1973-11-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek unanimous consent under Standing Order 43 to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity to my own constituency and, I am sure, to many other constituencies throughout Canada. In view of the fact that newsprint shortages are seriously jeopardizing the existence of many of the smaller newspapers in the country and as these newspapers often present the only alternative to large newspaper monopolies, I ask leave of the House to move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) the following motion:
That the question of newsprint shortage in Canada be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs forthwith for immediate consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek the consent of the House to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 in a case of urgent and pressing necessity. The decision rendered by an appeal court in the province of Quebec setting aside the injunction obtained by the Indian people with respect to the James Bay project has effectively removed the leverage that the Indian people had in any negotiations and has created a situation where there is now no compulsion on the James Bay Development Corporation or the province of Quebec to negotiate in good faith or to attempt to come to a fair settlement with the Indian people.
I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House instruct the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to lend every assistance possible to the Indian people in the province of Quebec in order that the negotiations relating to the James Bay project will result in a recognition of the aboriginal rights of the Indian people and bring for them a respect for their way of life and the fullest measure of benefits.


Mr. Speaker:: 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.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43 to seek leave to move a motion. In view of the way small businesses in metro urban areas are having difficulty getting help at rates of $2.50 and $3 per hour, in view of the reported high job vacancy rate and in view of the way the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) has announced an increase in unemployment insurance rates, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That this matter be referred to the Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



TAKING ON OF BUNKER OIL BY AMERICAN SHIP AT VANCOUVER-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION

Mr. Paddy Neale (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the present oil shortage and

November 22, 1973
Privilege, Mr. Lewis
in view of the fact it has been reliably reported to me that a ship of American registry, the Alaskan Mail, was smuggled into the port of Vancouver last weekend, took on 313,000 gallons of bunker oil, and then left the harbour without loading or unloading any cargo and without paying any wharfage fees, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to conduct an immediate investigation as to the facts of this situation with a view to putting a stop to this practice and to determine who is responsible for the virtual blackout of information regarding the coming and going of the Alaskan Mail.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



PRIVILEGE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects this parliament and every member of the House. I appreciate that I did not give Your Honour notice, but I could not until now. This is the first opportunity of raising the matter.
As everyone in the House knows, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is scheduled to make a statement of some sort, so we are informed, on energy policies this evening at 9:30 over the media of this country. I waited during the period of motions to see whether the Prime Minister would rise to make a statement to the House with regard to anything he intends to announce at 9:30 this evening.
The Prime Minister has often been accused of disregarding parliament. I can think of no more basic example of that disregard of parliament than the Prime Minister is showing today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: I remind the Prime Minister, and I suggest this is a most legitimate point of privilege, that we do not yet have a presidency in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: The Prime Minister does not have to imitate President Nixon in every respect. At least, Mr. Speaker, we are sure of getting the tapes of the broadcast.
I suggest to Your Honour that if there is going to be a statement regarding energy policy of any sort it ought to be made in the House first. It seems to me that the Prime Minister is showing not only disregard for parliament but a lack of courage to face the members of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: It is obvious to every member of the House as well as to every Canadian that the energy problem is one of the most serious facing this country not only this winter but for years to come. It is the duty of parliament, not only the government, to decide on the policies to be pursued. The Prime Minister has no right to disregard parliament and go on the air at his convenience. I suggest this is not only disregard of parliament in the technical sense but it is an abrogation of his responsibility to parliament and to the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to understand the strong language used by the leader of the New Democratic Party and these various catcalls which are arising from the Conservative party in his support when we are merely dealing with a statement I might be making tonight which might have nothing to do with the kind of fear the hon. gentleman has just been expressing.
The assumption is that I am going to make some major policy announcement to the nation tonight on the media. If that assumption were correct, perhaps the question of privilege might have some basis. Perhaps tomorrow the leader of the New Democratic Party might have some cause to raise a question of privilege if, in fact, the hypothesis under which he is working fulfils itself tonight. But I went out of my way to indicate to those members of the press who caught me before I entered the chamber that this was not to be a policy statement, that I was merely going before the nation in order to explain the situation with regard to energy in Canada, the measures the government has taken and the explanations we have for those measures. I do not intend to make any major announcements but I do intend to clarify a lot of the muddled thinking which has its residence on the other side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Without getting involved in any controversy about whose thinking is muddled and without, I hope, offending the Prime Minister in any way by pursuing this matter, may I ask him whether he intends to outline any policy or plan
November 22, 1973

that has not been previously announced in the House when he speaks to the nation tonight?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am
afraid the Leader of the Opposition will have to wait until he hears my statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I express the hope that the Prime Minister will live up to the traditions of the House and of his office and present to parliament any statement of policy which is being made for the first time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South. Order, please. If the hon. Leader of the Opposition is rising to ask a supplementary he will, of course, be recognized for that purpose, and then the hon. member for York South.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I was proceeding to the supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I was simply expressing my confidence in the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether he has any new information with reference to supplies of petroleum from overseas and the kind of shortages we may expect this winter. Does he intend to give any such information to the country tonight and, if so, will he advise the House as to this information this afternoon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have no information to give beyond that which has already been conveyed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or other members of the government. If, indeed, I have such information which comes to me before tonight-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, surely there can be no objection to my answering that very question by the leader of the catcallers on the other side. Do they want me to answer the question or not?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope the Prime Minister will appreciate that I am trying to be very polite and courteous to him, despite his provocations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether it is his intention to give the Canadian people tonight any information as to what may be the effect of the energy crisis generally on the Canadian outlook with respect to international trade and, if so, whether he proposes to provide that information to the House also?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think my answer can only be in general terms. I intend tonight to explain the situation in the energy field to the Canadian people. I do not intend to convey to them any major, shattering, new announcement. I cannot interpret the possible feelings of opposition members after they have heard my speech tonight. If tomorrow they think I have done something that is unparliamentary, I will be prepared to answer for it. In the meantime, I think they will have to realize that once in a while the Prime Minister of the nation can talk to the Canadian people-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -about subjects which are of great concern to the people from coast to coast. In view of my respect for parliament I will do my best not to introduce into my speech tonight anything that might be considered by the opposition as a major announcement which would have been better made to the House of Commons. I repeat,
I hope that they and all Canadians will be listening to the speech tonight, and if their fears of today are justified I will be prepared to answer to the House tomorrow.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest to the Prime Minister that muddled action is worse than muddled thinking.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South was recognized a moment ago on a question of privilege at which time he made certain suggestions. The hon. member is recognized during the question period for the purpose of asking a question.


David Lewis: Personally, Mr. Speaker, I am no more impressed by the catcalls of the Liberals than I am by the catcalls of the Conservatives. For one thing, they are the same. I noted that the Prime Minister in his answers emphasized that he would not be making any major or earth-shattering announcement of policy this evening. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether that means that there will be some policies announced which have not yet been announced in parliament? If not, are we to take it that he is merely going to give a little story to the people of Canada to justify the inaction of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question asked in those terms is clearly out of order.

Does the hon. member for Temiscamingue wish to ask a supplementary?


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):: No, Mr. Speaker. [English]


Mr. Speaker:: November 22, 1973
Oral Questions


PETROLEUM-RESULT OF DISCUSSIONS BY MINISTER WITH ALBERTA GOVERNMENT-INTENTION RESPECTING LIFTING OF PRICE FREEZE
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I turn to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on a supplementary. Will he inform the House briefly as to the results of his discussions in Alberta, and indicate particularly whether it is still his intention to lift the price freeze on January 31 permitting prices of petroleum and petroleum products to go up as of February 1?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of meeting with the Alberta Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. We had a discussion about the consultative process, in the course of which it was agreed that with the rapid movement of events consultation in both directions had not been as effective as it could be. We have agreed upon a procedure to make it more effective in the future. I am pleased to say that the minister will be participating in the federal-provincial meeting tomorrow, and I expect to meet him at a bilateral meeting later the same day.


Mr. Baldwin:: How did you get your foot out of your mouth long enough to say that?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister to answer the second part of my question, whether it is still his policy and the policy of the government to lift the price freeze on January 31 and permit prices of petroleum and petroleum products to go up to the import price at Montreal as stated earlier?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been suggestions from a number of quarters as to the appropriate manner of indexing the Montreal price, and we are studying these. In general terms, however, it remains my view that the international market mechanism should determine the Canadian basic price.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue and then return to supplementary questions on this subject.
[Transla tion]


POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION OF HEAVY WATER PLANT AT GENTILLY
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
We have learned that a heavy water plant will be built in Gentilly. Have the department or the government finalized the decision to build a heavy water plant in Gentilly?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have not finalized our decision in this matter. We have established that another heavy water plant is needed, but some conditions must still be determined before we can make the final decision.


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

Since the government has already spent considerable sums in the Montmagny area, is the minister also studying the possibility of building a heavy water plant in Montmagny?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of these expenditures in the Montmagny area. Perhaps I could investigate this matter, but that remains to be seen.
[ English]


OIL-NATURE OF RESTRICTION BY ARAB STATES ON SHIPMENTS TO CANADA-REASON THEREFOR
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether there has been any information available to the government concerning the embargo on oil which has been imposed in respect of shipment to various countries by the Arab states? I mention particularly the United States, to which reference was made yesterday by Secretary of State, Dr. Kissinger and also by Mr. Porter, the Under Secretary of State. Has that embargo by the Arab states been applied in any way to Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, beyond what I said a few days ago in answer to a similar question I have no new news. Perhaps the answer might be supplemented by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, if he has anything to add.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, at the moment we have had no further indication of the intentions of the various states in this regard except that at least two of the principal exporting states have indicated their refusal to export to Canada by way of the Portland pipeline. Other shipments are being allowed to come to Canada, although there is an indication there will be a reduction in the over-all supply to the world community, a reduction in which we would share.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, will the minister say which Arab states have applied an embargo against Canada, and is the reason for that embargo that which applies to Holland, the United States and the other countries that have been placed in that position because of their suspected support of Israel?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I can say that the position taken by the Arab countries with regard to Canada is different from that taken with regard to Holland and the United States. The position taken with regard to the Portland pipeline is due, of course, to the fact that it is a destination in the United States and the Arab embargo applies to any shipments to that country, whether for consumption there or in transit. The basic position taken with regard to Canada is that we are not in the same category. Shipments will be made to Canadian ports such as Halifax, Saint John or Montreal, but there will be an over-all reduction in production and we will share in that.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it clear that so far as the Arab states are concerned the minister has been in touch with

them and there will be no reduction in the amount of oil exported to Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker, there will be a reduction, as there will be to the world community generally.


John George Diefenbaker: But other than that?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My present information is that there is no total embargo on Canada as there is on the United States.


PETROLEUM-TANKER TRANSPORTATION FROM VANCOUVER TO EASTERN CANADA-PROPOSED PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL-GOVERNMENT PREFERENCE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Everyone in Canada is concerned about the cost of crude petroleum and its by-products to the consumers and security of supply. Will the Prime Minister state clearly at this time whether it is the policy of his government to prefer the tanker route transportation of crude petroleum from Vancouver through the Panama Canal rather than the installation of an additional pipeline because the problem is not one of supply at the present time in Canada but one of transportation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the two courses have different time spans. The tanker route at this time is meant to try to meet shortages in eastern Canada; the pipeline to Montreal will only be operable in perhaps a couple of years time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to follow that up with another question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister said that another two years will elapse before the pipeline is ready. Will he categorically and unequivocally make it clear that the policy of the government now is to go ahead with the project and either motivate industry or find funds in another way to ensure that construction of the pipeline is started at this time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did indicate on September 4, indeed, before the Middle East crisis broke out, that our intention was to seek ways of having this pipeline to ensure security of supply in eastern Canada. Concrete measures to that effect will be announced in the usual way in the House of Commons by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


An hon. Member:: Several years too late.


PRICE OF CANADIAN CRUDE OIL AFTER EXPIRATION OF PRESENT PRICE FREEZE-POSSIBILITY OF STATEMENT AND LEGISLATION FOLLOWING MEETING WITH PROVINCIAL MINISTERS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In the course of discussions he has been having in recent days with representatives of the government of Alberta, did he reach an understanding
Oral Questions
with them that the price of Canadian crude oil will be raised by $1.50 a barrel after January 31 when the present price freeze expires?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We have reached no agreement with the government of Alberta on the matter of the crude oil price in the next year. That is one of the questions I would expect to be discussing when we meet tomorrow.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In light of the minister's reply that these matters will be discussed at the meeting which begins tomorrow of energy ministers from across Canada, may I ask the minister if, following that conference, he intends to make a statement to the House on Monday and does he intend at that time or soon thereafter to introduce legislation enunciating the government's oil policy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think I have already indicated to the House that I will be making a statement on Monday with regard to the emergency interruption of supply situation, and that would comprise any legislative measures that the government thinks, appropriate to deal with that situation. I cannot be certain that the statement will also cover the question of the long-term reconstruction of the Canadian oil market.


GOVERNMENT INTENTION RESPECTING POSSIBLE HEAVY WATER PLANT IN MANITOBA
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the minister's answer to the hon. member for Temiscamingue that no definitive decision has been made regarding the construction of a heavy water plant in Quebec, can the minister inform the House whether a decision has been made concerning the construction of a heavy water plant in Manitoba and what is the projected construction date?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the decision with regard to heavy water plant policy will be announced as a whole and will clearly cover the situation in western Canada as well.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: May I ask the minister whether he has a statement to make on whether Manitoba will be the site of a future heavy water plant or, if not, a statement as to his resignation from the cabinet?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that a question asked of a minister other than in his ministerial capacity is out of order.
26635-78J

November 22, 1973
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT POLICY-POSITION OF PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY GAS PIPELINE-TANKER SITUATION ON WEST COAST
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of his statement in Calgary that rapidly changing events in the international energy scene have prompted some rethinking of former federal positions and views on energy matters, will the government be scrapping last week's energy policy and, if so, when will they be giving us the features of the new policy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I have dealt with this very adequately in the presence of the hon. gentleman in the committee last week.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Colwell Bawden: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member resume his seat for a moment. I will recognize him on a supplementary. Hon. members know that there are quite a few members seeking the floor for supplementaries on this subject. Perhaps we should give some thought soon to turning to another subject. For the moment I see the hon. member for Calgary South.


Peter Colwell Bawden: I think the minister owes it to the House to answer questions for hon. members. I should like to ask him if he would reconsider and perhaps answer the question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I set out the position of the government as recently as last Wednesday, I believe, in the standing committee.


Peter Colwell Bawden: That is a week old.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman may not have understood, but that will come as no surprise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[La ter:]


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will answer this question. I asked a sensible question which is of interest to the country. I hope he will not again take the opportunity to preface each answer with an insult. In view of the minister's further statement in Calgary that recent events have opened up-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can ask the question directly without bringing in statements made outside the House. He is recognized for that purpose.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister what fresh areas of discussion have been opened up with the United States? Is the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline now dead, and will the minister state what the tanker situation is on the west coast? Are we beginning to fight or is the fight over?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the position of the United States, we are anticipating an

early meeting at the official level to follow on the meetings with Governor Love when he was in Canada earlier in the autumn. With regard to the tanker question, my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has, I think, dealt adequately with this in the House in past answers.


POSSIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTION OF NUCLEAR REACTOR IN MANITOBA
Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all the applause is on your behalf, not mine.


Some hon. Members:: So are we.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Mr. Nielsen:: Call him on the phone.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: My question is whether or not the Manitoba provincial government has approached the federal government or the office of the minister indicating that there is a possibility-er-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I am so used to watching the opposition I am getting into the same habit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I wish to ask the minister whether an approach has been made by the provincial government of Manitoba indicating that they are prepared to implement the construction of a nuclear generator plant in Manitoba?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, Manitoba officials and the Manitoba minister have indicated their interest in the possibility of a Candu reactor for that province but not until quite a bit later in this decade.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


LACK OF RAILWAY BOXCARS FOR MOVEMENT-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I change the topic to another crisis that occurs almost yearly. I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact the Canadian Wheat Board is experiencing
November 22, 1973

extreme difficulty in meeting delivery requirements and has to resort to shuffling contracts and orders because of the failure again of the railroads to provide sufficient boxcars for grain movement, what action has the minister taken to require the railroads to provide increased rolling stock and locomotive power immediately for the movement of grain?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members know that the railways face a problem in respect of allocating cars in a booming economy with demands at higher than usual levels in almost every area. The railways have come very close to the level of unloading they had anticipated, and we are looking with them at the question of whether they can indeed bring more boxcars into service. There are, of course, some cars which are available but need repairs. This might be expedited. We are looking at other means of trying to improve the situation. It is, of course, a fact that in a peak economy like this one can expect a certain stretching of the rail services just as one can the availability of steel and almost every other product.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister gave that kind of answer which leads to the next question. In view of the fact that terminals in Vancouver are less than half full and those at Thunder Bay have only about 30 million bushels of grain in store when their working capacity is double that, can the minister advise whether it is correct that over recent weeks the railways have had fewer cars in grain movement than they did several months ago or at the same time last year?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is correct to say there are fewer cars in the movement of grain at this particular point in time than there were a year ago because a year ago it was possible for our railways to divert to grain movement cars ordinarily dedicated to the movement of potash. However, because of the tremendous movement of potash from Saskatchewan this year these cars are remaining in that movement.


TRANSPORT
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, might I direct this supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that in the past ten years Canadian railways have reduced the number of railway cars suitable for the movement of grain and lumber from 88,000 to 48,000, a reduction of 40,000, and also in view of the chronic yearly shortage of equipment to move livestock, potatoes and other bulk commodities, does the government have any immediate program, either by requiring action on the part of the railways or by government action, to order and obtain rolling stock and locomotive power to meet the transportation needs of the country?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think I will have to verify some of the figures
Oral Questions
that have been cited. Notwithstanding that, I must say there was an effort this year to have an increase in all kinds of rail cars. Not only has the traffic increased but at the same time there was a strike that prevented the building of new cars. I will check into the figures and tell the hon. gentleman what we are doing in order to meet the needs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously there are a sufficient number of supplementaries on this subject to keep us going well beyond the question period. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Mackenzie and then the hon. member for Bellechasse.


POSSIBILITY THAT STATEMENT TO BE MADE BY PRIME MINISTER WILL AFFECT STOCK MARKETS
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the Prime Minister will be making his statement later in the day when the stock markets are closed, may I ask him whether the statement will contain something that will affect the stock markets of Canada and, if so, whether he has had consultation on this with the Minister of Finance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, I think this highly publicized television statement will affect the stock markets of Canada. I am sure investors in Canada will be pleased to learn that the Liberal government is going to stay in power for a long time yet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether there will be budgetary adjustments as a result of this statement?

[ Transla tion]


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
As the written press is quite an old medium of information, but always effective, and as it is quite important that newspapers do not become the prey of a monopoly, can the minister tell the House if he has been informed, one way or another, of the possible sale of the daily newspaper Le Soleil of Quebec City to the Power Corporation of Canada, Limited, which already controls many other newspapers? If so, can the minister tell the House if he intends to use his power to prevent the Quebec press from becoming a monopoly?

November 22, 1973
Oral Questions


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to make note of his question; I will answer it at a later date.

[ English]


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact it has become very apparent this week that the Canadian Transport Commission study of railway passenger service in southwestern Ontario is far different in scope and intent from what was indicated by the minister in response to questions over the last ten months in the House, can the minister tell us if he was ever aware of the terms of reference of the CTC study before it started and, if so-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt whether it is in order at this time to ask a minister if he was ever aware of a fact or a situation. That is hardly a proper way to put a question. Perhaps the hon. member might rephrase the question.


William Herbert Jarvis: In light of the fact that the minister and officials of the CTC have indicated that an important part of this study would be local consultation with the people in the area affected, and in light of the fact it became apparent on Tuesday of this week that no consultation had taken place, would the minister indicate whether he approved the study being conducted and completed without local consultation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is speaking about local consultation. I think it was stated before the standing committee by Mr. Benson that these consultations are going to take place and that the report will likely be ready in a few weeks.


INITIATIVE FOR MEETING BETWEEN FEDERAL AND ALBERTA MINISTERS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who has referred to the meeting he had in Calgary with a minister of the government of Alberta. Can the minister tell the House whether the meeting in Alberta was held on the initiative of himself and his department or on the initiative of the government of Alberta?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: At my initiative, Mr. Speaker.


TRANSPORT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that the lumber industry in central and northern British Columbia is losing $3 million a week and the fact that rookie Senator Ray Perrault announced in Prince George while he was representing the minister there during the opening of an airport terminal that there are a thousand brand new railway cars on the way up to Prince George to alleviate the problem, can the minister tell the House by what mode of transportation these rail cars are moving to Prince George? It has been a month, Mr. Speaker.


Jean Marchand: Before I answer this question, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read exactly what the senator said.

[ Translation]


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State.
On April 3 of this year, I asked him a question about a complete master plan for the extension of television and radio services in communities of at least 500 inhabitants The minister replied then that he was discussing these projects with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and would make a report to the cabinet.
Can he tell us if these consultations are finished and if he will soon announce the program approved by the cabinet?
[ English]


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard on that at the present time and I hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Because the temporary injunction of Mr. Justice Malouf upheld the argument of the native people of James Bay that irreparable damage would be caused to their way of life, and in view of the fact the appeal court did not refute this argument in
November 22, 1973

its decision to allow work to continue on the James Bay project, will the minister say what immediate action the government will take to ensure that no further irreparable damage is caused to the life style of these native people who come within federal jurisdiction?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the proceedings are going on. The Indians have announced that they intend to go to the Supreme Court of Canada and we cannot interfere with the courts. We will listen to the judgment of the court. In the meantime, the decision of the court today proved once more that we were right a year ago when we urged the two parties to negotiate a settlement. We are still negotiating, and I hope there will not be too many backseat drivers to interfere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, that vehicle has not got very far along the road yet. In view of the minister's expressed satisfaction with Mr. Justice Malouf's decision, will the minister undertake to appear at the appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada to support openly the Indian case if the native people request him to do so? Will he give that undertaking?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that a question asked in those terms can be acceptable procedurally as it is, of course, hypothetical.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the hon. member that there are no witnesses at those hearings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of the Environment and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact the diplomatic note from the government of Canada to the government of the United States concerning a moratorium on the construction of a dam and irrigation project in the state of North Dakota has been rejected by the United States government, since the construction continues, can the Prime Minister inform the House, in view of the very serious effects this could have on the rivers in Canada, what further action the government is going to take on this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take notice of the question on behalf of the ministers.
Oral Questions


William George Knight: In view of the fact the United States irrigation project could pollute the Red River and the Souris River within the jurisdiction of Canada, can the Prime Minister inform the House if the International Joint Commission and the Canadian members thereof have been instructed to indicate clearly Canada's opposition to the breaking of the Boundary Waters Treaty by the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say. Again, I will have to take note of the question on behalf of the ministers.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Due to the damaging charges made by the Canadian Airline Employees Association against Air Canada and its operations, will the minister order an independent inquiry to investigate the charges?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know what charges the hon. member is referring to.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The document was delivered to the minister's office this morning. In light of the criticism and complaints coming from the public, employees and members of parliament about the whole Air Canada operation, is the minister considering calling for the resignation of Mr. Pratte and his 18 vice-presidents?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker.


POSSIBLE REORGANIZATION OF SENIOR MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE-APPOINTMENT OF NEW PRESIDENT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of any initiatives currently being undertaken by the chairman of Air Canada to reorganize the senior management structure of the corporation, the results of which would modify the structure of the senior management so that a president would no longer be necessary?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can say is that I have had discussions with the chairman of Air Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we should limit supplementary questions. There are just two or three minutes left before the end of the question period. The hon. member may ask a supplementary and then I shall see the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the minister has had discussions with the chairman of Air Canada, is he in a position to announce a replacement for

November 22, 1973
Oral Questions
the president when his retirement becomes effective in December of this year?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN COASTGUARD


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport. May I thank him for the one year's reprieve he has given respecting the future of the Canadian Coastguard College, which he officially announced this week. In light of the very important statement by Premier Regan in Sydney recently that he is against any move of the Canadian Coastguard College to Ontario where they have no ocean, will the hon. gentleman advise if the premier has conveyed this viewpoint to him, and in what form?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great care to the representation made by the hon. gentleman in the name of the premier of Nova Scotia.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration following my question of last Tuesday. Is the minister aware that approximately 1,160,000 Canadians will be faced with a 98 per cent increase in their unemployment insurance premiums on January 1, 1974?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am so startled by the arithmetic the hon. member uses on so many different occasions that I will really have to put that through the Belleville computer.


An hon. Member:: It doesn't work.


An hon. Member:: You would never get it back.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. Since the minister has not checked it on his computer or any computer, is he aware of the growing hostility to the increase and will he now institute an inquiry to clarify this situation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.



QUEBEC-ALLEGED DELAY IN PROCESSING CLAIMS FOR BENEFITS

Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Manpower and

Immigration. As the backlog for evaluation of claims over one week old is now running between 25,000 and 30,000 in Quebec, can the minister tell the House what immediate action we can expect to solve this deplorable situation?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered the hon. member the other day, refuting the premise of the question. Again I ask him to give me specifics, the location and details of claim problems he has, and we will be very glad to deal with them.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. If the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized for a supplementary and then I will see the hon. member for Algoma and call orders of the day.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, if the minister refuses to accept my statistics or assertion, will he inform the House if he is informed of the backlog in evaluating claims over one week old and, if so, what is the reason and what will be done about them immediately?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will do more than that. I instructed the chairman, following the hon. member's question the other day, to contact him forthwith to get the specifics. It is very difficult indeed to deal with generalities of this kind.



REQUEST THAT FEASIBILITY OF BUILDING OIL PIPELINE FROM SAULT STE. MARIE TO MONTREAL BE STUDIED

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the advantages of building an oil pipeline through northern Ontario from Sault Ste. Marie to Montreal, will the minister ensure that a full evaluation and feasibility study of this route will be carried out before a decision is made on the location of the Montreal pipeline?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the considerations that will be before the government in making its decision.

[ Translation]



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
A verdict of not guilty has been delivered recently in an abortion case. When addressing the jury the judge asked
November 22, 1973

whether abortion could be performed at the mother's request, if the attending gynaecologist believes that the pregnancy is or can become dangerous or still if it must be performed to protect the mother's health. The terms "to protect the mother's health" enjoyed a very extensive interpretation during the trial. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to amend the Criminal Code in that connection?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government would certainly not want to leave a section of the Criminal Code open to interpretation. That is why we are happy to see that an appeal has been lodged in this case, and that the Appeal Court and, eventually, the Supreme Court may have to rule on the final interpretation of this section of the Criminal Code. In addition to this, I can only repeat what the minister and his parliamentary secretary have said, namely that if need be we shall consider the possibility of referring the case to the Supreme Court so that this matter may be settled as soon as possible.

[ English]



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Would the minister agree to alerting officers of the Unemployment Insurance Commission across the country so that they will record the number of football players applying for unemployment insurance benefits after the Grey Cup game?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This might be a good place to call orders of the day.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: They will all be from one team.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the absence of the official opposition House leader to ask the question he would ask on Thursday. Perhaps these could be taken as his words coming out of my mouth. What is the business for the rest of this week and next week?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, today we will begin the report stage on Bill C-176 and continue it tomorrow. Following that we will take the foreign investment review bill, the Parole Act, in parts, and the Canada Pension Plan
Oral Questions
Bill No. 1. I should like to discuss tomorrow the business for Monday and Tuesday in order to arrive at a firm decision as to the items to be considered among this assortment of legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader whether certain items are on the list for the period between now and Christmas. I refer to the competition act, to which reference was made a day or two ago by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to the amendments to the Canada Assistance Plan which have been agreed upon between the federal government and the provinces, and to the possibility of a petroleum supply allocation act. Will these matters, and a debate on the oil tax be before us between now and Christmas?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated items which I should like to have dealt with next week. In addition, there are a number of items before the standing committees, particularly the bill dealing with election expenses. As well, the Minister of Finance will be giving notice of a bill in the field of federal-provincial fiscal relations, and there probably will be two bills relating to the oil situation. Those bills are those I should like to see completed before we can rise for an adjournment or prorogation. I would only add the additions suggested by my hon. friend if I had some reasonable assurance that the list already on view has some chance of being cleared before that adjournment or prorogation.


Mr. Baker:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I note that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rose as if he were the opposition House leader. I wish to point out that, although the opposition House leader is absent today, the deputy House leader of the only opposition in the House is here today and was on his feet.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order. The question I asked was interpreted as a joke. It really was not a joke. A few days ago I had this question on the order paper and the minister indicated that the commission did not keep statistics of that kind. I suggest that is an area which must be investigated.


Mr. Danson:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys did not mean to make disparaging remarks against the people of Ontario when he said they did not have an ocean. May I point out to him that we have more international shoreline than any other province, with the possible exception of British Columbia.


Robert Muir: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, in reply to my good friend I can only say that I can understand why he has never gone farther than being a parliamentary secretary.

November 22, 1973
Protection of Privacy



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the 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:: As hon. members know, a large number of motions appear on the order paper relating to Bill C-176. There will have to be consulations, I am sure, between representatives of the parties as to how these motions might be grouped and how votes might be taken from time to time.
As a preliminary thought and, of course, subject to what hon. members may want to agree on later, I suggest that motions Nos. 1 and 2 be considered separately, and that votes be taken on each of them eventually; that the third item of business in relation to this bill should be motions Nos. 3, 4, 11, 12, 15 and 18, which might be grouped together for debate, subject, of course, to individual votes being taken on each one of them. Because these motions are so complicated and as there is such a close relationship between them, I suggest that they should be grouped as mentioned for purposes of debate. However, it would be helpful for the Chair if consultations were to take place in due course. For the moment, I suggest to hon. members that we might proceed with motion No. 1, in the name of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey). When that has been disposed of we will go to Motion No. 2. That ought to keep the House busy for some time, at least.


