be obviated for a good part of the time by the provision of subsection (2) to which I have just referred.
I was referring a short while ago to older and wiser heads around this House. Recently, one of them indicated to me that this is a bill which no self-respecting lawyer would want to be without, or that no lawyer could vote against because the lawyer would see how the bill could help investigative police practices. It just happens, Mr. Speaker, that a very few days ago in the city of Toronto I met a man who had retired after many, many years on the bench. I certainly will not specify who he was, but it was someone whom many of us have learned to respect over the years. He said to me, "Mr. Harney, what kind of madness are we stepping into when we proceed to pass a piece of legislation such as the one you are studying in Ottawa at the moment? What are we doing to ourselves? What is our opinion of ourselves that we must proceed to pass this kind of legislation?"
Of course, my answer to him was, "You know much more about the bench, about jurisprudence, about police activity, about investigation, about crime, the prosecution of crime and conviction than I do. Surely you must feel, as so many in your field have felt, that there is some value in the bill." And he said categorically, "None at all." So there are very wise heads experienced in the law in this country who are opposed to this bill, Mr. Speaker.
Of course, those of us who will oppose the bill on third reading or who will hesitate before we stand up and vote for the bill because it contains some good, or who will
Protection of Privacy
simply absent ourselves because we cannot be associated with its passage, will be told that this bill at least prohibits some eavesdropping and that what it provides for the police and the state is necessary, although perhaps objectionable and not particularly nice. Evidence has come out to the effect that wiretapping is not effective. Let me be a "law and order" man for the moment. I think that allowing the police freedom, under limitation, to wiretap will hamper their investigative activities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Paul Harney: Time and time again our police departments in various parts of the country have been completely taken over by a love of gadgetry and machinery. Rather than go out and follow the standard, normal steps of investigation, they have allowed themselves to become bedazzled by machinery, by computers and by electronic gadgetry. I would feel more secure as a citizen of this country, worried about the depredations of organized crime, if I knew the police were not relying upon gadgetry of this kind.
I need not remind hon. members of the House how, and by whom, persons involved in the kidnapping and murder of Mr. Laporte were finally brought to court. I am sure there was wiretapping in that investigation. I certainly know that there were squads upon squads, indeed legions, of police of all kinds around Montreal. As well, the military were evident in huge numbers. The investigation was eventually successful, not because hundreds of people around Montreal were hauled out of their beds in the middle of the night and held for periods of time without charge but because an RCMP officer, literally on his time off, finally realized that standard steps of investigation had not been taken. He checked for himself and turned up the evidence which brought to court those who were eventually charged with the kidnapping and murder of Mr. Laporte. And all the rest had been bedazzled by machinery.


Mrs. Morin:: The hon. member knows that is not true.


John Paul Harney: If the hon. member suggests that I know it is not true, let her stand in her place when her turn comes and present evidence to the contrary. Further, if the Minister of Justice knows it is not true, let him back the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin).


Albanie Morin: Why does the hon. member not start proving what he is saying?


John Paul Harney: I have said what I have said. If I may speak again on third reading, or provide information to another hon. member who will speak on third reading, I will establish the truth of what I have said. Perhaps my most serious worry is that this is the first time this parliament has legislated against wiretapping. I know there are provisions in the law allowing the telephone company-the ubiquitous, omniscient telephone company-to watch its wires and the people using them: however, this is the first time that parliament, in full deliberation, has decided to take away by an act of law some of our privacy. I know one can say, "Of course, people have been wiretapped

December 4, 1973
Protection of Privacy
before." That does not change the position. We here, now, are deliberately, by open choice, limiting our freedoms.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I have not decided in my mind what to do when the final vote on this Hill comes. I hope to sit here and listen to more speeches, listen to the deliberations of my colleagues and then make up my mind. If I absent myself from the House, you can be sure that I will read every word that is said in tomorrow's Hansard. I just wanted to stand up because these things matter and so that people in future will know that one member of this House at least had considerable hesitation about this bill.


Mr. Reilly:: Mr. Speaker, as it is close to six o'clock, I wonder if I might call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I have already spoken in this debate, this is the last time I shall do so. I speak, not so much because my remarks will have any effect on the eventual outcome of this legislation, but to register a tiny squeak of protest from one who three years ago was honoured-and I deem it a distinct honour-to be called by the Prime Minister of this country a weak-kneed, bleeding heart.
Like the hon. member for Scarborough (Mr. Harney), I am not certain I can support this bill. I do not feel all that enthusiastic about the bill, because to my way of thinking it is a bad bill and I see no reason why I should support a bad bill. I think it is a bad bill because it makes legal and gives to the people of Canada the official sanction of the Parliament of Canada for people to do things to others which most Canadians, in my view, find disgusting, demeaning and degrading-and all in the name of law and order.
We have been told mainly two things about this bill by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). First, that it really protects the privacy of people. Indeed, it is named the "protection of privacy act." It is fair to say that it provides stiff penalties for those who snoop and sneak electronically provided they do not have official permission to do it. That is all it does, and nothing more. It no more automatically protects the right to privacy of Canadians than guns automatically protect lives. It can be turned back on us with the utmost ferocity.
The bill says that in defence of morality we must do something that is immoral. It tells us that in defence of the right to our own privacy we must make possible the legalized, supervised and highly-organized intrusion into the privacy of others. Just because there are evil men in

our numbers, must we automatically resort to evil in order to apprehend them? Must we submit to being taken yet another step down the road to the day when "1984''' could be upon us, when there could be a Big Brother and our needs could be made totally subservient to those of the state? I think that is a lot of bunk.
The minister poured a little snake-oil around here this afternoon, telling the opposition what a fine job they had done, and praising the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) because he was happy that he carried the day. But what about his demeanour earlier, before his victory? Let us look at that. After the committee had worked untiringly to produce a report and had submitted that report to this House, the minister began manful efforts to tear out its guts. He was determined to get exactly what he wanted.
It was only after a bitter attack on the bill, led by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, that the government backed down on its proposal for a 36-hour free fire zone during which police and law enforcement agencies-and that takes in an awful lot of people in this country-could electronically eavesdrop on anybody without the need to resort to the judiciary. The minister told us this afternoon that he gradually was becoming fond of the opposition's position. But only a week ago yesterday he was attacking it in the House, ridiculing it-


Otto Emil Lang: You have it wrong. I am more and more convinced of our position.


Peter Reilly: No. On the 36-hour zone, the minister said this afternoon-


Otto Emil Lang: I am more and more convinced of our position.


Peter Reilly: I see. In any case, he told us he was gradually coming around to this position. But only a week ago he accused the opposition of trying to tie the hands of the police, and he was making fun of the very same proposal which he now espouses. No one on this side of the House wants to tie the hands of the police, we least of all. However, I want some rigid restraints on their power. I have seen far too many cases in which that power has been abused. In any case, police forces are not autonomous groups with lives of their own. They are an extension of our society. They help us. They are paid to do what we tell them. When we authorize them to do something immoral, we are denigrating and demeaning our society.
The minister defended the bill by talking about helping the police. He told us we will be safe because, after all, its administration will be under the Attorneys General. As I said during the report stage of this bill, there is nothing inherently good or trustworthy about Ministers of Justice or Attorneys General. I certainly do not intend to repose my trust in one simply because he is one.
For the second time, I remind the minister and other members of the House that in Ontario just about ten years ago an Attorney General brought before the legislature a bill which, if it had passed, would have allowed the Ontario police commission to imprison people for an indefinite period of time without a hearing, without bail, without a lawyer, without the right to habeas corpus, if
December 4, 1973