Otto Emil Lang: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments Your Honour has made about complications in relation to these motions. It would seem to me, however, that there is a certain order of priority which it might be reasonable to consider in relation to these motions. In particular, Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey), might logically be decided last by the House, because of its nature and because it might be affected by other developments. Motions Nos. 2 and 3 likewise would not be necessary if, for instance, the group of motions from No. 4 onward in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) were to be successful.
I submit there might be a grouping of a certain number of motions standing in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), beginning with motion No. 4, and subject to his comments, because I, too, have some difficulty in reading the grouping all together. I think the group which might be included in one debate and one vote with which we might start would include motions Nos. 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 16, 21 and 22. As I perceive it, they all involve the same principle. However, I would appreciate clarification from the hon. member for New Westminster on this point.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think Your Honour's suggestion would commend itself to most members of this House, namely that the order be Nos. 1 and 2 which bear resemblance one to the other. One deals with the title and the second with the subject matter. From there on, I think we should proceed in the order which Your Honour suggested. I think that would bring about an orderly discussion and debate. Certainly, motion No. 1 should be first, what should this bill be named. It is not like a bill in which the name is approved last because no one is raising any objection to it. If I may say so I feel Your Honour's suggestion was very wise, having regard to all the circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) was inclined to agree with the suggestion made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), that perhaps his amendment affecting the title might well be left for the last which would mean we would start with motion No. 2. I again seek the guidance of the hon. member.


Mr. Atkey:: Your Honour is quite correct with regard to motion No. 1 relating to the title. The title the bill takes is in large measure a reflection of the content of the bill. I think it is in the interest of all hon. members to see how the House is prepared to dispose of the other amendments before I proceed with my submissions with respect to motion No. 1. However, motion No. 2 is quite an independent matter. This point was argued in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I am quite prepared to proceed with motion No. 2 at the present time, if that is the wish of Your Honour and hon. members. I agree the other grouping of amendments subsequent to motion No. 3, that is motions Nos. 4 through 22, tend to group together, particularly the amendments standing in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). I think that is a separate debate, unrelated to the issue in motion No. 2. If it is Your Honour's pleasure and the wish of hon. members, I will proceed with motion No. 2 at the present time.


Mr. Leggatt:: Mr. Speaker, I heartily endorse what the minister suggested in terms of the grouping with the exception of one amendment, that dealing with the removal of the emergency permit. That is a separate issue. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has proposed a similar amendment. I feel those two could be dealt with at the same time. It would not be necessary to group the emergency permit amendment with the other amendments I have proposed which are basically the pure position, if I could put it that way, with regard to wiretapping under the Criminal Code.
In spite of what the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) has said, I support what the right hon. member said. I do not see why we should delay dealing with the question of the title. In my view, this is the more appropriate title in view of the nature of the bill and the likely outcome of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the difficulties, I suggest we agree with the suggestion of the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for St. Paul's in relation to motion No. 1. The hon. member who has the carriage of the action on
November 22, 1973

motion No. 1, has a responsibility, of course, in this respect. I think it would be in order to start with the hon. member's motion No. 2. We would then go on to motion No. 3 and the grouping suggested either by the Minister of Justice or the hon. member for New Westminster might be looked at a little more closely. My understanding of the grouping suggested by the minister is that motions Nos. 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 16, 21 and 22 might go together as part of the same debate. The hon. member for New Westminster pointed out that one motion might be left out of this proposed grouping. This might be the subject of discussions outside the House where it might be much easier to reach a decision.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we should not at this moment finalize the subsequent groupings. We can start with motion No. 2. If the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) is prepared to leave motion No. 1 until later, that resolves that issue. I would certainly like to see motions Nos. 3, and 4 in the same debate. I am a little reluctant to agree to eight or 10 motions being put together in one group because there are various issues. Since each member can speak only once on a group of amendments, there might be cases where the mover of several amendments might be wronged in that way. I support Your Honour's suggestion that the actual grouping beyond motion No. 2 be left until there have been some consultations through the usual channels.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their suggestions. We will proceed with motion No. 2 and, unless I am otherwise convinced, motion No. 3 will be dealt with separately as the next item of business. All the others can then be considered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On that very point, in Your Honour's first grouping you put motions Nos. 3 and 4 together. It seems to me that is a case of two being in the same area.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be looked at, as I suggested a moment ago.


Ronald George Atkey: That Bill C-176, to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 1 to 7 inclusive at page 2 and substituting therefor:
"''offence" means an offence under sections 47 (treason), 51 (intimidating Parliament or legislature), 52 (sabotage), 62 (sedition), 76.1 (hijacking aircraft), 76.2 (endangering safety of aircraft), 76.3 (offensive weapons on aircraft), 78 (breach of duty respecting explosives), 79 (causing injury by explosives with intent), 80 (possessing explosives without lawful excuse), 108 (bribery of judicial officers and legislators), 109 (bribery of public officers), 121 (perjury), 218 (murder), 247 (kidnapping), 303 (robbery), 305 (extortion), 306 (breaking and entering), 338 (fraud), 389 (arson), 421 (a)(b) (attempts, accessories) insofar as they relate to the above offences and 423(1) (a)(b) (conspiracy) insofar as it relates to any of the above offences, or an offence under section 4 (trafficking), and 5 (importing and exporting) of the Narcotic Control Act, and any pattern of other offences created by an Act of the Parliament of Canada for which an offender may be prosecuted by indictment where there are reasonable grounds to believe that such pattern of offences is part of the activities of organized crime, and includes any such offence that is alleged
Protection of Privacy
or suspected or that there are reasonable grounds to believe
may be committed;"
He said: Mr. Speaker, in all concern about necessary amendments to this bill, both at the committee stage and report stage, we must never forget that this bill contains three important prohibitions which are urgently needed now, regardless of what happens to the amendments. First, there is a provision that, for the first time, makes wiretapping and electronic surveillance a crime. Until this bill is enacted, electronic surveillance is legal in Canada except to the extent that it may violate the various telephone acts of the provinces. Second, this bill would make possession, sale or purchase of bugging devices a crime. Until this bill is enacted, regardless of what happens to the amendments, the possession, sale or purchase of those invidious devices is legal in Canada. Third, the bill would make disclosure of information obtained by unlawful bugging a crime. Until this bill is enacted, such disclosure remains legal in Canada. These are important protections for Canadians. They are needed now.
Speaking for the official opposition, we will not countenance any further delay of this bill. This bill has already had virtually three lives. It was first introduced over two years ago following the excellent report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of March 11, 1970. Obviously, the government has had other priorities. Frankly, it has not moved very quickly on this bill, yet the public concern over actual and potential threats of invasion of their privacy has grown by leaps and bounds. This is a concern felt in Canada, not only because of the implications of Watergate. A growing number of domestic incidents have tightened many Canadians, and I will take a moment or two in which to list some of these incidents.
We saw the shocking report last June and July in which the wiretapping of the office of the Mayor of Montreal was revealed; wiretaps were also placed on a member of the provincial government of Quebec, on a member of the public service commission in that province, and indeed, a member of the organizing committee responsible for the Olympics. There were other responsible public officials who found their privacy had been invaded. More recently, at the end of October, revelations came to light concerning the operations of certain police groups, as yet undetermined and unknown, in the Province of Quebec conducting what has become known as operation 95 directed against the St. Jean Baptiste Society and its members for doing that which is their right in this country, that is to say, expressing their political views. There was the unfortunate incident involving the bugging of the caucus room of one of the parties represented in this House, a matter which was dealt with swiftly and promptly by Your Honour and other members, the requisite apology being exacted from the television network concerned.
We saw also, in a program on that same network, evidence of the bugging of a union headquarters in Toronto. The persons doing the bugging were unseen, unnamed, but nevertheless very real. Then, just this week we find two members of the legal profession in Montreal complaining that their telephones had been tapped. Obviously, the privacy of communications between them and their clients had been violated, their conversations had been overheard

November 22, 1973
Protection of Privacy
and perhaps used, not only against the clients but against the lawyers. Just this morning we heard of yet another instance of telephone tapping in Montreal. This time it affected a book-publishing firm which may have published books deemed unacceptable by some police groups which did not agree with what was being printed or published.
These are shocking revelations, yet I am sure hon. member would agree that what we are reading about in all these newspapers in Canada represents only the tip of the iceberg. Electronic surveillance has been used by the police in Canada at all three levels, federal, provincial and municipal. It is an every-day tool of private investigators. It is used by persons involved in negotiating collective bargaining agreements in an effort to obtain an unfair advantage for one of the parties. It is used by various commercial concerns, even by car dealers and operators of dance studios who find it profitable to invade the privacy of actual or potential customers.
I sincerely hope the dangers of the invasion of privacy are now fully apparent to Canadians. Surveillance of this type can destroy the inner soul of an individual. In my work in my constituency, perhaps because of my association with the issue of wiretapping, I have been visited by many unfortunate victims, people who no longer feel they have any privacy, any anonymity, any solitude as is their right as Canadians in a free society. Rightly or wrongly, they believe they have been victims of a bug or a wiretap, and this has so preoccupied their minds as to render them unwell. I have been shocked by what I have seen.
The amendments before us are not directed to the three prohibitions I have outlined. I think we all agree that these prohibitions are useful and that they should be enacted into law as soon as possible. It is with respect to the exceptions to these provisions that disagreement has arisen. I am thinking, for example, of the range and scope of the powers granted to provincial attorneys general or to their agents, to the Solicitor General or his agent to seek authority by various means to invade the privacy of persons suspected of having committed certain offences. How wide should these powers be? What range of offences should be considered in connection with authorization under these provisions? What conditions should exist for judicial approval? Are there any emergency conditions under which judicial approval would not be required? Whether, indeed-as I am sure the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) will argue-there should be any exceptions to the general prohibitions for which the bill provides. The argument is centred on the question whether evidence obtained from an illegal tap, when the prescribed rules have not been followed, would be allowed to be used by the police in subsequent criminal proceedings. I am sure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) and others will wish to comment on this particular point, and I shall not go into the subject further at this time.
Addressing myself to the wording of motion No. 2, may I say that on July 17 of this year a similar amendment in my name was put before the standing committee. I want to be honest with hon. members and acknowledge that this amendment was put to the vote and that the result was a tie, the tie being broken by the vote of the chairman, a government supporter. So this is not the first time hon.

members who have been associated with the committee will be considering the suggestion contained in motion No. 2. What I was attempting to do then, and what I am attempting to do now, is to provide some form of rationale by which the exception allowed in the case of the attorneys general, the Solicitor General, or their agents, can apply to a particular range of offences in connection with which wire tapping or electronic surveillance might seem particularly appropriate.
This committee was controlled by a majority of supporters of the present government. The report reads:
As a general rule, the Committee recommends that each offence be one which carries with it the possibility of imprisonment upon conviction for a period of ten years or more. The Committee recommends that the criminal acts be named individually in the legislation, and suggests the following series of criminal acts as matters which should be included:
Then, the report lists the offences that I have listed in motion No. 2 and continues:
In addition, these methods of investigation should be employed in the suppression of narcotics trafficking and in the control of syndicated crime.
The list of offences that I have included in motion No. 2 were recommended by the standing committee in the last parliament. In addition, I have added several new offences that were not in existence at the time of that recommendation, those being the offences of hijacking aircraft, and endangering the safety of an aircraft by having offensive weapons aboard an aircraft. I have also added the offence of fraud, which is an important white collar crime in which in many cases wiretapping can perhaps be a useful device of law enforcement.
Then, to deal with the matter of syndicated crime, which was of great concern to the standing committee at the time and, I might add, was of great concern to many members of the standing committee in this parliament, I have added additional wording that was not in the original motion put before the standing committee. This wording reads as follows:
-and any pattern of other offences created by an Act of the Parliament of Canada for which an offender may be prosecuted by indictment where there are reasonable grounds to believe that such pattern of offences is part of the activities of organized crime-
So, Mr. Speaker, in addition to listing the 19 offences and adding to them fraud and the three hijacking or aircraft offences, I have added words that will meet the objects of the committee of the last parliament, and I hope the objects of the members of the committee of this parliament, to cover lesser indictable offences that do not carry the penalty of ten years or more but which nevertheless are part of a pattern of offences for which the use of electronic surveillance is a necessary law enforcement device. I think hon. members will remember in committee the example of bookmaking, which in itself is not a serious offence, yet clearly where it is part of a pattern of alleged or suspected offences it would be the proper object of authorized police electronic surveillance.
I should also indicate that the amendment that is now contained in motion No. 2 is different from the one put in committee in another sense. It is different because it
November 22, 1973

includes the words "offences which are alleged or suspected". When I put the motion in committee, I deleted those words, and I did so advisedly on the recommendation of a number of hon. members on the committee and also on the recommendation of one Ramsay Clark, who was one of the better witnesses appearing before the standing committee in the month of July. As hon. members know, Ramsay Clark was a former attorney general of the United States for a period up to 1968 and had particular views on wiretapping which were very useful to the members of the committee, which was much in his debt for the time, trouble and expense he undertook to come up here and share his thoughts and valuable experience with us.
By leaving in the words "alleged or suspected", I am concerned that the requirement that will trigger an application for authorization by the attorney general or his agent may be too minimal a requirement. Concern was expressed by the minister about the possible removal of these words, and I paid some heed to his concern. Concerns were expressed in the standing committee by Mr. Dagenais of the Montreal police about the fact that the activities of law enforcement officers to meet the serious problem of organized crime in the city of Montreal might be impeded unless the bill contained a particular phraseology permitting them to seek an application before a judge. It was my view, and it still remains my view at the present time, that with the words "alleged or suspected" the difficulties referred to in the evidence of Mr. Dagenais before the standing committee are largely overcome, and that the particular situation that the Montreal police found required the use of electronic surveillance is one in which they can name specific offences in the list, or those that are not on the list but are part of a pattern so long as they are alleged or suspected. I am sure that all hon. members agree that this is not a particularly onerous condition to meet.
Notwithstanding the recommendation of the standing committee of the last parliament, the government has brought in a bill in this parliament that does not pay heed to the recommendations to limit the range of offences. This has made the whole shooting match wide open because the government has used the term "all indictable offences". This includes not only virtually every provision in the Criminal Code but other federal legislation as well, where offences are created and under which there may be a procedure by way of indictment. As an example of the types of offences in regard to which the bill in its present form would allow an application for wiretapping authorization to be made, we have petty theft, income tax evasion, impaired driving, possession of marijuana, theft over and under $50, any of the offences created under the Combines Investigation Act, or any of the offences that would be created by the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) seems so anxious to have placed before the House and enacted.
The government's approach is really like using a shotgun when a rifle would do. I think it is unnecessarily wide and is an approach that should be avoided. This shotgun approach ignores the necessity for making the need fit the deed. Not only does it permit the minor offences that are listed to be made the object of an authorized electronic tap, but it would permit snooping into any field in the
Protection of Privacy
future in which the government chose to enter under its criminal law through the enactment of new indictable offences.
To conclude my remarks on motion No. 2, let me repeat that the majority of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of the last parliament saw fit to limit the range of offences. The committee was controlled by a majority of the supporters of the present government. The committee split seven to seven this time, and there were a number of members from various parties away from these particular sessions of that committee. I know some of the members of the committee who sit on the other side of the House were concerned that my initial amendment had not dealt with the problem of organized or syndicated crime, but I suggest that the amendment now before the House in motion No. 2 does deal with the problem of organized crime in the words that I have outlined earlier.
The Civil Liberties Association of Canada, which in many respects took an extreme position on the type of wiretapping legislation that we should have in this country, said they would specifically name the range of offences for which wiretaps could be authorized. I had always understood that it was a fundamental principle of criminal law that, wherever possible, in drafting a statute an attempt is made to name specific offences. This is the inclusionary approach to drafting, not the exclusionary approach. It is essential that it be followed here if this bill is to provide a rational and reasonable restriction on government use of electronic snooping.
I implore, indeed I plead with hon. members, particularly those opposite who considered this matter at length on July 17 in the standing committee, to consider the terms of the present draft amendment now before us in Motion No. 2. I am confident that on full reflection of the implications of this draft they will be able to say that this is a reasonable and rational restriction of the power to proceed, through the Attorney General or his agent, the Solicitor General or his agent, before a judge to get authorization to tap. Let us not use a shotgun approach, a wide unnecessary approach, when a more rational approach is available to us in the particular amendment we have before us.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in introducing his motion, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) ranged far and wide over the field. I suppose that may be permissible in the first speech on this matter, but I hope it will not turn out to be the pattern. We do not know that all the cases he has mentioned dealt with wiretapping by police or whether some criminal organization was involved. In any event, my point is that the very purpose of this bill is to prevent such wiretapping taking place. Under this bill wiretapping will not be permissible either by the police or anybody else in our society unless it falls within the four corners of this legislation. That surely is the important point before us.
I fully appreciate the efforts of the hon. member for St. Paul's to meet the arguments which were advanced in the committee against the amendment he moved at that time, which was unsuccessful. He now recognizes that there does have to be something which takes account of the

November 22, 1973
Protection of Privacy
problems that arise in our society as a result of organized crime. He also recognizes that it is necessary to have a somewhat broader extension than he was proposing at that time.
In effect, what we have before us is not a shotgun approach by the government, it is a careful approach. If it errs, it errs on the side of safety and caution rather than rushing in to adopt what might turn out to be a very arbitrary limitation on the possibilities of legitimate police wiretapping in our society.
I was a member of the justice committee which considered this matter under special reference several years ago. To the best of my recollection I supported the recommendation which was made at that time, and I still support it. This does not mean I am without considerable difficulty in respect of the hon. member's amendment.
The committee said, after urging that the crimes should be named, and I would, by the way, accept that as a very desirable principle:
In addition, these methods of investigation should be employed in the suppression of narcotics trafficking and in the control of syndicated crime.
The committee was not acting as a drafting body at that time; it was presenting a concept of syndicated or organized crime. I would submit that Mr. Atkey, as drafter, has not met the fairly heavy onus of defining for us what "organized crime" means. This is not a light problem. The first question that arises is what precisely is syndicated crime. It is very hard to give a satisfactory answer to this question. Whether our consideration is in terms of the phrase "syndicated or organized crime," the committee used the phrase "syndicated crime", and Mr. Atkey-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The amendment by the hon. member for St. Paul's refers to the phrase "organized crime" but this does not go any distance toward helping us see what the exact ambit is, or what factors the courts would be expected to apply in deciding whether certain actions fall within "organized crime". Does it depend on the number of persons involved and, if so, what number? Does it depend on the time frame of the activity and, if so, what length? Perhaps it should be a mixture of the number of persons and the time frame, but if so how does one determine the nature of the mixture? Is geography relevant? Are three men running a bookmaking establishment out of an apartment in Hamilton involved in organized crime? If not, would the same three men operating in partnership out of three different cities, say Hamilton, Calgary and Vancouver, fall within the phrase "organized crime"? At what point, for example, does using the mails to defraud, or engaging in a fraudulent manipulation of stock exchange transactions, the nature of which is not included in the list of crime presently, become organized?
I know, of course, that the phrase "organized crime" is in common usage, but it is a colloquial phrase that may be suitable for administrative use by investigative bodies, or suitable in ordinary conversation, but I seriously question whether it is suitable for legislation to be passed by this House. It was with considerations of this kind in mind that, even though the Department of Justice would have

had fully in mind the recommendation which the committee made, it was decided that the only workable solution was to define the offence as an indictable offence. In other words, this is the best limitation which it was thought could be put on the definition of an offence. This formula resulted in an elimination of provincial offences and federal summary conviction offences. It was considered that this was the narrowest that the definition could be made and still prove effective in answering the problem.
It will not now, for instance, be possible to get authorization in relation to a person suspected of using his telephone to make indecent or harassing telephone calls, because both offences are punishable on summary conviction.


Ronald George Atkey: It is the same under this bill.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Yes, that is true, but that was the point I was making.
Continuing with the discussion on the amendment, in addition to the problem with the phrase "organized crime", there also are some problems in respect of the list of specific offences. For example, the amendment includes trafficking in narcotics under the Narcotic Control Act, but not possession for the purpose of trafficking. It does not include the offence of trafficking in speed and other drugs dealt with under the Food and Drugs Act. I have no doubt that these omissions are deliberate, but this is an indication of the fact that the ambit is not as great as many members would wish. No mention is made of counterfeiting.
There is the concept of pattern of offence, but what does this phrase mean? What constitutes a pattern? The use of such phrase in relation to the phrase "organized crime", could be seen as simply piling vagueness upon vagueness. While it is true that the criminal law desirably should be specific in respect of mentioning crimes, it should also be as specific as possible in respect of definition.
I suggest that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. Paul's also raises the same problem for, while he criticizes the bill, his amendment contravenes the same rules because it, too, is vague. I believe it is not a solution to the problem which we recognize as well as does the hon. member for St. Paul's.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey). I think the position we take on wiretapping has to a great extent been weak-kneed. I think we should have more courage, although I believe this to be a step in the right direction; the limiting of offences.
It was interesting to hear today on the news that two solicitors in Quebec reported that a wiretap was found in their offices. No one knows where the wiretapping devices came from but both barristers were engaged in the practice of criminal law. This is a very serious thing. With that in mind, I looked at the bill this morning and asked myself whether what we are discussing in this House would prevent that kind of abuse. What I want to show is that if this bill passes in its present form that kind of abuse would not be corrected.
November 22, 1973

If we look at the existing definition of an offence under the bill we find this:
"offence" means an offence created by an Act of the Parliament of Canada for which an offender may be prosecuted by indictment and includes any such offence that is alleged or suspected . .
Most lawyers pay income tax.


An hon. Member:: We all do.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Some pay more income tax than others.


Mr. Alexander:: You are right on there.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It is not unknown in the history of this country that persons have paid their legal fees over the counter and have not received a receipt. If there is a probability that such a person may be evading income tax payments, under the terms of this legislation authorization could be obtained, and likely would be obtained for a wiretap. If such evidence came to hand, and if there were some reason for suspicion, then if such authorization were obtained that criminal lawyers' line could be tapped and any of his clients who happened to phone that particular criminal lawyer would have their conversations tapped and would be liable to prosecution. In such a situation, the whole question of the matter of privilege between solicitor and client becomes eroded.
I am pleased to see that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) covers this. He has not provided an offence in respect of the Income Tax Act. In fact, the criminal law provides that any violation of a federal statute, when not otherwise specified, is an indictable offence. Therefore, when one considers the question of how much wiretapping the bill as it now stands prevents one finds that it prevents very little. There has been some improvement. The bill will reduce to some extent the use of the wiretap, but there is no question that as the bill presently stands it is an open invitation to just as extensive wiretapping as we now have.
I do not know whether the hon. member for St. Paul's obtained the answers he requested, but it is interesting to note the questions he asked. One of his questions dealt with the number of taps that had been placed during the fiscal year 1972-73 by the RCMP. As I recall the figure, there were 663 taps placed and, as a result of those 663 taps, four prosecutions were developed. Two of those four prosecutions were successful. The percentage rate of success is one-third of one per cent in respect of 663 wiretaps. If one were to take those 663 wiretaps into consideration and imagine the number of people who would use a particular phone in a particular room which contained an electronic device, one would come up with a figure of perhaps 250,000 conversations which were listened to as a result of those taps.
What is even more significant is another question the hon. member for St. Paul's asked. He asked how many of those taps would have been prevented by this bill. The answer was 129. That is why I stand here criticizing this bill. It is entitled "the Protection of Privacy Act". The purpose of the bill is to protect the right to privacy. I submit it simply does not do that. You know, there was a book published a long time ago called "1984" by George
Protection of Privacy
Orwell which has been referred to many times. In ten years it will be 1984. It is later than we think. All the devices that were shown in that book are now within the capability of our electronic industry. The subtle oppression that results from the use of wiretapping is very hard to measure but becomes overwhelming.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker), a long time ago, introduced, to the delight of civil libertarians all across the country and with congratulations from this party, his own party and from I think the government party, a Bill of Rights. In that Bill of Rights clause 1(d) provided that every person in this country shall have freedom of speech. One way in which we lose freedom of speech is through the fear that we may be listened to. That lack of freedom comes about through the use of self-censorship. One cannot have a frank conversation with someone over the telephone if one is not sure whether or not the telephone is tapped. If you were to ask the people in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, if they believed their conversations had ever been tapped, I think they would probably say yes. That belief may be false, but that is not the point. The point is that when these electronic devices are used they become insidious. This practice infringes not only on the rights of those being overheard but also on the rights of those who may think they are overheard. That is the key to our criticism of the bill.
To return to amendment No. 2, I hope this party will support it. I know I will. I believe it improves the bill substantially. If we allow the police to use this device in respect of a wide range of offences, we may find that they are occasionally successful. We have seen, according to the figures produced by the RCMP, that the rate of success is one-third of one per cent. On balance, we must consider what we lose by means of this electronic toy. We must ask whether these convictions would have occurred in any event. We must ask ourselves what better investigatory means were abandoned and not used, such as the undercover agent, which has been infinitely more successful in respect of the rate of conviction in the drug field.
The situation may become similar to the one related to the use of the motor vehicle. When the motor vehicle was first used by the police, it was very effective in preventing crime. When the motor vehicle first appeared, it was found to be convenient and enabled the police to get around faster. Today, possibly the police would be more efficient if they did not rely so much on the motor vehicle. Perhaps there would be better law enforcement if we could get the police into the communities and out of their cars. This device is wasteful of a police officer's time. It is expensive, inefficient and extremely unsuccessful. A very complete study was made by Dr. Schwartz of New York University. It was found that most of these devices were used in respect of gambling. The reason was not clear but perhaps one reason was that someone wished to make sure that the guy on the beat was getting a pay-off.
In any event, these devices were used for the detection of gambling offences, in vice cases and for all of the consensual types of crime. The success rate was insignificant, but the effect was to erode the cherished possession of privacy each time they were used. People say that you cannot be an absolutist on the subject; you must have

November 22, 1973
Protection of Privacy
some balance. In the case of organized crime, and because of the rising crime rate, we should use every tool at our disposal. People say that if wiretapping is immoral, surely the underworld is immoral and we should be fighting fire with fire. These arguments can be very persuasive.
But there is another proposition that is vital to any civilized society and it is this: the rule of law is founded on the proposition that governments can protect their people without acting unfairly and immorally in any respect. We cannot have a lawful society unless we have respect for the law, respect for those who enforce the law, and respect for the means by which they enforce the law. I have never heard anyone suggest that wiretapping is anything but a dirty business. It is immoral, and to justify it you had better show some results. The sacrifice we are making of our privacy must be justified by the conviction rate. However, the statistics do not support that position.
I ask you, then, to consider the situation. If you examine the statistics and the studies that have been carried out with regard to the use of wiretapping, I think you will come to the conclusion that it should not be used or certainly should be severely limited, as the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) is attempting to do in this amendment. We heard some evidence from the former attorney general of the United States when the committee was dealing with this bill. I do not think there are many people who are as eminent in terms not only of fighting crime but also in understanding the importance of maintaining this balance between civil liberty and crime detection. Incidentally, he was one of the most successful attorneys general in terms of attacking the crime rate in the United States. This is what he said in committee:
I would be particularly disturbed with the bill that you have before you because I do not find in it any limitation as to the types of crimes in connection with which it can be used. Our first bill in 1961, as I recall, had only about six areas in which wiretapping could be used, and they were obviously serious crimes and they were obviously also crimes in which some reasonable argument of the effectiveness could be made.
Mr. Clark was concerned, I think the members of our party are concerned, and I am hopeful that the proposed amendment will be successful in the House.


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, having had the honour of chairing the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in its very interesting proceedings on this important bill and having had to operate under the restraint that is placed upon a chairman and yet being very interested in the subject matter at hand having been a defence counsel, this is a welcome opportunity for me, now that we are out of committee stage, to try to contribute to the debate.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) say that there is ready agreement on the need for the bill and for a basic prohibition against wiretapping. While the agreement on the second important ingredient was not unanimous, it was clear fairly early in the proceedings that there would be amendments at the report stage. It is always unfortunate, of course, that amendments colour the views of members who propose subsequent amendments at a later stage. However, we must try to pick an order of discussion as best we can.