they refused to give evidence before the commission. These people were to have no rights at all. The Attorney General of Ontario was asked during a press conference whether these procedures did not violate due process of law. He replied, quite reasonably, that they did not, because once legislation had been passed they became the due process of law. Hearing this, it was impressed upon me how fragile our civil liberties were and how easily, in the absence of a bill of rights, they could be trampled on.
The position I have just outlined was seriously defended over several days by that man-a man whose job it was to uphold the law and the civil liberties we enjoy in the province of Ontario. Eventually the bill was withdrawn and he resigned his position. But he had put that package together and brought it before the legislature because, he said, he thought it was necessary in order to fight organized crime.
It was an Attorney General of Newfoundland some years ago who pressed for plane loads of Royal Canadian Mounted Police to be flown in to act as strike breakers to fight against men whose only crime was, in their desperation, to try to form their own union. And it was an Attorney General who passed the famous censorship laws in Alberta, and another who brought in the infamous padlock law in Quebec.
Three years ago, a former minister of Justice, now Prime Minister of Canada, told the people that an insurrection was just around the corner and that the power to suspend all civil liberties was needed. People believed him, or at least, some of them did; in fact, most of them did. As it turned out, they were wrong. Time has proved them wrong. But the scars of that period will be a long time going away.
All these were, and are, honourable men. Each of them, doubtless, believed he was doing his job, and any of them would have been horrified by the suggestion that they had anything sinister in mind. But motives are not always important. They were wrong-but they had the power, and they used it, but not to further the well-being of the Canadian people because their well-being was not being menaced. They were simply wrong, but they had the power. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, I say through you to the minister that they will be wrong again when this bill is passed into law and evidence is gathered by every conceivable agency of government through means that most of us, I believe, find repugnant. Massive files will be built up on people whose only crime is to be unpopular and, perhaps, different; and when some of this is allowed as evidence in courts, mistakes will be made again.
When the so-called Quebec crisis was upon us, hundreds of innocent people were taken from their beds in the middle of the night and thrown in jail. They had committed no crime except that of being unorthodox. They were imprisoned by the anti-subversive squad of the Montreal police. I say to the minister that if he turns wiretapping equipment and licence to use it over to that gang, there will be dossiers built up on anyone who is not currently in political favour. In the end, as I said last week and as was repeated here this afternoon by the hon. member for Scarborough West, it wasn't electronic gadgetry, or snooping,
Protection of Privacy
or the suspension of civil rights of hundreds of people that solved the Cross and Laporte cases; it was simple, good, hard digging by the police.
I will admit that the bill is now better than the one originally proposed by the minister, but that is about all one can say in its favour. In my opinion, the only proper bill to protect the right to privacy of Canadians would be one that outlawed electronic snooping of this kind for any reason, by anyone, and forbad the manufacture, sale, importation and possession of such equipment. I hope the day will come when we have this kind of law in Canada, because if I were the minister I would not want this law to stand as any monument to me.
In conclusion, I want to sum up my main points. This kind of snooping is immoral, degrading, and I do not think we should authorize police forces to conduct it. If we go along this path, it will eventually do society more harm than all the organized crimesters would ever do, because we shall have accepted a pernicious doctrine which has always brought disaster to its practitioners. That doctrine is: the end justifies the means.
[ Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I carefully listened to the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly) who said that Bill C-176 was absolutely worthless and tried to relate this bill to the events that took place three years ago in the province of Quebec and everywhere throughout Canada.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, not in Canada.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of Bill C-176 is not to provide for the supervision of the running abouts of the hon. member for Ottawa West or the hon. member for Temiscamingue, but to protect society against organized crime and those who want to resort to violence against subversive elements of our country.
Mr. Speaker, in 1970 violence broke out in the city of Montreal. The hon. member for Ottawa West now tells us that the government was wrong. But at the time the events took place, did the hon. member for Ottawa West know the number, the action and the organization of F.L.Q. members in the province of Quebec?


Peter Reilly: Not necessarily.


David Réal Caouette: He knew nothing at all. Today, he has the nerve to say that this government was wrong. I supported the government when they passed their measures at that time. And if the same thing happened today, I would do exactly the same and assume my responsibilities exactly as I did then.
Mr. Speaker, it was found that there were only a dozen or two real criminals in the organization.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Only two of them were convicted.

December 4, 1973
Protection of Privacy


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Edmonton West says that only two of them were convicted. But he will agree with me that he did not know either if they were 3,000, 5,000, 10,000 or 15,000 in the city of Montreal.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The government is the one that kept the whole thing secret.


David Réal Caouette: The government did not keep it secret, nor did the Progressive Conservative Party, or the Social Credit Party, or even members of the New Democratic Party. We simply did not know. Time and time again, bombs exploded right and left in Montreal. And at a certain time, it ended with the murder of a minister, the seclusion of a reprensentative of the United Kingdom in Canada and threats issued right and left against everybody. The system had to be blown up! Those are the exact words that we hear now being uttered by Michel Chartrand, Louis Laberge, Marcel Pepin, lawyer Robert Lemieux and other individuals of the same stripe, in short, the very scum of Montreal ready to rouse the people.
Mr. Speaker, when a responsible government which is concerned not only in saving itself but in protecting society, takes steps, either wiretaps or other means designed to protect citizens, what can the hon. member for Edmonton West have against that?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I put a question to the hon. member?


David Réal Caouette: Yes, indeed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Was he ever imprisoned by a civil or military police force? I can say that I still recall events that occurred twenty-one or thirty-one years ago when I was taken prisoner of war and the German police, not the Gestapo, but the Germans used the same logic with me.
So, I should like to ask the hon. member if he lived such an experience. He might change his view.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon. member for Edmonton West, I shall tell him that I underwent questioning when Cami-lien Houde was imprisoned by the Canadian government and confined in a concentration camp for five years. The hon. member for Edmonton West did not go there. He was not-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, not there.


David Réal Caouette: -he was not aware of that. There were Nazis in Germany and there were also some of them in Canada but we were not allowed to express our views.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They were your Liberal friends!


David Réal Caouette: Yes, my Liberal friends supported by the Conservatives of those days.
Mr. Speaker, it does not mean that we should enter houses or intrude in personal or family relationships. Let

us take action intended to protect society. I believe that the government is right and if the party of the hon. member were in power, he would not act in a different way from this government if it really tried to protect the individual and Canadian society.
Here is an example. Saturday afternoon-


Peter Reilly: Would the hon. member permit a question?


David Réal Caouette: Yes.


Peter Reilly: Did he not in this House last week tell hon. members that his own office had been bugged electronically?


David Réal Caouette: I said it may have been.


Peter Reilly: The hon. member said it probably had been, and that he was proud of it.


David Réal Caouette: The Bell Telephone Company is probably responsible, I do not know; but I know that my line has been tapped time and time again from this place to Rouyn, my own place. But I did not care about that at all because, for the information of my hon. friend from Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly), I am not afraid of what I have to say and I have nothing to hide.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, when union leaders Pepin, Laberge, Chartrand and Charbonneau announced that 15,000 people were at the Montreal Forum to welcome during her stay in Montreal Mrs. Allende, widow of the Chilean president who was murdered or who committed suicide, it was stated that there was only one way to liberate the people, that is by force of arms and violent revolution. This is what Michel Chartrand said.
Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Allende said at the Forum that American imperialism is to blame for the events in Chile. Yesterday the same lady was in Vancouver where she suggested that Canadians boycott Chile and refrain from buying Chilean products. How inconsistent can that lady get? On the one hand, because Americans refuse to sell Chileans spare parts to repair their machines, that is bad, that is dangerous American imperialism. But on the other hand she strongly advocates boycotting Chilean products. Communist imperialism is more important to her than American imperialism.
Mr. Speaker, that is why at noon I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), instead of accepting Chileans-those who want to flee have reasons to do so-instead of bringing them here to create trouble, as happened in Mexico, to help the USSR, Algeria, Cuba and the People's Republic of China to accept those Chilian refugees not because we do not want them to stay alive but precisely because we want them to feel at home. In a capitalistic regime such as ours, those people would be like fish out of the water. So let us send them to China, the USSR, Cuba, Algeria. There they will feel at home, they will meet ideologies that will match their deepest convictions, their deepest aspirations, and nobody will be able to say that we are against humanity.

Even my friends from the New Democratic Party who want to see all those people here in Canada will have to agree that we want them to go to countries where people think like them, and not impose our customs upon them. We have no need for that. We do not want to exterminate them. There is room for them in the USSR and Cuba. I hear my hon. friend from Toronto something-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is a new name!


An hon. Member:: Scarborough West.


David Réal Caouette: Scarborough East?


An hon. Member:: West.


David Réal Caouette: Scarborough West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He should come from the East. He is from the East and has a beard!


David Réal Caouette: That is right, if he came from the East, it would be fine! It is because he comes from the West that it is not.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There are some fine people in the West.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am not blaming the hon. member for saying: Let us accept them in the name of humanitarianism. Why not suggest that we help financially, physically, morally and mentally to send them to the USSR, Cuba or China instead of bringing them to Canada? It is strange that this is never mentioned.


Mr. Pelletier (Hochelaga):: Nor does anybody say where the Social Crediters should go.


David Réal Caouette: No, because they are at home in Canada. Mr. Speaker, it is as simple as that. The Social Crediters sincerely want to develop Canada and not to destroy it. That is so evident that we are a group of 15 here all from the province of Quebec-


Gérard Pelletier: But only three are here now.


David Réal Caouette: -and yet we are trying to help all Canada. I think that all my colleagues will admit that we are making a stand for one Canada and not for 12 or 15. We want to have a genuine Canadian Canada as we say in my own area. Mr. Speaker, even though they are trying to protect Canada, to protect all Canadians, I believe that some people, police officers or others, might misuse the powers provided under Bill C-176, but we will support it not because there have been abuses but in order to protect society against subversion, not to punish someone who does not deserve to be punished but really to protect society.
This morning two police officers and a counsel for the Montreal Urban Community police force were in my office and they told me this: If this bill requires us to advise a criminal that we are going to tap his telephone within 90
Protection of Privacy
hours, it is clear that the man will not go anywhere near his telephone. Therefore if we want to detect criminals, we must allow police to use wiretapping when necessary.
Mr. Speaker, in many areas, we will need the services of those people, for instance as regards those who sow ideas of subversion and violence all day long. As Chartrand said in Montreal last Saturday afternoon: To arms, Canadians! To arms, citizens, in order to recover our freedom!
I would like Chartrand to tell me what freedom they have in Cuba, in Moscow, in Peking or in Algeria. I said it last week, if Chartrand made the same remarks in Cuba, in less than 12 hours he would be facing the firing squad. And what I say is true.


Gérard Pelletier: In Chile too!


David Réal Caouette: In Chile it would be the same thing. The hon. Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) has just said that. I do not know if it is because he was a close friend of Mr. Allende, but in Chile it would be the same thing. But in Chile they call it repression. In other countries they call it revolution. It is exactly the same but the words differ. They talk about a revolution to free the people and they pui the yoke around the neck of people like in Czechoslovakia and in all the other socialist countries in the world. When we struggle against that, when we fight to protect our freedoms, they call it repression.
Well, Mr. Speaker, they can call me whatever they like, I want my freedom, I want my Canadian fellow citizens to have their freedom. Let us take the means to protect this freedom against the whole world. It is the reason why Bill C-176, applied in a logical and human way, will protect Canadian society; It will protect us and futur generations because if we deprive them of the freedom of tomorrow, in 15, 20, 25 years we will be blamed for being outcasts and for having forsaken that freedom which perhaps will never be recovered.
So, Mr. Speaker, let us be logical. We have a vast country, one of the most beautiful in the world, it is a country rolling in money and its people are anxious to take part in its development. Mr. Speaker, it is our moral duty to help, protect, safeguard and guide that nation towards undreamt-of progress, towards complete freedom and economic security for each and everyone. Then, nobody will lecture us, but Canadians will be a living example for all the countries of the world showing them that security with freedom is possible because we will have given it to our fellow-citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
[ Translation]


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, no, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to my colleagues of the House. I was discussing with the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) a very important matter on behalf of all hon. members. This is the first time I have used-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Write me a letter.

December 4, 1973
Protection of Privacy


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says I should write him a letter. I won't say it would not reach him but, since it concerns the rights and facilities of the hon. member, I believe it would be more important and a personal discussion would be the best way to decide its fate. I therefore hope we can continue the present debate.
I am taking part for the first time in the debate on Bill C-176 and I must say that, naturally, being a professional lawyer, despite the fact that I have not practiced with the public for a long time, I am concerned about the general interests of every citizen and certainly every lawyer.
[ English]
Mr. Speaker, this bill is entitled "the protection of privacy act". Like my colleague from St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey), I find this an entire misnomer. The bill protects a person only from electronic, acoustical, mechanical or other devices in respect of hearing. I would think that perhaps our colleague from Villeneuve-


David Réal Caouette: Temiscamingue.
[ Transla tion]


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Temiscamingue. It was the former member for Villeneuve, a much better name.
[ English]
He would also, as I am sure would all members here, like to see some protection of the person in respect of viewing. How is it that one can, with the types of cameras available today, visually spy upon any individual and the public without consent, and that the individual, minding his own business, seem to be the legitimate prey of any camera-hound who, for whatever interest-pecuniary, prurient, or what have you-may take a photograph and publish it? Frankly, the individual citizen today possesses but a mere residual of rights to his own personality.
This bill attempts to put some order in a certain sector. As my colleague from St. Paul's said, we would like to see far greater protection of the individual from all sorts of invasions of privacy. To me, what difference does it make whether my telephone is bugged, or whether my window, my garden or my automobile as I am travelling along is similarly bugged with a long-distance lens by an individual whose motives may be far different, far less honourable and far less justifiable than the individual who may put a bug or listening device on my telephone, in my house or in my hotel room? They are equally an invasion of the privacy of my person as a citizen. I insist that I, as a citizen, as an individual, still have certain inalienable rights, rights which I may place in jeopardy by wrongful actions against society and to that extent I agree in principle with this bill, but as an innocent, law-abiding citizen, why should I be subjected to this invasion of privacy, acoustically or visually?
In his gloating speech this afternoon the Minister of Justice said it was high time this subject was dealt with because it had been around for four years. Mr. Speaker, the bill that passed report stage this afternoon is certainly not the idea that was broached four years ago, nor is it the

same bill. It has gone through a certain fire and a certain modificatiion, and I think it was totally wrong for the hon. gentleman to say it was high time the House accepted the idea, just because it had been around for some time. There are many ideas that have been around for generations and are still rejected and will continue to be rejected for generations because they are not sound. The fact that they have been around for discussion means nothing except that the longer they are around and discussed, the less merit they may have.
The Minister of Justice attended the same law school as I did many years ago. Of course, his attendance came after mine but I am sure he was exposed to the same ideas. I find it rather amusing to see that he absorbed so little of the philosophy of that school with regard to the admissibility of indirect evidence. There is a lot to be said on both sides of that question. I remember arguing with my tutors because basically, I suppose, I am one of those who favour law and good government.


An hon. Member:: That is what we have got.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Perhaps this may be a lesson for the young and honourable member who made that interjection. However, the longer one serves in this House, the more conscious one becomes of how the rights of the individual in today's society get nicked away, which is another way of saying that our essential freedoms are being lost, slice by salami slice. Tney can be cut very thin, but they are still being cut and restricted.
I say that in this instance there has now been a formalization into law of what you might call a restriction of a fundamental freedom. Of course, my views have changed, Mr. Speaker. There comes a point where the paramount interest of society may have to take precedence over the rights of the individual. I will accept this because I recognize that man is a social animal, that man is interdependent one with another, and that any right that I may have I must exercise in such a way so that I do not injure my fellow man, because if I claim fundamental freedom some people will call it a licence to act as I see fit heedless of the consequences to my fellow man. Then, if I am injured by my neighbour, I have very little cause for complaint because surely my neighbour is my equal.
If by reason of my conduct I use this licence to injure him, he equally has the right by his licence to act to injure me. As I say, we are socially interdependent animals and our relationship must be conducted with concern for others. Therefore, if here there is what we might call a fundamental right to freedom from the invasion of privacy, going one step further there comes a point where the public interest may demand that there be some curtailment of that right. I see the former solicitor general shaking his head. I do not know whether he had the same legal training that I had.
[ Translation]
After all, he has studied civil law and I studied common law and in different schools to boot; so maybe it is quite another philosophy. But I would like to share the views of the Minister of Supplies and Services (Mr. Goyer), the former Solicitor General on that whole issue, for he
December 4, 1973

undoubtedly participated with his colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), in determining the philosophy of this bill.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, I am attempting to rationalize the invasion of the freedom of the privacy of my person which is incorporated in this law. This permits an invasion-


Jean-Pierre Goyer: No.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, yes. This permits an invasion of the privacy of my person, under controlled conditions. I will admit that I think in some ways this may prove better, and that is why it would have my support. But there are many details of this bill that I, as a lawyer, consider to be terribly bad law. I have already indicated a terrible lacuna, that there is no privacy of persons from viewing and spying. Only acoustical spying is covered by this bill.
To those who had objections to the bill, and as far as the police are concerned, I would say that it must be remembered that prior to passage of this bill electronic bugging is illegal. Now, under certain controlled conditions, it becomes legal and to that extent there is that much more assistance, I think, to the police forces of the country.
I do not think there is going to be any great difficulty about getting permission from a judge, etc. I do not like the amendment that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) insisted upon, because I think that knocks the props from under the bill. I am glad to see the Minister of Justice back in the House, Mr. Speaker. He will undoubtedly have read the same arguments that I have in many a learned article in legal journals on the philosophy of the admission of indirect evidence following illegal confession, illegal bugging-that in effect it is a matter of judicial revenge upon the accused. He is able to refute the burden of the so-called innocent confession and the confession is thrown out, but in many ways then the law turns around and clobbers him by admitting the very evidence to which he confessed. It almost says, "Yes, you beat us on one thing but we will get you on the other." This in effect is the same thing.
I am sorry to see the amendment of the Minister of Justice. At one time I thought I could support it, but when I look at it in the light of recognition of a wide power of the police forces and security forces to engage in electronic and acoustical bugging, I find it rather strange that the minister would insist that indirect evidence obtained as a result of illegal bugging shall be admissible in a court of law. Why go through the formalities of getting permission to carry out a legal bugging if the indirect evidence or the evidence flowing from the eavesdropping is going to be admissible in any sense? The amendment was illogical nonsense.