Certainly, an important set of amendments in the early stages of the discussion was a series of amendments to eliminate the possibility of police doing any wiretapping at all. That is the second important area of agreement which, as I said, was not unanimous, but it became clear, after agreement on the need for general prohibition, that a total ban, including the police, would not enjoy the support of the majority of members of the House. So, we were early aware that all members of the House wanted a prohibition on wiretapping and that a vast majority of members wanted to ensure that the police would be left with the power to use that electronic weapon in their fight against crime, be it organized or other. The difficulty, of course, brings us to the third area, which is the conditions, restrictions or safeguards under which the police would be entitled to use that power.
The amendment that is before us at present is one of a series of amendments that are designed to cut down on the conditions and restrict the powers of the police in their use of this electronic device. I opposed this kind of amendment. As was mentioned in the speech of the hon. member for St. Paul's, I cast the deciding vote against this type of amendment, although it has been altered somewhat since.
I am still opposed to amendments such as the one put forward here for several reasons, the first being that it is a categorical rather than descriptive or generic kind of definition. I am troubled by that because, as this kind of amendment was put forward in the committee, although the proposer of the amendment has tried to be exhaustive in his categories, it was apparent that one or two important categories were not included. I am always fearful of a categorical type of section such as this one listing specific offences because that can cause problems for the police in their day to day work and may not include all the offences. Some came to light in the committee and, I submit, as the bill is put on the statute books it will become increasingly clear that other areas may be left out, with all the best intentions.
That is the basic objection that I have to this kind of categorical definition section. The definition section now in the bill is one which describes in a generic way serious indictable offences, and that is as it should be. I think, for example, that there is nothing in the present amendment that would permit the use of wiretapping by police if they were looking at a professional auto thief, unless they were able to say he was connected with organized crime or he showed a pattern of offences. I will have more to say on the pattern of offences in a moment. It is a difficult term to understand. However, there are problems about gambling, prostitution, a person living off the avails of prostitution and supported wholly by it, problems of customs smuggling or counterfeiting, problems that we see today in the construction industry where there is an investigation by the provincial government of Ontario involving what may not amount to extortion but might involve dishonesty, corruption and breach of trust by a person who holds an office that is not a public office and therefore would not be covered by the definition section. There are problems of mortgage inspectors with private companies who do not hold public office, who might receive some kind of payment which would not amount to extortion, would not amount to bribery but would amount to dishonesty or straight theft. There are these categories
November 22, 1973

that are left out, Mr. Speaker. It is just a basic principle that a definition section which is made to appear like a grocery list is always bound to leave out something important.
In addition to that, a concern that we have in our fight against crime, which is something that I think all hon. members have to take into consideration as well, is the fantastic imagination of criminals today. Indeed, I am sure they are inventing offences that are not even in the Criminal Code. The imagination and cleverness of criminals is something that is not taken into account in this kind of definition section. I like to think of the other safeguards contained in the bill where the police, or the attorneys general as the case may be, or their agents-and here another amendment will be coming forward on whether or not they will be agents-have to make applications to judges for permission for police forces to wiretap. We will be talking about other restrictions on applications to wiretap.
Reference has been made to a generic definition of indictable offences. The hon. member for St. Paul's theorized that indictable offences include minor theft and a number of offences that take place on a day to day basis. He mentioned impaired driving, to reduce the argument to absurdity, but he is totally overlooking the fact that an application must be made to a judge. Is it likely that an attorney general, with a generic definition section such as that contained in the bill, would have the nerve to make an application to a judge to use wiretapping on an impaired driving investigation or a minor theft or common assault or any other offence that you could list if you want to use that side of the argument? Of course, it is not. No attorney general would make that kind of application. Even if he had the temerity to do it, surely no judge would grant an application unless the offence contemplated was of such a serious nature as to warrant that kind of electronic intervention. I think that kind of safeguard makes sense, and with that sort of safeguard in mind, I think it is weakening the quality of the bill to adopt this kind of categorical definition section.
I also ask hon. members to look ahead to the time when we will be dealing with amendments with regard to giving notice to persons who are not charged and to the form of charge that is delivered to a person if an investigation is carried out under this definition section. If the investigators are tied to one of these categories and make their application for permission on the basis of one of the categories contained in the amendment before us and then, in the course of that investigation they uncover facts which lead them to an indictment for something that is a related offence but is not contained here, they could be in great trouble in attempting to come to trial. It could be that the order for a wiretap would be ruled out by virtue of the fact that they did not proceed specifically within these categorized definitions. If that were the case, I think it would place an unnecessary procedural burden on the investigators who might have uncovered a closely related offence to one of these categories, close enough that it would not be in any way unethical for them to carry out the investigation or to proceed with the other indictment but yet, because of these categorical definitions, I could
Protection of Privacy
see that they might be in great difficulty in attempting to get that evidence introduced at trial.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, I think that with the safeguards that are built in, and I refer not only to the application by the attorney general to the judge but also to the serious penalties that would be visited upon investigating officers who violated the provisions of this act, such as imprisonment or dismissal, I submit there is absolutely no danger in leaving the police at least this power.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I also note that the definition section which is put forward in the amendment is, in its first part, a list of specific offences in order to get around the alleged evil of the definition in generic terms in this bill. Then, in the last part, the amendment goes back to precisely the same kind of generic terms that are contained in the definition section of the bill. I think what happens is that we have now got the worst of both worlds. We are saddled with the shortcomings of the categorical definition in the first part of the amendment and then, in the second part of the amendment, we are faced with words which are subject to precisely the same complaints the hon. member made about the definition section in the bill.
I submit therefore, that far from improving the definition section in the bill, this amendment weakens it severely and weakens the quality of the bill. That is the reason I voted against it in principle in committee, Your Honour, and the reason I would vote against it in the House.
[ Translation]


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I considered the amendment introduced by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) and I tried to fit it in Bill C-176, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act.
The proposed amendment seeks to change the definition of the word "offence" contained in the bill and the hon. member for St. Paul's tried to define the cases in which the use of electronic devices could be allowed. He did so very specifically.
Mr. Speaker, in the bill as it stands the word "offence" is defined in a very general way. There is nothing specific and it includes everything. On that I will agree with the hon. member who spoke before me. Mr. Speaker, I think the bill would be weakened if those cases were specified.
I understand what the hon. member for St. Paul's wants to do. He would probably want to limit the effect of the bill while agreeing with the principle of its use but, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that definition should not include the details of all possible cases. A general definition of what is meant by offence would be preferable.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with this problem as it applies to the whole bill. This bill seeks to define clearly the use of electronic listening devices. It seeks to set out very clearly the cases in which a listening device could be used and the offences resulting from the use of such devices in certain cases.
Mr. Speaker, I am particularly concerned about clause 178.15(1), at page 7, and clause 178.13 (1), at page 5. Those two clauses give the political power the authority to intervene in the issuance of a permit with respect to the use of

November 22, 1973
Protection of Privacy
a wiretap. Mr. Speaker, that frightens me. We all know the very clear connections that exist between the judicial power and the political power.
In my opinion, everybody will agree that it is not advisable to have such a link between political and legal circles. However, Mr. Speaker, the problem is extremely serious and I remember that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) in one of his interventions at the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs specifically raised, in connection with an amendment, the case of two members of the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste who had been involved in such a problem.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how anyone acknowledging that the use of a wiretapping device and its principle for the protection of society and an efficient administration of justice are valid can go as far as to allow a political power to use a wiretapping device for political purposes.
Without suggesting that it was done for political purposes, I wish to point out that another case has been recently reported. Someone referred to the case of the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society and the more recent one of the Quebec Free Press Agency. Bugging could be also used, as was experienced within the scope of the radio and television program for the caucus of the New Democratic Party. The same could happen to those of the Social Credit Party, the Progressive Conservative Party and the Liberal Party.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that this power is dangerous. It is the duty of political authorities to set up legal mechanisms which could really guarantee the protection of society and the safety of individuals instead of putting them in jeopardy, for this is a two-edged sword. This leads me to say that I concur with the principle of using bugging devices in the process of the administration of justice.
As for safeguarding freedom and respect for the human person, I think we must impose limitations; we must be very cautious and provide for some sort of guarantee concerning the use of these devices.
In Quebec, there has been discussion about the adoption of a code of ethics regarding the use of listening devices. It seems to me that we should consider this possibility; I do not pretend this code is either good or bad, but I think it is important to adopt a code of ethics, even at the national level, in order to determine what are the legal and practical possibilities as regards the use of wiretaps.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to close my remarks and come back later to the main principle of this bill. I want to say that the fight against organized crime is, in fact, the main objective of this bill, which intends to give policemen a means of fighting organized crime.
I would like to be ensured beforehand that all other means have been used; furthermore, I do not know if the Quebec police forces as well as others in the rest of Canada have in fact the technical, financial and manpower resources to really fight organized crime efficiently. In many municipalities, in many police forces, equipment as well as personnel and money is lacking to fight efficiently organized crime. And I do not think that the use of wiretaps will improve the fight against this scourge.

It is a means rather that is now being abused right and left and that they want to legalize. In my opinion, wiretaps are a kind of prop or sore which we are trying to regulate legally by saying that they will be used in such or such set circumstances as established by the law. I agree in a way, but we will have to go much further. Everybody knows that, at the industrial level, a lot of spying is done from company to company. Therefore, private industry will have to be protected by assessing very high fines.
Mr. Speaker, concerning the motion of the hon. member for St. Paul's, it is not necessary to provide for all situations in the definition of the word offence, but rather to make a rational use of wiretaps while at the same time retaining and not limiting the powers of the law.
In concluding, I should like to mention one of the fundamental principles contained in this bill at clause 178.11 (2)(a), and I quote;
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;
In that case, Mr. Speaker, wiretapping is allowed, which seems in complete opposition to the objectives of this bill. I therefore hope that the House will keep an open mind about this bill, as we shall certainly advocate, because we must obviously provide our police forces with means to fight effectively against organized crime; but we do not believe that this will really solve the problem since our prisons in general teach crime and absolutely nothing is done to prevent juvenile deliquency and organized crime.
With this bill, we shall simply be legalizing a situation of which everyone is aware, that is wiretapping, which will not solve the problem. Rather we shall simply be legalizing a situation which everyone finds embarrassing.
I shall therefore continue to insist that this bill should not allow the political authorities to use wiretapping for political purposes. One day, we shall have to segregate completely the judicial and political powers. At that time, it may be possible to hold positive discussions about wiretapping without any fear that it may be used for political ends.
[ English]


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, it is always a delight to listen to the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin). He speaks so eloquently that it makes me sad to see him so often on the wrong side of an argument, as he is this time. I say that with regret. I think he may change.
I am sorry the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) is not present in the chamber, although I understand he is within listening distance. He said he has acted as defence counsel. I only hope that when he practised law in his community he had a better client than the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), who is seeking to introduce some changes with respect to this bill. The best we can say of the Minister of Justice is that he is probably guilty, but can plead extenuating circumstances.
That reminds me of a story. Some years ago I was in Los Angeles and heard a story told by a judge of the superior court. Apparently he was standing outside the court house in Los Angeles, which we see so often on television, and met one of his lawyer friends rushing into court. He said,
November 22, 1973

"Well, John, are you going to see justice done?" The lawyer said, "Hell, no, I would like to win one for a change."


Mr. Wagner:: Really, really.


Gerald William Baldwin: I see the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) looks pained.
I listened with interest to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). I read the committee reports. The committee was good and did a commendable job. It worked hard on this difficult and complex problem, heard witnesses and, from time to time, divided on some issues. This remarkably good committee was composed of members such as the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather), the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey), and other members from our side. The hon. member for New Westminster was a valuable member of that committee.
The hon. member for New Westminster talked about, "Nineteen Eighty-Four" in connection with this bill. I do not know how often he has read the book; I commend frequent readings. Many years ago I had a good friend who was a member of the CCF party. I sent him a copy of the book. He read it once and said he enjoyed it; he read it again and joined the Conservative party, and has been a good member ever since. I recommend to the hon. member for New Westminster that he take another look at the bill, because then we may hear him gently tapping on our door some day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not the hon. member; he is a strong man.


Gerald William Baldwin: I support the recommendations of the hon. member for St. Paul's. I suggest that we add clauses 178.11 and 178.18 to the list of clauses which ought to be considered seriously. These are the two clauses in the bill which provide that illegal wiretapping shall be an indictable offence. We might add these clauses to the list so that they, in turn, can be the subject of wiretapping, so to speak.
Seriously, Mr. Speaker, many people are saying this debate is a lawyer's delight, that lawyers are engaging in this debate, that it involves a complicated legal subject and so on. Some suggest that the rest of the members have fled from the House. I do not think that is the case. If it were true, it would be a sad commentary on this parliament.
This is a serious bill, involving serious principles.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. member may laugh, but I think I am correct. I am not talking about any particular amendment when I say this; I am talking about the whole bill. We must be ever vigilant to see that the liberties of the people are not filched from them without their knowledge, silently and stealthily, until some day they wake up and find they have lost a great deal of their liberty. What was done in the name of ideology 30 or 40 years ago will illustrate the truth of what I say. I am not imputing any sinister motives of that sort to anybody.
Protection of Privacy
How frequently, in the name of attempting to provide weapons for those involved in law enforcement agencies, have we taken away rights which are essential for the preservation of things people hold dear? Democracy, liberty and freedom are not that old. Mankind became a walking, thinking animal half a million years ago. However, we have only had these freedoms for 150 years. Now, we have a steady encroachment. We have seen that in this House in the extent to which the rules of this House have been altered to deprive members of the opportunity to discharge their responsibilities to their constituents and the people of this country. We have seen how easily this happens. Although they will not say it publicly, there are members opposite who agree with me. However, I will not go into that.
We must bear in mind that a jurisprudence will grow out of this particular bill. It will not be done quickly and easily. Judges called upon to interpret sections of the act will not be allowed to look at what was said here. They will build up their own jurisprudence. A number of decisions will be made which will have the effect of placing interpretations on this act. It will be brought back to this House within several years because of these interpretations. In sending this forth as our act, let us not be too free with the liberties we are giving away.
I say to members opposite that there should be a clearly defined category of those cases, instances, charges and sections in the Criminal Code for which law enforcement authorities are entitled to secure an authorization to engage in electronic surveillance of private communications as defined in the legislation. The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) mentioned things which may be done by the authorities which may involve the use of material gathered by electronic surveillance. One very strong reason for suggesting there should be a clear, well defined list of offences for which authorization to wiretap may be sought is that it will have the effect of limiting the extent to which law enforcement agencies and others may be tempted to go outside the lawful means by which they can engage in electronic surveillance.
We must not kid ourselves. It is utter nonsense for us to stand here and say we have laid down rules and the police will abide by them. I hold no brief for or against the police. They are a very important and useful segment of our society. They have an extremely and important function in the order of our society. However, they are part of an adversary system. There is no doubt in the minds of any of us who have been involved in the practice of law that, being part of the adversary structure, they will from time to time make improper use of the powers granted under this act. One dare not look at the amendment offered by the hon. member for St. Paul's without at the same time, taking into account what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) is seeking to do by some of the amendments he will be offering.
Recently, I have been more interested in this. I have heard it suggested that the only cases where we may envisage an illegal application of the powers granted will be where the police decide for certain reasons they will engage in electronic surveillance and then not do anything

November 22, 1973
Protection of Privacy
about it. However, as I read the bill, together with the amendment which the Minister of Justice will offer at a later stage of this debate which seeks to drag back some of the benefits which were obtained in the course of the committee hearings, it will be possible for police officers, public officers, peace officers and private individuals to engage in electronic surveillance. Granted, it will be illegal, but they will engage in this kind of activity. If the Minister of Justice has his way, the evidence obtained, even though improperly elicited, can be offered in a trial to take place at a later date, not necessarily a trial related to the issue in respect of which the electronic surveillance took place. Such a trial could be in respect of one of the acts referred to in the amendment of the hon. member for St. Paul's, namely sabotage, hijacking, causing injury by explosives and so on.
Assuming the amendment of the hon. member for St. Paul's were not passed, if the electronic surveillance took place in respect of one of those offences and disclosed other facts, if then under the minister's proposal those facts could be used in respect of charges laid with regard to any other matter, whether it be an indictable offence, summary offence or civil action. It could be any civil action as long as it involved a federal statute such as the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act or expropriation proceedings. There would be no limit to the use which could be made of facts and evidence elicited directly or indirectly as a result of electronic surveillance, even though illegally obtained, if the Minister of Justice gets what he is seeking to secure in the amendment he will offer at a later stage.
I say, as strongly as I can, that in considering our position on this amendment, we must take into account that we should do all we can to direct the law enforcement authorities, when exercising the powers granted to them, to use care and discretion. One way of doing that would be to limit the number of offences in respect of which an application can be made for authorization under the act. We will be saying to the law enforcement agencies that this parliament is granting power to make it legal for you to do things which were probably illegal before, but in doing so we fear that it may be improperly used. We fear there may be an abuse or wrongful use of the power we are granting to you. As an indication of our concern, we are enacting a code in respect of what actions and alleged offences you may proceed with at this time. I think that would be a very salutary position for this House to take at the present time.
I would hate to see this legislation go out as presently worded without the amendment offered by my hon. friend from St. Paul's. I say to my hon. friends that when they come to consider how to vote on this amendment they should not fail to take into account the breadth of the authority we are granting by this legislation, and we should use the greatest possible discretion. The limitations which my hon. friend has proposed commend themselves to me, and I hope they commend themselves to sufficient members that when the time comes to divide on the motion the bill can be suitably improved. I think that even the Minister of Justice, in time, will say thanks to the hon.

member for St. Paul's for his efforts to make this a better bill.