Mr. Railton:: Question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member, the distinguished member of the medical profession, that on the next occasion there is a medical subject under discussion which he finds of inter-
Protection of Privacy
est, perhaps if I were to call out "nonsense" to him, as he has done now-


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the hon. member rise on a point of order?


Samuel Victor Railton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to correct the hon. member. I did not say "nonsense". I was just getting a little weary of the repetition of things and I called out "Question". The other point that I request permission to speak on is this. The hon. member says if he were a member of the medical profession, he would have more right to speak on it. He is not speaking as a lawyer tonight, I hope; he is speaking as a citizen of Canada-and everybody should have an opinion.
I did not intend to speak on this bill because it has taken such a great deal of legal argument, which to this point I think has been very well done. However, from my experience I feel it is about time we stuck to the question and did not get into legal argument. The question is, are we invading privacy? I do not believe we are.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. If he did not say "Nonsense" but said "Question," the word "nonsense" was implicit in what he said. I will, hopefully, listen to him when he wants to make a point.


Samuel Victor Railton: It was probably your conscience that was speaking. It must have been nonsense.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, since it is the first time I have spoken on this bill, I thank the hon. member for the extreme narrowness of his closed mind. There is one final point that I should like to make, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday we had considerable discussion about amendments to the Parole Act. We felt there were far too many people in prison. We felt there should be much greater facilities for the Parole Board. At that time I indicated that far too many laws in Canada provided for imprisonment. I would draw to the attention of the Minister of Justice and, if we were here, of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), that this act provides that the improper use of an electronic device for acoustical interception or listening shall be an offence punishable by imprisonment of up to five years. There is no option of a fine under this law. Illegal wiretapping means imprisonment. And illegal wiretapping can be an offence of a very technical nature.
I see the parliamentary secretary nodding his head in affirmation. Does this not follow up my assertion of yesterday, that we in Canada say, "Obey the law or you go to jail?" We love to send people to jail; then we complain about our jail system, our prison system, our system of parole, etc. People complain about far too many people being in jail; of course they do. Yet we have acts like this one which say that jail shall be the only sanction and that there shall not be any fine.
I note that some people are impatient; they think this bill is God-given, that it is their birthright, that there is nothing wrong with it. I hesitate to think that some day

December 4, 1973
Protection of Privacy
some of those people may have to go to jail for some offence. I hope they will not rue the day when they muttered approval of the fact that this law provides fdr no alternative penalty to jail. It seems to me that this administration and others who are responsible for the administration of penal justice in this country should have started a long time ago reviewing all our acts to see why we should insist upon jail, why we cannot have a system of probation under laws like this, or fines as an alternative to jail. Too many are sentenced to jail without being given the alternative of paying a fine. Certainly, a sentence of restricted conduct for a lot of offences would be of far greater import than the sentences contemplated under this bill.
Hopefully, there will be an opportunity when I can debate this matter with the Attorney General so that I may get some notion of what is the philosophy of the government with regard to the sanction provision in this legislation. The Minister of Justice is no greater lover of law and order than I am. Certainly, many things that were said in connection with this bill on behalf of so-called civil liberties cannot stand the light of day. On the other hand, although in many ways this bill is full of inherited or imposed defects, I hope they will not prove too difficult in practice. I am a hopeful person. Before long there will be another day, with another administration and another minister of justice, and then the appropriate changes can be made to this act to make it more effective in protecting against the invasion of privacy of the person and to make it less objectionable from a logical point of view.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair, in wrapping up this debate, to say a word or two about some hon. members who have been particularly helpful in improving this bill as it has progressed through the House. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) spoke of its four-year history. The delay in bringing it forward is not the fault of parliament: there have been a few interruptions in that period. I am satisfied that the present bill is substantially better than the one brought forward a couple of years ago, and the one which was debated in May on second reading.
I remember the debate of 1960, I think it was, when the Bill of Rights was before the House. Some sneering references were made, rather unfortunately I think, to the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the efficacy of the Bill of Rights. At that time I was actively practising law and remember the debate in the Canadian Bar Association about the Bill of Rights. I remember that a very learned dean of law, who is now a member of the minister's law reform commission, said how important it was to have general public understanding of the Bill of Rights; that it was not some arcane little statute which was of interest only to lawyers. I think the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert on that occasion popularized, if I may use that word, the concept of fundamental rights in our Canadian statute law.
I think what he did was very important. I had hoped that the Supreme Court of Canada, much before the occasion of the Drybones case, could have used the Bill of Rights in order to pass judgment on some statutes of this parliament. Be that as it may, the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert was able to make a complicated legal

situation understandable to the general public. I am referring to the value of the right hon. gentleman's amendment to abolish the 36-hour notice provision. He made a greater impact on the public's mind than did the Minister of Justice. That in itself was an achievement.
I have repeated before now what Dr. Cory of Queen's University has said. I do not know Dr. Cory's politics; I presume he is a supporter of the Liberal government.


An hon. Member:: He is from Saskatchewan.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: He is a man of great capacity, as many Saskatchewan people seem to be.


An hon. Member:: You are not narrow.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: No, I am not as narrow as the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin). Dr. Cory said that he felt more comfortable when he knew that people like the right hon. member for Prince Albert were in parliament. I think that is a great tribute. Some people measure worth in dollars; others by the time spent on a speech. I have never felt that a man's worth is to be measured by the time he takes speaking in this House. I do think, however, that the right hon. gentleman was able to persuade the government to make a fundamental change in this bill. As well, of course, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) did a professional job on the bill, which is much better now because of his energetic work. He knew his subject thoroughly and he was able to articulate the issues and persuade many of his colleagues of the correctness of his views.
I should like to pay tribute to the conscience of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and of the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane). I like to see him and listen to him. He was the one who persuaded the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that it would be valuable and useful to hear one of the greatest attorneys general of this century, Ramsey Clark, who rightly pointed out that during his period of administration he had not used wiretaps. Mr. Clark made a profound impression on the committee. I think we were all enlightened by his evidence. We must also consider our colleague for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is calling "order", I will be glad to hear him on the point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I said "Hear, hear".


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I am just trying to pay a compliment or two. I think the hon. member for New Westminster made a real contribution. The minister said he was worried about the time spent on this bill. I do not share this view. I do not think the time was all that badly spent. Maybe one day we will reach some accommodation about allocation of time. But in a way, in this country it takes a little longer than it does in Britain. There is a national press in order that issues be clearly understood by Canadi-
December 4, 1973

ans and to obtain some feedback. That is exactly what happened with this bill. It took a while for the Canadian public to get alarmed. They did get alarmed. The government, to its credit, heard about the alarm and made some amendments.
I am particularly glad parliament has decided to reinstate the provision of the committee with regard to notice. I do not think the minister should be worried about this. He could have had his own provision but he did not see fit to do that. I think it will be very salutary that a citizen will have an opportunity to know that if no charges are laid he has in fact been subjected to an intrusion of his privacy. I am sure Attorneys General will be glad to co-operate with the minister in establishing whatever formula he devises so that this notice can be given.
I share the concern of the hon. member for New Westminster and others about the national security issue. I suppose, as others have said, this clause has given all of us concern because of events in the United States. I am going to repeat something that a very wise public servant told me when I had written a little article on the excessive secrecy of government. Usually it is based on national security. He was kind enough to comment on my article. He said it is not the security of the state that governments worry about; it is the security of the government. I hope this government takes a very broad view. Perhaps it should be the other way around, that national security will be very narrowly defined.
I am particularly glad the minister was forthcoming about amendments on the whole matter of sedition, espionage and subversive activity. This is a better bill because the minister heeded the committee's request in this regard. The problem with the President of the United States is that that gentleman mixed up the security of the state with the security of himself and his government. I hope this is a warning and that this government will not try to do the same. If so, I hope there will be ample warnings, reports to parliament, questions, and so on. I will conclude by quoting a very interesting Canadian, Morley Callaghan. He said national security means-
-the protection of someone who has a big job and finds someone else breathing down his neck.
The minister has a big job. The government has a big job. However, I hope that the provisions of national security are so tightly drawn, and the jurisprudence so carefully enunciated by the courts, that this country will not have to go through anything as grubby as we have been witnessing in Washington during the past few months.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I want to say how fearful I am that this legislation is nearing passage. The reason my votes went the way they did today, and the reason I will be supporting the bill on third reading, is that there is far more good in the bill than there is bad. It makes wiretapping a crime. It makes provision for substantial penalties for those who would invade the privacy of others by electronic surveillance devices. That part of the bill is something we cannot do without, regardless of how much the remainder of it is distasteful. That is why it will get my support on third reading.
I want to sound a warning about what could very well happen when this bill becomes law. We know from evid-
Protection of Privacy
ence given in the standing committee that there have been a substantial number of electronic intrusions on the telephones of private citizens in this country, surreptitiously placed there by law enforcement agencies and without the knowledge of the telephone user. I might point out that in this bill we are not confined to the telephone. As I have said before in this debate, electronic intrusion devices today are highly sophisticated. One example I did not cite is the development of a laser device that is capable of being directed against the window or wall of a room and will transmit sounds from within that room to an unscrambler. A conversation is capable of being detected over a distance of several miles. I did cite the example of the instrument being capable of being converted into a listening device with the receiver remaining on the hook.
We heard some very disquieting examples of what could happen. We heard the example of the offices of two barristers in the province of Quebec being bugged at the behest of the police commission there. At the time this arose, I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) whether there was any agency in the province of Quebec operating under the provincial government which conducted activities of this kind directed toward national security matters. He was kind enough to assure me in private that there is an organization with a similar name but which has no federal connection.
A year ago last fall there was the example of the affairs of the CNTU in the province of Quebec being made the subject of an army intelligence report. Many members and others think all we are concerned with in the application of this bill in terms of surveillance and electronic intrusion has to do with law enforcement agencies in the country. How wrong they are. The armed forces of this country have a very active and, I must say, having some knowledge of the functioning of this service, very capable security and intelligen-e organization. That organization has every capability of engaging in the kind of surveillance activities that this bill will make law. So when we are speaking of the application of the bill, let us not forget the activities of other agencies in the country.
I want to sound, too, a warning as to certain possibilities. If electronic eavesdropping has been occurring-and it has been occurring, according to the evidence given by the law enforcement agencies before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-this bill is no assurance that it will not continue to occur illegally. From a practical point of view, the main thrust of the bill being directed at the investigatory function rather that the evidentiary function, what the overzealous law enforcer will do is tap anyway or intrude electronically in any event. It can be done without danger of detection for a great length of time. Then, should anything come up in the course of this kind of surveillance, it is a simple matter to obtain an order legalizing the portion of the evidence he wishes to introduce in court.
I was happy about the extent to which we convinced the government that judicial controls should be placed upon the application of this legislation. At least in the case of what I might call ordinary crime in his country it will be obligatory for any person intending to intrude upon the private life of anyone else to go before a judge and satisfy

December 4, 1973
Protection of Privacy
him with respect to several criteria as set out in the bill. Then there is the distasteful clause which relates to the dispensation of this kind of detailed process when the situation becomes urgent. Thanks to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) we at least have been able to insist upon the applicant obtaining the signature of the judge upon the order.
I would be surprised if the penalties provided in the legislation were ever invoked. They will certainly not be invoked against the law enforcement agencies, whether electronic supervision is legal or illegal, because of the inability to detect these devices except by sheer accident. One of the most frightening aspects of the legislation is the provision which applies to the granting of authority to intrude electronically in cases affecting national security. The government did go part of the way with us when we extracted from it a definition of "subversion." But the phrase "national security" is still wide open.
There are many who believe that the thrust here is toward electronic intrusion in the investigation of cases which affect the national security of our country, from abroad. Nothing could be further from the truth. Quite apart from any knowledge I may have gained in committee, I know that surveillance activities are carried on with respect to so-called subversive groups in this country. An example which comes to mind is the army intelligence report prepared on the operation of the CNTU in Quebec. Some of the things said in that report were pretty far out.
The bill would allow electronic intrusion in respect of any matter which the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) might decide was one which could affect national security; for example, the leak of cabinet documents. There is not a single employee of the government whose telephone could not be kept under surveillance under this provision of the bill. The capability of doing precisely that certainly exists in the city of Ottawa. One would almost think that very well-laid plans had been made, in anticipation of the passage of this legislation, by the creation of the police and security planning group in the Department of the Solicitor General. In any event, the capability is there and the likelihood is there.
I do not believe for a moment that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would hesitate to go to the Solicitor General when his telegrams were leaked to the hon. member for Scarborough West, for example, and say, "Look here, Warren; we must put a tap on a few of these employees of mine to find out who is responsible for this leak."


Mr. Allmand:: That would be illegal under the bill.


Erik Nielsen: Not at all. As I read it, and I hope I am wrong, the bill permits the Solicitor General to grant a warrant for electronic intrusion in cases which he figures affect the security of this country. The supposed threat need not be external.


William Warren Allmand: Does the hon. member think the RCMP would agree to that?


Erik Nielsen: They may not agree. But that is not the point. What is the army doing in the bill? They may not agree, but if the Secretary of State for External Affairs

went to the Solicitor General and said, "I need help. We need a tap on a few telephones".


An hon. Member:: No.


Erik Nielsen: That is a serious enough matter. But suppose it were even more serious. I am sure the Solicitor General could be easily convinced that it was in the interest of national security to issue a warrant. That is what I think is wrong about the principle contained in this provision.
Frankly, I do not have a telephone in my apartment in Ottawa. And I am giving serious consideration to getting rid of the one in my office. I tell hon. members here, and anyone who calls me, "If you do not want to read or hear again anything you say on the telephone, don't say it, because that is the situation we are in." The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) shakes his head in disbelief.


Otto Emil Lang: Not in disbelief. At you.


Erik Nielsen: He says responsibility will fall mainly on the shoulders of provincial Attorneys General. Well, God help us in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories where the Minister of Justice is our Attorney General. All he has to do is exercise the powers of any provincial Attorney General. He exercises these powers in the north. The minister smiles. What is he going to do? I can tell him in advance. He is going to delegate that power, and he is going to delegate it most likely to the Crown attorney in the Yukon and to the Crown attorney in the Northwest Territories. And while I have great respect for the first appointee in the Yukon as well as for his successor, I certainly do not like the thought that a Crown attorney anywhere can exercise the kind of powers that are granted in this bill.
So I express these fears about the operative clauses of this bill. I cannot bring myself to vote against them, to vote against third reading, because I think wiretapping and electronic intrusion in all its aspects is a despicable level to which to resort in the investigatory process. I do not feel the proper guarantees have yet been written into the bill. But far more important is the fact that the activity is made unlawful even though application of the penalty provisions will be very remote. The very fact that it makes these activities unlawful is a far more important step to be taken.
Since wiretapping and electronic surveillance will be carried on anyway whether the bill is passed or not, the government is merely legalizing it by judicial control of this kind. Giving certain powers to the Solicitor General will not change matters. All it will do is to legalize something that is now illegal in terms of introducing evidence in court. As far as I am concerned, that is another unsavoury part of the bill.
Having said those things, I just want to sound one last warning. I think the provisions of the bill will be abused. I am convinced of that, and I shall sit back and wait and see. I am sure other members will discover that what I am saying now, and the fears that have been expressed by a good many members, will be realized notwithstanding the
December 4, 1973

fact that the Solicitor General shakes his head in the negative.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