Otto Emil Lang: I am pleased to follow the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I notice that he ended more kindly than he began. That is the fortunate thing about his status in the House of an elder statesman; he is mellowing and cannot sustain an attack throughout the whole of a 15 minute speech. Now, I await his remarks always with great anticipation and some pleasure.
In putting forward this amendment, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) referred to a matter which is of fundamental importance. The bill before us introduces into law a significant improvement in the protection of the liberty and privacy of Canadians. It does so by creating two offences. In the first place, it makes it an offence to intrude upon the privacy of other persons with a variety of devices known as wiretapping or electronic surveillance. The punishment for such an offence is up to five years imprisonment. This should be borne in mind by hon. members when considering the total approach to this legislation, and our efforts both here and in committee to improve the bill and put forward a measure which is a valuable addition to the law. The bill creates a second offence, punishable by up to two years in prison, for the possession or sale of devices suitable for electronic intrusion or wiretapping. This constitutes the fundamental core of the bill, the part of which hon. members as well as the general public should not lose sight.
A great deal of attention has been focussed upon the fact that the bill does provide a possibility for law enforcement officers to carry out their obligations in maintaining law and order by using these devices in the course of their pursuit of criminals. I hope I do not need to urge upon hon. members that this work should also properly be regarded as an important aspect of our liberty and one which has to be safeguarded-that we should be protected by our law enforcement officers from intrusions upon our liberty in other ways than by wiretapping. There was general agreement in the committee that there should be provision for certain exceptions in the case of law enforcement officers. The problem we are dealing with in considering this aspect of the matter is neither the major thrust of the bill nor the principle that there should be some exceptions in order that law enforcement officers may use such equipment in combatting crime.
The question is this: precisely when should that privilege to use electronic equipment by the police be permitted, and in what circumstances? I suggest to hon. members that the important thing in this regard is that the law be as clear as possible. The hon. member for St. Paul's has sought to meet this requirement by listing certain offences. In this respect there should be no argument. There would be clarity. But from previous discussions in the committee and elsewhere in connection with certain other offences, particularly those committed in the course of organized crime, the difficulty of making a satisfactory list has become apparent.
The hon. member for St. Paul's has added certain words to his list, but unfortunately those words do not contain the clearcut definition which is called for here. He uses words such as "a pattern of other offences which are part
November 22, 1973

of the activities of organized crime". Unfortunately, neither the expression "pattern of offences" nor the expression "organized crime" is capable of precise definition. Thus, if we were to accept the amendment, one with whose spirit many of us agree, we would be leaving unclear the very thing we should be making most clear, namely, when law enforcement officers can or cannot make use of electronic intrusion in their law enforcement work. I say to all hon. members that we owe it to the law enforcement officers to remove all possible elements of doubt in this respect.
If we accepted the definition put forward by the hon. member for St. Paul's, the law enforcement officers would not be sure, and neither would the judge, whether there was a correct application of this clause. This is the major reason I have for urging the rejection of the motion as it stands. On each occasion we went over the list in committee we found that no matter how carefully a list was drawn up, someone else would quickly propose that a further offence be included in it. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) correctly referred to the offence of wiretapping itself as one which properly ought to be included. The hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) and the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) also referred to other offences. Should we, indeed, exclude fraudulent use of the mails or fraudulent manipulation of stocks on the stock exchange from the list? When are these offences part of a pattern of organized crime? Is it when three men do this together frequently in a suitable location, or is it necessary for them to be in different locations working together? That kind of uncertainty would be introduced.
While saying that we can understand and accept the spirit of the amendment, we believe that attempts by ourselves as well as by many other members have failed to define adequately lesser offences when engaged in by members of organized crime, offences that may properly also be the subject of surveillance by electronic means by our law enforcement officers. Having tackled that problem we came back to the conclusion that the definition that was most clear and most likely to cover all that was required was the definition contained in the bill as it now stands, the definition that relates use of these devices specifically to indictable offences. Therefore, I urge the members of this House to consider the advantage of certainty and clarity and to reject this amendment, not because we reject the spirit with which it was put forward, but rather on the basic ground that as the bill is now written it contains a better and clearer definition.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, we have had a very interesting debate, right from the commencement of the bill to the present stage, when we are discussing motion No. 2 which has been moved by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey). The composition of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which discussed this bill was an interesting one. We had the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) who is a former dean of a law school. We had the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) who also is a former dean of a law school. Then, we had the hon. member for St. Paul's who is
Protection of Privacy
a professor at a law school. All have taken different approaches.
I find that the Minister of Justice is very competent, yet very rigid in his approach to the bill. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville is competent but takes a less rigid view with regard to it. The hon. member for St. Paul's is very competent and he takes a flexible view in regard to the philosophy of and approach to the bill. These three members are from the teaching profession.
Then, we had a former minister of justice from Quebec who has had a very full experience in the application of the law and who I would say at the beginning took a rather rigid view. However, in view of certain experiences, more especially the recent experience in Quebec, he has to his credit taken a more flexible view of the bill, something I am very glad to hear. All of the members of the committee, as well as all members of the House, realize that this bill will have a tremendous impact on the liberty and freedom of Canadians. It has been said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. It could also be said that the price of freedom is the full protection of the individual in society.
I find myself in a very awkward position with regard to motion No. 2. The hon. member for St. Paul's has taken the catalogue approach. The Minister of Justice has taken the full, all-embracing approach, the wide net approach. I am not happy with either. The former attorney general of the United States, Ramsey Clark, stated that in the first bill put before congress in the United States a very limited number of offences were included in the bill, offences relating to national security, espionage, narcotics, homicide, kidnapping and so forth. As time went on more offences were included. But, more important than that, when the law came to be applied the provisions of the bill were abused.
The committee studied this question and came up with the catalogue approach which the Minister of Justice has rejected. The minister contends that on the basis of clarity of definition and to help the law enforcement officers in this country, we should accept his provision. Both in his provision and in the amendment of the hon. member for St. Paul's there is a matter that is really worrisome to me and I should like to indicate what it is.
In the definition clause of the bill "offence" is defined as follows:
"offence" means an offence created by an Act of the Parliament of Canada for which an offender may be prosecuted by indictment and includes any such offence that is alleged or suspected or that there are reasonable grounds to believe may be committed;
The definition used by the hon. member for St. Paul's sets forth the catalogue, and he then uses these words again:
-that is alleged or suspected or that there are reasonable grounds to believe may be committed.
I shall be delighted to continue this debate at eight o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Broadview.

November 22, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt), Airports-Lethbridge-Suggested extension of runway; the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight), Grain- Provision of cars by railways to transport wheat; the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse), Air Canada-Request that Canadian aerospace industry be considered in purchase of new planes.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is general agreement on both sides of the House to proceed with private members' public Bill C-228 standing in the name of the hon. member for LaSalle, relating to a change in name of his constituency. Following that, which I think will only take a few minutes, we could proceed to private bill S-7, standing in the name of the hon. member for Welland and entitled an act respecting The National Dental Examining Board of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I take it from the remarks of the hon. member for Algoma that it is the wish of the House to deal with the bill at all stages, in view of his reference to a few minutes. If I am correct in that, I would not have to ask unanimous consent of the House.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. John Campbell (LaSalle) moved: that Bill C-228, an act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the reason for this bill to change the name of my riding from LaSalle to LaSalle-Emard-Cote Saint-Paul is basically that Emard-Cote Saint-Paul forms an integral part of my constituency. Its present name is not indicative of the vastness of the other two municipalities that form part of the riding, and to recognize the citizens there I would ask that the name be changed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boulanger in the Chair.
On Clause 1-LaSalle-Elmard-Cote Saint-Paul.
Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to rain on anyone's parade; I would not think of it, but I do want to point out that there is a better way of accomplishing a certain purpose. I want to compliment the Prince Edward Island Redistribution Commission on the fact that, rather than picking names of prominent municipalities within the electoral district, it picked prominent geographical locations such as headlands, mountains, points or rivers and so on. I do not object to the hon. member's bill, as we have a tradition here of accepting these proposals. However, for the sake of the Chair, the printing bureau and anybody else involved, I hope it will be possible as redistributions are carried out again that, rather than having a string of three or four names in the name of the constituency, the commissions will not try to salve every municipality within the area but will settle upon prominent geographic features.
Prince Edward Island was able to do this with names such as Malpeque, Hillsborough and so on. What is the other one?


An hon. Member:: Cardigan.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Yes, Cardigan indeed. I think this is a better way to proceed. This is only a caveat, and I do not want to interfere with the quite proper proposal of the hon. member. I hope, however, we do not extend this practise very much further as it presents a difficulty for everyone having to do with parliament.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave now.


John Campbell: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



THE NATIONAL DENTAL EXAMINING BOARD OF CANADA


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland) moved: that Bill S-7, respecting The National Dental Examining Board of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my wish that the House agree today to send Bill S-7 to the committee for further exami-
November 22, 1973

nation and possibly the adoption of certain amendments. It is not necessary to take a lot of time to explain the purpose of the bill, but members of this House should have some information as to the reason the bill was proposed in the first place and passed in the Senate on June 12. There has been some delay because of certain considerations embodied in the amendments we hope will be studied by the committee.
This bill relates to the National Dental Examining Board of Canada, and the original bill contains the request that the National Dental Examining Board be given the right to set uniform examinations for dentists and dental specialists throughout Canada. In addition it asked for the association the privilege of setting examinations for a group or groups of dental auxiliaries.
I should point out that six provinces were unwilling or not ready to accept the provisions of this bill as there had not been enough negotiations with dental bodies or societies. They would not consent at the time the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) brought this to their attention. As a result of further discussion with dental bodies, it was decided they still wanted a bill that would allow the national examining board to set Canadawide examinations, and reference to auxiliaries has been deleted.
There is a distinct advantage in having uniform examinations for both general practitioners and specialists in the dental field. Heretofore, these examinations have been carried on at the provincial level. This has created certain difficulty in that dentists graduating from a university in one province were compelled to take a second examination when moving to another province. It is the consensus of the profession that this bill be adopted in order to achieve portability.
There is one other factor involved. The association wishes to provide uniform examinations of a high standard. This would be to the advantage of not only the dentists but to the public as well. I think one might find a parallel in what has been taking place in the field of medical examinations. Doctors not only write university examinations in order to obtain a degree, but must also write an examination provided by a licensing board. When I graduated I wrote my university examination. I could have then written the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons examination or alternatively I could write the examination of the Medical Council of Canada. I wrote the examination of the Medical Council of Canada because I did not know in which province I wished to practise. Specialist examinations in respect of doctors for many years have been set by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of which I am a Fellow, and more recently, in respect of dentists, the Royal College of Dentists has been formed to supervise the requirements in respect of specialist training and licensing. By the common consent of both dentists and dental specialists, the request for a Canadian board was accepted and finally the Dental Examination Board was formed. The para-medical groups have gradually built up. This was a very natural thing because they help doctors carry out their duties. I should like to talk about New Zealand.
Dental Examining Board
New Zealand has recognized these groups, and similar groups in the dental profession, for many years. In New Zealand, there has been a very enlightened state medical and dental program. In the case of the medical people again, the para-medical groups consist of people such as nurses, physiotherapists, laboratory technicians, rehabilitation technologists, optometrists, chiropodists, x-ray technicians and so on. In the case of optometry, there is a separate and independent college. Their field is relegated to providing spectacles. They are not regarded as diagnosticians or eye physicians. The ratio of doctors to paramedical personnel is somewhere in the region of one to one.
In the case of dental auxiliaries there have been very many types of technicians. Such people as denturists received an impetus from the requirements of the armed forces during the Second World War. Others have been gradually developed as helpers to the dental profession and frequently have received training in the dentist's office. Gradually, certain groups developed, such as dental assistants, dental technicians and dental technologists. The ratio of dentists to dental auxiliaries is about one to 0.4, which is about two and one-half times less than in the case of the medical profession. Because medical treatment occurs as a first step in a doctor's office, skilled help is not often required there unless a large treatment clinic has been formed. So, the technical side of medicine, including the above mentioned list, has centred around hospitals. Nurses have their own examining boards as do most other auxiliary groups.
There has been considerable argument in the case of the dentists that the auxiliaries were being used by dentists to increase their professional net income. Particularly in the case of denturists the work is almost purely technical and the professional dental supervision is not required to a great extent. The denturists claim that dentures are too expensive, and if people were allowed to go to them directly the price could be cut in two. This, of course, is debatable. Part of the difficulty has been the system of fees both in medicine and in dentistry, which are set out by the associations for distinct individual procedures.
Before medical insurance was instituted, and before any type of social medicine was brought in, doctors sent out their bill and of course did not expect to get paid by more than 50 per cent to 70 per cent of the patients. With the advent of insurance schemes, the number of bills paid increased to 75 per cent or 80 per cent and with medicare it is now a universal payment. Now, 10 per cent is withheld which means that the doctors receive 90 per cent of their bookings paid in full. This, in turn, has led to high medical professional incomes and naturally has raised a storm of criticism directed at the medical profession. The solution to this problem cannot be made this afternoon, but it is obvious that changes in the delivery of medical care will have to undergo a fundamental alteration. This is apparent both to doctors and citizens alike.
It should be stated here that in most countries hospital care is excellent but the biggest differences one discerns in countries such as the United States, Great Britain or even Russia are in the realm of primary and minor medical treatment. This perhaps is a little aside, but I think per-