PAROLE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, December 3, consideration of Bill C-191, to amend the Parole Act, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and motions Nos. 1 and 2 (Mr. Howard).
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, one of the questions that arises from the legislation before us is, will it give us more of the same? When the government came back to the House after the October 30, 1972, election this was a question that many Canadians were asking themselves generally about this government. They hoped that, chastened as it was by the result of the election, we would get something different. But increasingly both public and parliament have come to realize we are getting more of the same. We feel this is true in terms of the Parole Board and of the policies of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). We are getting more of the same.
As we are called upon to approve the appointment of ten ad hoc members to the board, we also wonder whether this will simply mean more of the same kind of parole policy that we have had in the past. Indeed, one might wonder whether the legislation to appoint ten additional members to the Parole Board means more of the same in the sense of appointing more ex-Liberal candidates to government office. Most of all, we are wondering whether the appointment of ten more members to the Parole Board will mean more of the same in terms of providing parole to inmates who should not receive parole.
One of the matters that has brought the parole Board and the system into disrepute in many parts of Canada has been the maladministration of parole by the board. In saying that I do not want any member of the House to think I am calling into question the principle of parole- that is an easy misrepresentation through which the Parole Board itself can be defended when it should not be defended. What I am questioning is not the parole system itself, but the maladministration of that system by the board. In raising this point I think of such example as the notorious case of the Nelles kidnappers. Ralph Cameron and Peter Burns were paroled in July, 1971, after serving 20 months of their ten-year sentence. In November, 1971, John Rogan was paroled after serving 24 months of a
Parole Act
12-year sentence. Michael Whiteside was released after serving 26 months of a 12-year sentence.
A Toronto barrister, Glen How, wrote the chairman of the National Parole Board to protest, he said, against the shortness of the terms that these men were obliged to serve. Referring to their crime, he said that this was a cold-blooded, premeditated act carefully planned by people who knew better. What did the chairman of the National Parole Board say in reply to that letter? In his letter to Glen How he said:
The board does have power to grant parole ahead of normal eligibility date-which is one-third of their sentence-if there are exceptional circumstances about the case. We are of the opinion that there were such exceptional circumstances in this case, and that it was more of a stupid prank than a real act of kidnapping.
That is the attitude of the man who was then chairman, and still is chairman of the Parole Board. So if we are going to appoint ten more men to the board, we have to ask whether we are going to receive more of the same. Is this the kind of thing we can expect? As Mr. How asked of the chairman of the National Parole Board in his second letter to the chairman:
To characterize a crime as a "stupid prank" does not change the nature or quality of the act. Was the woman seized and held against her will? Was it intended by the perpetrators? Did they try to get a ransom? Was it carefully and exhaustively planned? Were they teenage children or men of age of responsibility?
So very frequently over the years that kind of maladministration of parole has been the record of this board, for the example I have cited is not an isolated exception. I should like to quote as follows from an editorial that appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail of July 23, 1973:
There are times nowadays when the proceedings in Canadian criminal courts seem to follow a script written by Groucho Marx.
There was, for example, the trial in Montreal recently of Thomas Oszlansky. Last June, Oszlansky had a slight brush with the law. Armed with a rifle, he held up a delicatessen, herded four employees into a walk-in refrigerator, and shot all four of them dead. He also shot a security guard in the head, but in this instance his aim was less accurate and the victim has recovered.
At the trial, Oszlansky pleaded guilty to non-capital murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. But the talk at the hearing was less of putting him in jail than of getting him out.
Defence counsel said that application would be made for Oszlansky's earliest possible release. The prosecutor agreed that eventual parole should be considered.
The editorial continues:
This is strange talk to hear after a massacre such as Oszlansky committed. It is still wierder in view of the psychiatric evidence in the case. The psychiatrists advised that while Oszlansky was not legally insane, he was subject to mental disorders aggravated by drugs; he suffered from hallucinations and was apparently inclined to go berserk when he imagined anyone was laughing at him. The picture suggest a criminal psychopath capable of any extreme of violence and liable to go off the rails again and again.
Against this background, it is hard to understand how even a defence lawyer could speak of early release-and still harder to understand how a responsible prosecutor could give the idea even qualified support. The only sensible way to handle a killer like this is to keep him confined in either a maximum security penitentiary or an equally secure mental institution for the rest of his life-or until highly qualified, cautious and responsible experts are satisfied that he is no longer dangerous. We can only hope-for the safety of everyone-that the National Parole Board will not

December 4, 1973
Parole Act
allow itself to be pressured into handling the case on any other basis.
That is a hope which many people across this country clutch with some despair because of the record of the Parole Board. I should also like to quote from a collection of case studies by Judge A. L. Bewley of British Columbia. I cite the example of a person granted parole after more than one instance of criminal activity and who committed an offence while on parole:
This man began his criminal career in Quebec in March, 1960, with the theft of an auto.
Between then and June, 1968, he was convicted of 20 separate criminal offences, including theft, escaping lawful custody- twice-assaulting a guard on escape, possession of stolen goods, possession of an offensive weapon.
On May 5, 1967, at New Westminster, he was sentenced to 12 years for breaking prison by violence and other crimes committed during that escape. He appealed, and the Appeal Court reduced his sentences to seven years on February 28, 1968.
Eleven months after being sentenced thus by the Court of Appeal, he was released on parole-June 18, 1970. His sentences were due to expire in 1976.
Less than one month after being released on parole-on July 6 and 16, 1970-he committed three robberies. He was convicted of these and sentenced on August 24, 1970, and November 26, 1970, to 15 years on each charge.
This kind of thing has been so widespread in the record of the National Parole Board that according to one survey conducted during the administration of the former solicitor general, 40 per cent of those who were released on parole broke that parole by crime or some other violation. So we must ask, when we are requested to appoint ten more members to the Parole Board, whether it is just to have more of the same, or can we expect that there will be a more reasonable, common sense and responsible administration of the parole system so that there are not released on the public of this country people who are still a danger to the safety of ordinary citizens.
On the other side of the coin we must ask ourselves whether this will also mean there will be more of the same in the way in which frequently the Parole Board has mismanaged its responsibility by being rigid, and even repressive, in depriving parole to people who could act in the way in which it is intended they should act. A good example of the Parole Board applying the last letter of the law rigidly and repressively is the case of Rhonda Murray, the 17-year old girl who was convicted of an offence in New Brunswick, sent to prison, paroled and then came to Toronto in contravention of her parole. There she was arrested and placed in the Don jail. She was held there, according to the letter of the law, for violating the letter of the law. She was penalized by being kept in that institution. What a danger she was! Certainly we must wonder at the thinking of a Parole Board which will release on parole men who have committed serious and dangerous acts of violence, not once but twice or three times or more and have been given parole, and who treat this girl as if she were public enemy number one. This is not an exceptional case. Would that it were!
In this debate we have heard about the situation in some of our institutions, particularly by Saskatchewan penitentiary and the Drumheller institution, both of which I have visited. An inordinate number of native people are confined in these institutions. In the Drumheller institution

perhaps 25 per cent of the inmates are Indian people. 1 would hazard a guess that the percentage in the Saskatchewan penitentiary is comparable. These people, as an ethnic group within Canada, represent a very small percentage of our people but an extraordinarily large proportion of the penitentiary population.
This must raise a question in our minds concerning the way in which the Parole Board is being administered. We must wonder, are all the Indians so dangerous that so few of them can be released on parole? Are they such a threat to public safety that we must have so many of them confined behind bars? Do we really take seriously the implication that the rest of the country produces people who can be released onto the streets after committing an offence, but not the native people?
It is for such obvious reasons we must ask, are we to have more of the same, more of the maladministration of the parole system? The minister may, defensively, point out how many successes the board has achieved. I would hope, on the contrary, that he would take seriously this kind of criticism which is directed, not against him personally or against his record as a minister so much as against the way in which over the years the board has administered or misadministered its mandate, and that he would direct his attention more to making those reforms which will make this board a responsible institution, because certainly its opportunity is great.
The people of this country want parole to be managed and distributed in such a way that those who are not a danger to citizens will have an opportunity to be released from the penitentiary in order to gain experience in preparation for full freedom. Most people believe in the principle of parole. What disheartens me is not that parole is being granted, but that it is being misused in the way it has been, in a Canadian sense. We would therefore hope that the minister would begin to enunciate in this House some reform policies more than the meagre promise that is contained in this bill. He has suggested to us he intends to appoint this kind of person and that kind of person who will greatly improve the quality of the Parole Board. We hope he is right. But really the kind of bill to which he has committed himself is far below the need of the parole system in the country as a whole.
I can, therefore, have a great measure of sympathy with the amendments that have been suggested because their motivation is to recognize that Parole Board reform, in the limited way that the bill calls for, is not enough and that we must have much more extensive and profound reform of the board and of the parole system. However, like other hon. members I would question the validity of the particular amendments that have been put before us. There are obvious weaknesses in them, suggesting that there ought to be two members from one group and two members from another group. If one were to continue this logically, one would have to bring in representatives from various groups in the populace. But notwithstanding that weakness, I certainly share with the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and others the concern that there be adequate reform of the Parole Board and of the parole system so that we will not simply have more of the same, which is the great fear that many people have across this country.

December 4, 1973

For one thing, Mr. Speaker, we will have to look for a much greater attempt at decentralization than seems to be the intention of the minister. We have been told that the members of the Parole Board will be distributed across the country instead of being confined to the national capital. But we have to wonder if this decentralization will be as thorough-going a reorganization of the board as we might have hoped. And we have to wonder whether the decentralization of the board, distributing its members to various regional centres, will be a thorough-going decentralization by which each regional centre will have sufficient autonomy to do its work properly.
One of the things that has impressed me on visiting penitentiaries throughout the country and discussing the situation with staff members as well as inmates has been the feeling of alienation that can be found on the part of officers and guards and other staff members in our institutions, a feeling of alienation which I dare say afflicts the parole system as well, a feeling of alienation that I think can only be treated properly when we begin thoroughly to decentralize our system and give each of the regional centres adequate authority to function more or less on its own.
At the present time, the authority is almost entirely restricted to Ottawa, and there is great difficulty in transmitting the edicts and policy decisions of top officials to those who have to carry them out in the local institutions. It is for that reason that we need decentralization. I am really at a loss to know whether the intention of the minister, in calling for the appointment of these ten ad hoc members, is to have that kind of thorough-going decentralization or not.
One can suspect that while board members will be put here and there, the reins will still be so tightly held within Ottawa's hands that there will not be very much change involved. So once again we come back to this fundamental question: are we just going to have more of the same, or are we going to have something sufficiently different that we can look forward to a parole system that will be a credit to this country, that will express the humanitarian ideals of its people, administered in such a way that there is a realistic appraisal of danger and violence, and that there is a proper balance of rehabilitation with restraint?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret interrupting the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. However, he may continue if there is unanimous consent. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I think that the bill before us, discussed and studied as it has been by many concerned members in the House and in the committee, has indicated the sense of responsibility which we have as representatives of people from various parts of the country. Because of the maladministration of the parole system in recent years, a cloud has developed over parole and there has been great concern that there be adequate reform of the administration of parole in Canada, a concern that I do not think has been properly provided for in this legislation. Certainly we on this side of the House are prepared to support the bill, but we would like to have
Adjournement Debate
some straight and constructive answers from the minister to the serious questions which we have put to him, answers which we have not yet received.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is not an accident, it is not a coincidence, that the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and I both have questions for this "late show" period tonight with respect to the Veterans Land Act. It is quite deliberate on our part, for we both feel very strongly about the issue and we hope that by giving the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) two chances to answer our questions we will get the right answers.
Perhaps I might say that it is not without significance that in these 20 minutes the three of us who have the floor are a Progressive Conservative-and in the case of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe I emphasize the "progressive"-the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who I hope is a liberal Liberal and in my case a New Democrat, with emphasis on the "new". Together we demonstrate the concern of all hon. members for the welfare of our veterans.
On Friday, November 9, as recorded in Hansard at page 7693, this House unanimously passed a motion which I had the privilege of moving, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. That motion read as follows:
That this House requests that the Minister of Veterans Affairs give urgent consideration to the amending of the Veterans Land Act regulations to permit veterans to acquire small holdings, even if the main purpose of most of the older veterans now applying for loans under the Veterans Land Act is to meet their housing requirements, it being the view of this House that entitlement to a piece of this land ought to be the right of any veteran.
Some days later, on Wesdnesday, November 21, I put a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs in which I referred to the motion which had been passed on November 9 and asked whether he was yet in a position to report to the House on the request made in that motion. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe had a supplementary question on that occasion, and so here we are tonight, the three of us. My friend and I have divided the field a bit. I wish to concentrate on the position that has been taken quite often by the minister, to the effect that VLA is not for housing. He spelled this out quite fully on November 6 when he was responding to another question of my friend from Newfoundland. I will quote in particular a paragraph on page 7605 of Hansard where the minister said:

December 4, 1973
Adjournment Debate
As indicated, in previous statements which I have made both in the House and to the Standing Committee on Veterans, Affairs, VLA was not designed as a program of urban housing nor as part of a retirement program for persons reaching the end of their productive careers. Its basic purpose was to provide loans for the purchase of agricultural land to be used on a full or part time farming basis by veterans who were interested in this form of rehabilitation program on their return to civilian life following wartime active force service.
The point that my friend and I sought to make in the motion that this House passed, on November 9 is that the minister should meet head-on the contention that veterans are now making, since these veterans are older men, that even though they are not now at an age that they can go into farming, even though all they want a smallholding for is a place to have a home and to retire, that that request should be met. A good deal has been said about the number of veterans-whether it is 125,000 or 140,000-who have certificates that would qualify them for a loan under the Veterans Land Act because they got the certificate before October 3, 1968. It is often said about them that they got those qualification certificates just in case they might want to use them, but now that there is a deadline of March 31, 1974, unless they get a loan before then, they are out. Some of these veterans, admittedly, are not wanting to go into small farming but they have other comrades who got assistance for a smallholding which includes a home and a house that they are living in, and in which they are able to retire, and they feel they should have that right as well.
As I say, the hon. member for Humber-St.. George's-St. Barbe will develop other aspects of the matter, but the point I should like to impress upon the minister is that it does not satisfy us for him continually to tell us that the act was set up simply for farming purposes. We think that the desire to have a small piece of property on which to retire, the desire to have a piece of this land for which our veterans fought, and the wish to have a home is a legitimate one. We think that the minister should consider seriously what this House unanimously passed on November 9, namely, that thought be given to changing the regulations so that veterans can get loans under the Veterans Land Act even if all they want is enough money for enough land on which to build a place where they can live and enjoy their home and their period of retirement.
As I say, there are various angles in this issue but it seems to me that the time has come for the minister to deal directly with this request: that the Veterans Land Act, or at least its regulations, be transformed to meet the needs of over 100,000 veterans who have certificates, who admittedly want mainly a chance to build a home in which they can retire. I simply say, why not? For my part, and I know I speak for my friend from Newfoundland and I think probably the minister agrees with both of us, this desire ought to be met and I hope that tonight, either in his answer to me or in his answer to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, the minister will give us the answer that I believe, he really wants to give us.


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on November 9 last requested that I give urgent consideration

to the amendment of the Veterans Land Act regulations to permit veterans to acquire smallholdings, even if the main purpose of the older veterans now applying for VLA loans is to meet their housing requirements. I believe the nature of the amendment contemplated would be cancellation of section 24 of the Veterans Land Act which prescribes that the minimum size of property for VLA smallholding purposes shall be one half acre or, at the discretion of the director, not less than 17,424 square feet. This is not, of course, a new proposal. Although I have not completed the consideration which the House requested I give to the matter, I must say that I am impressed with the substance of the numerous factors which on previous occasions led to the conclusion that a change such as I believe is contemplated by this motion should not be made.
In looking at this matter in the perspective of the purpose of the Veterans Land Act, it must be remembered that it was one of three alternative rehabilitation measures enacted to assist veterans following discharge from wartime active service, and was designed for those interested in settling on the land as full-time farmers or in utilizing agricultural land in conjunction with off-farm employment.
I believe it is evident that the smallholding or part-time farming provisions of the Veterans Land Act were never intended to represent a measure to assist veterans in the acquisition of urban housing. To have done so would have served to duplicate the provisions of the National Housing Act and the various arrangements made under that act in the post-war years to make housing accommodation available to veterans. It was, in fact, to avoid any such duplication and to adhere to the intent and purpose of the Veterans Land Act that minimum acreage requirements for smallholdings were prescribed by regulation in 1946.
Further evidence to this effect is furnished by the approval given by parliament in 1954 to the introduction of part II of the Veterans Land Act-as recommended by the government by the Royal Canadian Legion-under which financial and other assistance was made available to veterans interested in building homes on city-size lots and who were approved for loans under the National Housing Act.
More than 4,500 veterans built their own homes under the provisions of part II. I think it must be acknowledged that these veterans at least would consider complete elimination of a minimum acreage requirement to be a breach of faith. I believe it must also be realized, however, that a substantial number of veterans who used benefits alternative to those of the Veterans Land Act did so because VLA smallholding loans were not available for the purchase of city-size lots in urban areas and particularly those who did not obtain a VLA certificate of qualification for that reason by the deadline of October 31, 1968, would take a similar view if action were to be taken now to eliminate the minimum land requirement.
In considering this matter, I must also keep in mind that section 24 of the Act already provides that the minimum land requirement does not apply to veterans in receipt of a disability pension of 50 per cent or more. As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I have not yet completed my consideration of this matter. From my studies to date, however, I would reiterate that I am strongly
December 4, 1973