November 22, 1973
Dental Examining Board
haps it will serve to give everyone a clear picture. In Britain the general practitioner has been deprofessional-ized, if we can use that term, into a prescription or pill dispenser and a filler out of forms. In the United States, there is no universal health insurance apart from those on welfare or over age 65. The cost to a patient for medical care is extremely high. Doctors' incomes are high and this has resulted in a great wave of dissatisfaction and litigation. In Russia, although their hospital standard is fairly good, most of the primary medical care is given by nurses or technicians, and although this is moderately good there is not enough high quality professional supervision.
We have heard a great deal about China and about some of their medical methods. There is no doubt about the beneficial results of diet and exercise. Recently in Canada the Department of National Health and Welfare brought out a report on the state of nutrition in Canada. Nutrition may not in reality be as bad as it sounds in that no comparative studies have been carried out in other countries. On the other hand, there is no doubt that a program of physical fitness and diet would be very beneficial to Canadians. I should like to sound a word of warning about adopting acupuncture as a big step forward. I think it has some useful value, but if we are not careful it could become another type of quack medical treatment or gimmick.
This is not exactly on the subject of this bill but I should like also to warn that physical fitness and diet alone will not prevent disease. They may help a few individuals to live a little longer but it will really remain for scientific knowledge to alleviate the multitude of illnesses which cannot be prevented. It will also be necessary to make sure that medical standards of excellence are continually raised instead of being allowed to deteriorate.
Finally, the main reason for bringing forward the amendments is simply that at least six provinces do not wish to include dental auxiliaries in this act until further study has been made and the wishes of these bodies have been fully explored. However, all provincial and federal dental bodies wish to see a uniform examination board structure so that dental practitioners and specialists can take that board's examinations and practise in any province in Canada. This embodies, of course, the principle of portability. In other words, I should like Bill S-7 to proceed to committee for discussion of the proposed amendments which would separate dental auxiliaries from the dentists so far as control of examinations is concerned. I think it should be recognized that the medical profession and their auxiliaries cannot be separated very widely. The same thing goes for dentists and their auxiliaries. It is my hope that this is one step only in the process of organizing the dental profession properly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when one thinks of the professions and occupations that are represented in this House, it seems strange that we do not have a dentist. We have a number of members who are quite capable of pulling boners but no one who is able to pull teeth.
Frankly, this is a bill that contains a number of matters about which I do not claim to be knowledgeable, and I

confess that one quick look at it, especially after listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton), makes me feel that we should not be asked at this point, by any decision that we make, to give the bill full endorsation. However, I have no objection to its being passed so that it can be sent to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, and I was pleased to hear from the hon. member for Welland that a number of amendments will be considered at that stage.
To begin with, I find an error right in the preamble. I do not want to suggest that their honours in the other place are not alert, but I find in lines 4 and 5 of the preamble in English the following phrase: "and it is expedition to grant the prayer of the petition". When I look at the French version I find, even from what I know of French, that apparently the phrase should be: "and it is expedient to grant the prayer of the petition". However, I am a little surprised that a bill should pass all readings in the other place, come here and still have that error in it.
I am also concerned about the fact that there is no reference in the bill to denturists. Even to mention dentur-ists is to allude to the fact that there is some contention in this area. I should like to know what we are doing with respect to that. I notice that the bill makes frequent reference to provincial provisions, to provincial licensing and to matters of jurisdiction. I note also that the bill, in its main body, has five clauses which seem to make a new piece of legislation. But then clause 5 of the bill amends Chapter 69 of the Statutes of 1952. First, I wondered why there was no reference to the Revised Statutes of 1970, but I suppose Chapter 69 of the Statutes of 1952 was probably a private bill and therefore was not carried forward into the Revised Statutes of Canada for 1972. I am simply underlining the point that it seems to me there are some questions about this bill, and it would be wrong to suggest that if we let it through second reading at this stage we are giving it a final approval.
I understand that when it does get to committee, not only will there be amendments that the sponsors will seek to make but that representatives of the Department of National Health and Welfare will express their concern and may have some amendments to suggest. It is on that basis, namely, that we accept it as a reasonable request that the bill go to committee, that we are prepared that this be done, but I hope the bill will be given in committee a thorough examination and the exhaustive study that we, nonprofessionals that we are, are not in a position to give it here in the House. We all know about dentists; we have been to them and we know what they do to us, so we cannot but wonder what they are asking for in this bill. Perhaps that can be found out in the committee.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add a couple of thoughts on the bill before us today, Bill S-7, which is being put before the House by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton). First of all, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Welland for bringing this bill forward. It has been on the order paper since early last spring, and I know that he has spent a great deal of time in consultations with the Department of National Health and Welfare, with provincial bodies and with the various groups which are included in this
November 22, 1973

bill, which not only includes the general practitioner dentist but the specialist as well as the dental auxiliaries.
I believe the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was about the term "denturist". I believe the term "dental auxiliary" is often used in the same context. I would like to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Welland. He is a distinguished member of the medical profession and a distinguished surgeon. He has carried on a large practice in his home county for many years, so it is most fitting that he should be here promoting the bill which is before us today. Certainly, the ramifications of and the benefits from this bill, provided it is passed and that the national body is established, would be far reaching throughout the country.
The bill, as I mentioned earlier, would provide a national standard for the dental profession, both the general practitioners and the specialists as well as the auxiliaries. As the hon. member for Welland indicated, since the bill was first introduced there has been an exhaustive and extensive consultation between the department and the various groups throughout the country. He indicated also that several of the provinces-I believe six-do not feel it would be wise to have this national dental examining board include dental auxiliaries. Certainly, we do not have to read the daily newspapers extensively to note that there is a considerable debate going on in many of the provincial legislatures on this subject at present. Some provinces have opted for the denturists and those groups to be under the wing of the dental profession, and others for their establishment as a separate body.
In a news release put out by the Department of National Health and Welfare on August 16, 1972, the department endorsed the recommendations of the Wells Committee. I should like to read some excerpts from that release:
National Health and Welfare Minister John Munro today, on the advice of the Dominion Council of Health, which met on April 26 and 27, 1972, endorsed the principles expressed in the Report of the Wells Ad Hoc Committee on Dental Auxiliaries which dealt with matters relating to employment, training and regulation of dental manpower.
He also noted the Council's recommendation that governments examine the report in detail and implement its recommendations in accordance with their respective priorities. These priorities would include consideration of a dental program for children encompassing prevention, education and treatment.
The Ad Hoc Committee was a multi-disciplinary committee of lay and professional persons established in June 1968 under the chairmanship of the Honourable Dalton C. Wells, Chief Justice of Ontario, with the full co-operation of the Canadian Dental Association. Their report contained several recommendations covering such fields as the qualifications of dental assistants, hygienists and technicians, their training, education and experience as well as a full range of more responsible duties to allow them to contribute more effectively to the dental health requirements of this nation.
In the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Dental Auxiliaries, 1970, the Wells committee, several recommendations are made and I shall refer to some of them. For instance:
Recommendation 22: That a Canadian Council on Dental Auxiliaries be established.
Dental Examining Board
Recommendation 23: That the membership of the Canadian Council on Dental Auxiliaries consist of representatives from each of the provincial councils on dental auxiliaries and representatives, including dentists, named by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Recommendation 24: That the Canadian Council on Dental Auxiliaries deal with matters such as national certification and accreditation of educational and training institutions for dental auxiliaries.
The committee report suggested that there be a separate body. I quite agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that some changes will have to be made to the bill in committee and I agree with what the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) is proposing, that the bill go forward to committee for thorough study. I believe there will be a number of amendments along the lines of not taking in the dental auxiliaries and those groups under this national examining board but leaving that question to be decided at a later date. Whether they would some day come in under this national examining board or, as the Wells committee recommended, they would be a separate body could be decided at a later date.
The bill before us will certainly have many advantages for the professional dentists and the dental specialists, in that once they have completed their training they will be able to take the national board examination. As I understand this, it will qualify them to be licensed in the province in which they plan to practice. This would be a great advantage and would ensure the portability of this professional group. Portability is an important aspect as there is a shortage of professional people in this field. I graduated in veterinary medicine some years ago in the province of Ontario. When I wanted to practise in the province of Saskatchewan, I had to take the provincial board examination there. This is just one more thing that the new graduate from university has to do. A national board examination would entitle the graduate to be licenced to practice in any province.
There are many professional men and women who come to this country from other lands. Under our constitution it is the responsibility of the provincial bodies to license them to practice their profession. It is very difficult for every province to have the complete mechanism necessary for testing these graduates as they come from hundreds of universities all over the world. In the dental profession this one national examining body would become familiar with the various universities, their curriculums, their clinical training programs and the adaptability of their graduates to the Canadian professional scene. An expertise would be developed by the national examining board which would be beneficial in our total health program.
I believe that a great deal of consultation and co-ordination between the various groups went into the preparation of this bill. The departmental officials who worked on the bill and co-operated with the professional associations should be congratulated for their efforts.
Those are all the items I wanted to mention, Mr. Speaker. Changes will be made in the bill in committee, and I am confident that the departmental officials will want to give their assistance. I believe there is general agreement between the various professional groups and the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Welland, to make changes in the bill. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre
8058

November 22, 1973
Dental Examining Board
also mentioned two or three items in his remarks which should be considered in committee. I would add my support, Mr. Speaker, so that this bill may move to committee for further study.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to seeing this bill pass to the committee for further study. The bill was initiated in the other place, and it is good to see the other place doing some work and having something with which to fill their time. Everybody thinks they do not have very much to do, but I recently had a conversation with a senator and he thinks they have far too much to do. It is all a matter of opinion, I suppose.
If this bill will assist in any way to establish more dentists in small towns throughout the country, or make it easier for dentists to be brought from one part of the country to another, I would not want to do anything to stop its passage. We need more dentists in small towns. We know that they generally head for the larger towns and are booked up months ahead.
We would expect the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton), who presented the bill to this House, to make sure that the proper personnel will appear before the committee so they can tell us why the bill should go through and explain any changes that they think should be made to it. I can assure the House that we will have competent people on the committee. With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, we see no reason why this bill should not go to committee.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The private members' hour having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 o'clock p.m.
At 5:43 the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-176, to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and motion No. 2 (Mr. Atkey).
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, just before five o'clock I had been saying that you could approach Bill C-176 in two ways, the catch-all way of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) as set out in the definition section of the bill, or the catalogue way, as suggested by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) in his amendment. He wishes to stipulate offences with respect to which authorization should be given. I point out that part of the definition in the bill is included in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. Paul's. Part of clause 2 on page 2 provides:
-"offence" means an offence created by an act of the Parliament of Canada for which an offender may be prosecuted by indictment and includes any such offence that is alleged or suspected or that there are reasonable grounds to believe may be committed-
The last few words of the hon. member's proposed amendment read, "any such offence that is alleged or suspected or that there are reasonable grounds to believe may be committed". Thus, the definition of "offence" in the latter part of the proposed amendment is very close to the definition contained in the bill. It seems to me that both the bill and the amendment are too sweeping in their definitions, and that makes me unhappy. Why do I say that?
Consider the United States approach to this question. They started from a narrow base which included a few offences, those being the more serious offences. Our Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs studied the problem and catalogued the offences which had been covered by the U.S. approach: apparently they considered offences which carried a penalty of ten years imprisonment or more. It was considered that the United States approach was too narrow. Other serious offences were included in later bills which were passed by the U.S. Congress. We have seen what has happened with regard to the application of the U.S. bill. When it was enforced many people experienced severe and serious abuse.
One feature of the motion proposed by the hon. member for St. Paul's gives me particular concern. He wishes the police to obtain authorization for wiretaps when there is evidence of organized crime activity. He suggests that near the end of his amendment. I presume that he included that part in order to gain some support not only from his party but from other parts of the House. I submit that it detracts seriously from the main thrust of his amendment, which would catalogue the more serious offences with respect to which authorization for wiretapping may be given.
May I point out that the spokesman for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association appeared before the committee.
November 22, 1973

His position as to the conditions in which wiretaps should be allowed was very simple. He suggested a test, namely, that only when there is imminent peril to life or limb should the wiretap be allowed. I almost agree with that approach when I consider the catch-all approach of the minister and the catalogue approach of the hon. member for St. Paul's.
The proposition that authorization for wiretapping should be taken seriously is generally accepted by all members of the House. We have had experience with wiretaps in Canada and the United States. Permit me to refer to a recent report by the American Civil Liberties Union. It is written by Herman Schwartz, professor of law, State University of New York, at Buffalo. He sets out figures and statistics relating to wiretaps. One of his statements is as follows:
The bulk of this wiretapping and bugging is now used for gambling offences, despite the original claims that it was necessary primarily for serious crimes like homicide, kidnapping and espionage: in three years, there has been only one federal device installed for kidnapping and none for either homicide or espionage; gambling installations accounted for about 90 per cent of all the federal installations in 1971.
It can be seen from the American experience that wiretaps have been primarily used for gambling installations. He then sets forth the figures with regard to combined federal and state installations. For six months' periods in 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971 there were 1,889 orders given with regard to wiretaps. There were 1,839 installations. There were 77,227 people bugged and 1,118,912 conversations overheard. That indicates the pervasiveness of wiretapping in the United States and the number of people it involves.
In Canada, we have had a shorter experience. Evidence that came before the committee indicated that in 1972 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had 663 installations. From those they obtained only two convictions. That is a conviction rate of one-third of one per cent. In Toronto, there were 294 installations in 1972. Although I do not have a record of the convictions, the number of people tapped and the total conversations overheard, the taps by the RCMP and the Toronto metropolitan police force almost equalled the total orders given in a period of about 3'A years in the United States. This indicates how serious this matter is.
In his presentation this afternoon, the Minister of Justice stated we must have a clear and definite approach so that the law enforcement officers will know what they are about to do and what they should do. If there was one thing that Ramsey Clark brought before the committee, it was the costliness, corruptness and corrosiveness of wiretapping. The costliness in time and money is overwhelming when you have police officers making taps for an extended period of time. The corruptness is evident in the experience across the border. The corrosiveness will be experienced in the relationship between the public and the police in regard to attitudes and morale.
What the government needs is a system of law to protect the safety and freedom of individuals without resorting to unfair and immoral practices. The Minister of Justice must not only protect the law enforcement officers; he has
Protection of Privacy
a clear duty to be the protector of the public interest. I have the feeling, whether rightly or wrongly-I hope it is wrongly-that the thrust of the minister's speech and his attitude in the past with regard to this bill and its passing has been that he protects rather strongly the law enforcement officers and puts in a secondary position the protection of the public interest. It is necessary that the Minister of Justice give leadership in this field. If the price of liberty is constant vigilance, the price of freedom is the full protection of the individual.
I do not find it difficult to reject the definition of "offence" that the minister submitted in the bill. However,
I find it rather difficult to accept the definition contained in the amendment, for the reasons I have given. I find it far easier to accept the definition set forth by the Canadian Civil Liberties Union. I do not have much choice in this matter. When it comes to a vote, I will have to support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for St. Paul's.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, by a very fortunate coincidence, the second report of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, sent to our offices just the other day, contained an admonition from the very distinguished chairman. In passing, may I say it is one of the most clearly written reports that has come out of commissions or groups reporting to governments and parliament for a long time. I wish that more government reports were written as eloquently and as straightforwardly as this one. The report begins with the following admonition:
"Bad laws", said Burke, "are the worst form of tyranny."
Mr. Justice Hartt goes on to say:
They are a tyranny every freedom-loving nation must fight to prevent.
I would not for one minute presume to suggest that the minister or the government are advancing bad law. However, I do say it is worthwhile that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has spent a fair amount of time on what I might call a cross-party approach, because vote after vote in that committee contained no party label. I can vouch for that because I was there throughout most of the proceedings.
Surely the mission of the committee has been to improve a bit of draftsmanship. I always wonder why people, ministers or anyone else, feel they must defend to the last what is really a series of words on paper. I think many laws are better after they have gone through the mill of the committee. The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is here. He will recall one of the prime examples of an extremely bad law was the attempt to deal with young offenders. That law came to our committee so badly drafted that the committee of the last parliament rejected it, as did most of the people in the field who knew anything about it. It was not rejected by any plot on the part of New Democrats or Conservatives. It was rejected by the committee. I thought that was to the credit of the parliamentary committee system. Most of its members, I think, approached the examination of the bill in a desire to improve it, if we could, in the light of the experience many of us have had. In my own party there happen to be three former ministers of justice, each one of whom has held responsibility for law enforcement within the two largest