impressed by the various factors which have led to the conclusion on previous occasions that a minimum land size requirement should be maintained, and some of which I have reviewed here tonight.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-REQUEST THAT DEADLINE FOR APPLICATIONS UNDER LAND ACT BE EXTENDED
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, what is happening tonight is another attempt on my part and on the part of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to get some straight answers from the minister-perhaps I should not say that-but to get consideration for the fact that because of changing conditions veterans find it difficult to meet their needs under the Veterans Land Act. Apparently the first attempt has been in vain. Whether my own few words will be effective, I do not know.
The minister indicated that in 1954, in order to meet changing conditions, the department made provision for building lots primarily to be used for the building of homes. That is where the problem lies today, Mr. Speaker. A vast number of veterans are being stultified by restrictions. The minister indicated that many of the 140,000 applicants applied "just in case"; they certified themselves after October 31, 1968, just in case they wanted to build a home later on. According to reports of the department, only 5 per cent of those 140,000 applicants will take up their right to build. Even so, those people are being stultified by restrictions imposed with regard to the size of the lot, to which the minister referred, by mortgage loans being only as high as $18,000 and by the down payment requirement of $2,600. The minister ought to know, and if he does not he can find out by asking the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford), that it is impossible to build a house on a lot of one half acre or less for $18,000.
I am sure the minister is getting as much mail as we are to rebut his remarks that there are not many now applying. He must be receiving mail from those who indicate they did not know about the October 31, 1968, deadline. I was on an open-line show in Kingston the other day. I received two or three calls from World War II veterans who did not know about the deadline.
Apart from the facts I have mentioned, there is no justification for phasing out the act if there is even one veteran in this country who is denied the opportunities provided under the act. A pledge was made in 1917, and again in 1944 by the then prime minister who stated emphatically, and I am not trying to be dramatic or emotional, that no veteran would ever have to say that Canada did not repay the obligation owed to all veterans who served.
Without going into further debate, there is a very simple solution to the problem that the minister could propose to his conscientious-objector cabinet. I suggest the minister suspend phasing out the act for a period of three years. I suggest he amend the act to raise the maximum loan to $30,000, reduce the lot requirements to a normal-size building lot and provide the same method of 95 per cent loans under the National Housing Act.
Adjournment Debate
The minister should write a letter to every veteran who is certified, asking whether they are now ready to build under the new conditions. He should write to every veteran of World War II and Korea offering the same terms and asking their intentions on retirement. With the co-operation of the national veterans organizations, every last veteran should be allowed to be certified within that period.
It would also be a shame to phase out the veterans land administration which is set up with top expertise. It has the organizational ability to serve a large segment of our population in the desperate housing situation that exists today. All the minister will be doing is throwing thousands of citizens into the jungle where many hundreds of thousands are having a difficult time finding housing today, something which this government is finding difficult to resolve.
I hope the minister will not quote more meaningless figures and leave the matter hanging in the air. We only have four more months. I ask the minister to ensure that all of us will not be sorry for the impending action this government intends to take.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) has suggested that the deadline of March 31, 1974, as specified in the Veterans Land Act pursuant to an amendment made to that act some eight years ago, will be detrimental to some 125,000 veterans who are qualified to apply for VLA loans because the time remaining is so short as to preclude them from locating suitable properties and submitting loan applications. It seems to me that the essence of his representations was expressed in his remarks in the House on November 6 last. My response at that time is recorded at page 7605 of Hansard and I believe there is little more that I need say tonight.
I think I should repeat, however, that I am satisfied the vast majority of those veterans who obtained VLA qualification certificates by the deadline of October 31, 1968, did so on a purely precautionary basis in case their personal circumstances or plans should alter before the March, 1974 deadline. My view in this respect is supported by the fact they have already had some 28 years to settle under the provisions of the act if they were interested in doing so; and that apart from the increase which I think was to be expected in this final year, there was relatively no change in the number who applied for establishment in each of the three previous fiscal years.
Having regard for the lending deadlines specified in the act as approved by parliament in 1965, the veterans land administration has been taking advantage, wherever practical, of normal staff attrition so that there will be no undue number of surplus personnel after new settlement comes to an end. Notwithstanding the lesser number of staff now on strength compared to last year and the year before, almost without exception loan applications are being handled in an effective manner. I am confident the VLA staff will continue to do so between now and next March even if some further acceleration should occur in the rate of applications.

December 4, 1973
Adjournment Debate


HEALTH-POSSIBLE TOXICITY OF BLOOD IMPORTED FROM UNITED STATES
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on a matter of the utmost urgency and importance. I refer to the use in Canadian laboratories of contaminated blood samples imported from the United States. Radio CJOB in Winnipeg brought this situation to light recently. These blood samples are used for testing the delicate equipment employed when exact tests are carried out on blood samples from Canadian patients.
At the University of Saskatchewan Hospital in Saskatoon, two laboratory technicians have died within the past year. Both deaths have been traced to infectious hepatitis. In both instances it is believed the disease was attributable to the presence of Australia antigen in imported commercial blood products. During the past year, five other technicians at the laboratory also contracted the disease. Fortunately, their symptoms were not fatal.
I have raised this serious matter in the House on several occasions. However, all my efforts to alert the minister appear to have been in vain. To date I have received no concrete assurances that anything at all has been done. On November 6 I asked the minister whether he was aware of the situation. He assured me that his department was aware of it and added that an investigation was under way. On November 22 the minister informed me in a letter that an investigation had been carried out, and said:
Certain blood fractions used for experimental or diagnostic purposes have on occasion been contaminated with hepatitis viruses. There is at present no foolproof way to test such products to ensure they are free from hepatitis viruses.
I was surprised when I read those words. The minister does not appear to be familiar with the modern tests for detecting hepatitis. I shall elaborate in a minute. On November 29 I asked the minister whether he intended to conduct an inquiry into the deaths, as requested by the University of Saskatchewan laboratory technicians. I was informed that the matter "now falls under the purview of the Saskatchewan government and there is no need for a special inquiry." These statements are difficult to understand, considering the fact that three weeks earlier the minister had assured me the federal Department of Health was investigating the matter.
The danger that blood products can be contaminated with Australia antigen has been known for some time. It is therefore surprising that there should be no federal legislation to deal with the hazard. The minister acknowledges the danger but appears unwilling to do anything about it. An article which appeared in the May 5, 1973, edition of the Lancet, a leading British medical journal, clearly spells out just how serious the situation has become. The article states that special tests of commercial blood products distributed by eight United States companies and one European company showed that 72 per cent were contaminated with the heptatitis B antigen. The article goes on to say, however:
Routine detection of the hepatitis B antigen has become possible, significantly assisting the clinical diagnosis.
However, in his letter of November 22 the minister stated, as I have mentioned,, that there is no foolproof way to test blood products for hepatitis. It seems the minister

may have been mistaken. According to the Lancet, techniques such as immune radiometry are currently being used with much effectiveness in detecting infectious hepatitis. It seems to me that if these techniques are available, the health department should perhaps familiarize itself with them. Although extremely tragic, the events at the University of Saskatchewan hospital should not be surprising, especially in view of the British findings. The situation is undoubtedly the same across the rest of Canada.
As I mentioned earlier, practically none of these laboratory samples is manufactured in Canada. Instead, we are mainly dependent upon American sources of supply. Americans, like Canadians, are reluctant to sell their blood, even for a good price. The result is that the pool of professional blood donors includes a large number of drug addicts, the majority of whom probably carry infectious hepatitis.
If the Canadian government enacted federal legislation requiring that all laboratory blood products imported into Canada be tested and guaranteed free from hepatitis, problems would arise for the commercial manufacturers. If the drug addicts and others who carry infectious hepatitis had to be dropped from the pool of professional donors, then the price which would have to be paid to attract a sufficient number of donors would have to be increased very considerably. Since we are dealing with a multimillion dollar industry, you can expect some pretty powerful opposition if you attempt to get any Canadian federal legislation passed to deal with this matter.
The risk which lab workers face of contracting infectious hepatitis from blood specimens which they handle from patients would, of course, remain. But the over-all risk could be very substantially diminished if it could be guaranteed that the laboratory products which they have to use every day are free from infection. This can only be done through legislation similar to that recently passed in the United States. The law there now requires such testing and screening. It is also very important that a wholesale inventory is taken of existing supplies, should legislation be enacted. Existing stock in hospital and other laboratories should be tested or destroyed immediately. The minister must act to correct this serious situation.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I answer the hon. member concerning the important and serious problem he has raised.
I will mention first that the tragic deaths that occurred in Saskatchewan are events regretted by all authorities concerned. As I have already said to the hon. member, an investigation has been undertaken by the Saskatchewan government which has jurisdiction over the hospital and laboratories involved. There is nothing extraordinary nor unusual in this, for such investigations are regularly conducted by provincial governments, and it is appropriate to proceed in this manner.



As far as my departmental responsibility is concerned, my department does not have the responsibility of carrying the investigation itself but of looking at the safety of particular serums being used and the safety of the procedures regarding importation and distribution of serums. I must point out that up to now there is no conclusive evidence linking the two tragic deaths with any particular serum. However, as I have told the hon. member in a previous letter, officers of my department have investigated this matter and have concluded that certain blood fractions used for experimental or diagnostic purposes have on occasion been contaminated with hepatitis viruses. I also stated that there is no foolproof way to test such products to ensure that they are free from hepatitis viruses.
Adjournment Debate
My department is aware of the particular article referred to by the hon. member in the Lancet and of the particular immune radiometry experience. My department is looking into this particular testing at the present time and trying to assess how foolproof this particular test would be. At the present time we are not in a position to assure the House that this will be a foolproof test either. In the absence of appropriate tests, laboratory workers who utilize such products must take necessary precautions to ensure that they will not be exposed to undue risk. Research on the development of tests to assess the safety of blood fractions is being conducted at the present time in a number of centres in Canada and elsewhere. Pending its successful completion, persons handling such materials must take appropriate precautions.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Wednesday, December 5, 1973