November 22, 1973
Protection of Privacy
provinces. I hope they were able to add to the effectiveness of the committee's work by reason of their experience.
We cannot be spokesmen for any one of the various groups who appeared before that committee. We are not carrying the brief of the Police Association, neither are we carrying the brief of the Civil Liberties Association, much as I respect the Civil Liberties Association-and I am a member of one such association. If I may say so, we have a larger responsibility. Our brief as MPs can and should differ from the submissions put forward by the various groups who do not have responsibility of office or of enacting and administering particular statutes.
One of the most tragic and outworn slogans of the day is that of "law and order". I am coming to the point at which I resist almost any slogan whether it be "law and order", "the just society", "one Canada" or anything else. I think they represent dangerous simplifications of very complex issues. "Law and order" has been a particularly abused slogan. What we should seek is to give the police of this country a chance really to do something about the maintenance of order and justice within the rule of law. The rule of law in this ease involves giving the police a straightforward method they can use. Our amendments are put forward in good faith to this end. We do not find complicated legal procedures outlined in this bill. Police associations across the country should really not find much difficulty in getting the orders they require.
The minister says the bill is a great addition to the law. I reject the word "great". It is a good addition to the law, if passed with some of the amendments we have moved. It will be a good addition to the law, rather late in the history of law enforcement in this country. I believe the law now proposed is substantially better than it was when originally presented and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I personally get upset when people claim we are being soft on criminals or that we are resisting the well motivated wishes of the police forces of this country to do something about crime, simply because we are taking some time in which to study this law. That does not follow in any way. Max Cohen put it rather well, I thought, in an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of June 7 of this year under the heading "Justice in search of itself". Law enforcement men and agencies are by nature quite conservative. What shall be the balancing instruments: the liberal politician, private watchdogs from the universities to welfare agencies, varieties of ombudsmen together with the legislature itself, all continually monitoring the operation of a system?
It is clear that we cannot go on much longer without insisting on a high priority of intelligence and resources to be applied to the classical areas in the administration of justice.
I think if we had spent-here I use the collective "we"- a great deal more money and effort in trying to improve the professional status of the various police forces we would have been much better served. This applies not only to the RCMP, which is under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General, but also to the city and metropolitan police forces. The police, it seems to me, are really the unsung heroes of the age. We expect so much of them, as Professor Cohen said. We ask them to be nursemaids in cases of the

most minor traffic violations, and in the next minute they are supposed to deal with the most sophisticated aspects of syndicated crime.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), and I myself exercised, for various lengths of time, jurisdiction over provincial police or their RCMP equivalent. I for one have never called a policeman a pig, and I never expect to. None of us would, I hope, ever think of doing such a thing. What we seek is to enhance the police whether they be in a village or in the largest metropolitan areas. What we seek in this bill is an instrumentality through which they can by way of an application to a judge operate effectively under the rule of law. I commend the minister for the straightforward way in which application can be made, a simple way in which the police may in certain well-defined circumstances invade otherwise inviolable personal privacy.
I myself welcome the time which has been taken on this measure. The minister speaks of a great addition to the law; I think those were his words. Yes, perhaps he can say that after the bill has been read the third time; but I think the law will be better because of the time spent on it; I think it will be better because of the amendments many members on all sides have proposed and voted upon in committee, without political stripe. I for one am disappointed that there should be demands to circumvent what has been done in a committee which has been notable for a very low partisan quotient. The minister may rue the day when he set out to defeat, by some of the amendments he has proposed, the report of the majority of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I hope we can agree on amendments which will make some of the proposals advanced by the minister acceptable to the majority of the House. I suggest to him frankly that at the moment, on the record at least, they are not acceptable to the majority of hon. members. As the minister knows, we have tried hard to find some way out of the dilemma. I trust the minister is not too upset by some of the editorials and press reports which have appeared on the subject of this bill. I think it is an extremely healthy sign that on an issue such as this, the proposed invasion of privacy, or protection of privacy-whatever phrase commends itself-there should have been so much outspoken comment one way or the other. I think it is a good thing there is still some sense of outrage in the world.
I for one am not overly alarmed at some of the comments concerning this legislation. I would be particularly upset if there had been no comment about such a serious and, to use the minister's phrase, great addition to the law. As many members who preceded me said, this bill will bring about a fundamental change in the liberty of the subject. No matter what adjective we use, we have to proceed with caution.
I hope that in the days that follow when we are discussing this bill, our approach will be that we are here to improve this legislation substantially. On behalf of the party for whom I am proud to speak, I can say that that has been our objective from the day this bill received second reading and then went to the committee. I will not
November 22, 1973

be at all worried if the minister goes out from this place when the bill receives royal assent and calls it a great addition to the law, or whatever expression he likes to use, because as a result of the time spent debating it and, if I may say so, the amendments the standing committee made, a standing committee whose main objective was to improve the law and not take partisan advantage, it will be a better law.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the amendments to this bill, my hon. colleague who has just spoken dealt with the importance of the bill in the general scheme of things. He mentioned this was one piece of legislation, perhaps the only piece of legislation, that we will deal with this session that affects the liberty of the subject and the rights of Canadians to privacy. The bill will affect even communications between Canadians and their members of parliament or their professional advisers in other capacities.
Since this bill is one of the most significant advances made in this branch of the law, it seems to me it is the most important and fundamental piece of legislation with which we, as representatives of the Canadian people, will deal in this session, and indeed it may well be for some sessions to come. This bill will permit the interception of conversations that pass between one subject and another without their knowledge. Certainly they do not have the opportunity of giving their consent to such interceptions, and in this sense the bill is a great leap forward in our criminal law. On the one hand, it makes lawful for the first time that which can only be described as an invasion of privacy. At the same time it gives to law enforcement agencies the right to take advantage of the latest electronic gadgetry in pursuing their work, namely, the protection of the public. So, as I say, certainly it is a great addition to the law.
However, improperly used the practice of wiretapping can be one of the most harmful and fear provoking mechanisms that one can imagine. There is nothing more important to us in days of invasions of our privacy than the maintenance of some element of individuality. Like the hon. member who has just spoken, I believe that the police forces of the country should have at their disposal the most up to date methods for detecting crime. Be that as it may, there is no reason-at least no reason I can think of-for police forces not complying with the law.
A law that will permit this kind of intrusion ought not to be one that the police forces need not comply with. I had the honour to be at one time a Crown counsel in this city. During that period of time I worked with the police force in this city as well as the provincial force, and I hold them in the highest respect. I also hold many others in very high respect. But this respect does not give me the licence to say that police forces can do what they want, that there ought to be no sanction against the actions of police forces, that the end must always justify the means in the matter of police work.
In my respectful judgment, the rights of Canadians about which we are talking are of such importance that it is not too much to ask the respected agencies in our country which are charged with the protection of the public to obtain the consent of a judge before invading the privacy and personal rights which we in this country have
Protection of Privacy
and which, I suppose, make us different from those people who live in totalitarian states.
This afternoon the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), when speaking to this particular amendment indicated the extent to which this type of evidence can be used. Not only can it be used in regard to the offence that is being investigated; it can also be used in income tax cases, excise tax cases and in all cases where the Crown in the right of Canada may have an interest.
As the hon. member who has just spoken said, members of parliament have a duty to examine this legislation in light of submissions that are made to them, using their own qualities of reason and their own thoughts about what is right for the community. Members of parliament ought not to come to this House or to committees of the House carrying with them any particular bias or preference in regard to the views of any interested group in the community. I think this has happened in regard to this bill, a bill that creates a new right by creating an offence. It gives for the first time the right recognized in law for the police to interfere with privacy, and for the protection of the public it also creates an offence. I do not believe that police forces or individual groups in the community, because of their position, deserve a special status before the law.
I welcome the legislation as a basic enhancement of the powers of the police which I think the police forces of this country require. I hope those who consider the legislation and its importance will recognize this as an enhancement and an improvement of the powers of the police, and will agree that as we tread for the first time into invasion of the privacy of Canadians we should tread softly and carefully and should not succumb to what a previous speaker referred to as the passion of law and order. We should make sure not to adopt the fallacy that law and order and the maintenance of civil rights should be considered as exclusive of the rights of the public.
When we are dealing with law and order we are dealing with civil rights, not just the apprehension of criminals. We are also dealing with the protection of the public. Perhaps one fallacy that exists when we deal with these matters is that we think in terms of law and order as it applies to someone else. We should think of law and order as it applies to each of us, so that while we are giving the police forces of this country this new power, we should move forward slowly, with consideration of the consequences and with our minds always open in respect of the protection of the public as well as the enhancement of the powers of our police forces and law enforcement agencies.
As I look at the law as presented by the Minister of Justice to this House, I see it as an advancement. But without the amendment with which we are now dealing, and the amendments advanced by members of this and other parties which we will deal with later, it will not be the best law this parliament can produce at this time. It ought to be the object of us all to produce the best law, even if it takes a bit of time; and it ought to be the best in terms of balancing the needed powers of the state and the rights of the subject. In my respectful submission, without the amendments which are before this House to be dealt

November 22, 1973
Protection of Privacy
with during this debate, the law as proposed by the Minister of Justice will not be the best law in both these important areas.
We will have an opportunity to speak on a number of other amendments. However, I think it is important at this time that we consider the extent of the power we will be giving law enforcement agencies. What we ask of them, when granting this power in a free society, is that they in turn observe the law in terms of the protection it provides the citizens of this country. There is nothing in this bill, particularly in the amendments which are proposed, that in any way limits the investigatory powers of the police forces. I suggest it maintains them and at the same time protects the public. We ought not lose sight of either point of view during the consideration of this legislation.


Mrs. Albanie Morin (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief on this particular amendment because I feel we have lost too much time already. What upsets me more and more is the fact that the number of crimes committed in Canada has been increasing steadily in the last few years. Our penitentiaries are bulging at the seams, and plans are being made to construct more and more elaborate penitentiaries; yet legislation is being drawn up and amendments are being introduced to limit more and more the powers of the police forces. Everyone is up in arms because of the Watergate affair, but hon. members must not forget that the Watergate affair was brought on by politicians and not by the police.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Albanie Morin: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we must ask ourselves what should come first since the crime rate increases in Canada and terrorism-we must not forget- is always creeping in Quebec. Must we first of all prevent crime or invade more and more the people's privacy? What must take precedence? Is it crime prevention or the invasion of privacy?
I find that the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) bears too much on the definition of the word "offence". If I remember well my law studies, it seems to me that when you restrict the definition as he does, this leads to trouble. I would much prefer that the bill remain in its present form and that the definition of the word "offence" remain broad.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in considering amending the bill before us I should like to lend my support to those who have already stated we must be cautious in amending any legislation which has the net effect of taking away rights which have literally taken us hundreds of years to secure. The section in the legislation before us dealing with the definition of "offence" is relatively broad, and I feel that the amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey), is wise in that it defines more precisely what we in this House hopefully intend when we move to amend the bill.
I am sympathetic to the problems of the police and, like many members of this House, I am alarmed at any suggestion that we may in fact have organized crime in this country, or that our laws are in any way hampering the police in their investigation and prosecution of those who

may be conducting unlawful activities or involved in organized crime. I would stress that there is a delicate balance in these matters which we in this parliament should never ignore. I feel it is very easy to overreact. Certainly the government which is still in office in this country overreacted in one instance. I hope we will never tolerate a similar overreaction which results in the taking away of privileges and rights from people without cause.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Of those who say that this limits the legislation before us, I would ask, why do they not want it limited? Have they no concern for the rights of Canadians? If we are trying specifically to assist the police in better ways of bringing to justice those who are involved in organized crime, why do we not support an amendment to the legislation that simply defines that this is exactly what we are trying to do? I urge members of this House to read the amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for St. Paul's. I think he has in a very definitive way spelled out the crimes we will tolerate in respect of this new activity. He specifically stipulates what the crimes must be and states:
-where there are reasonable grounds to believe that such pattern of offences is part of the activities of organized crime-
That, to me, is the main question that is before us when we consider this amendment. We are attempting to give, in a very limited sense-I believe we are rightfully limiting it-a right to our police forces to use certain activities which heretofore have not been welcomed, in the hope that it may assist them in dealing with organized crime. For that reason I do not intend to speak at length: there are many amendments before us. I believe it is important that we limit the rights we are talking about. It is particularly important to limit these rights when dealing with an arrogant government such as we now have in this country.


An hon. Member:: Are you afraid of the police?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes, I am.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am against the use of bugging devices and all types of wiretapping in any circumstances, and I believe that we could protect the liberty and security of the citizens by avoiding these methods.
I am opposed to wiretapping for two main reasons, first on moral grounds and second, for reasons of ineffectiveness.
As regards the moral grounds, Mr. Speaker, I believe that nobody has ever claimed that wiretapping is not in itself an immoral and degrading act. And if we want people to respect the law, the first thing to do is to make it a moral law with high ideals rather that stating that the end justifies the means.
On this point, I was influenced by the statement made by the former Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Ramsey Clark, before the committee on justice and legal affairs, who knew from his experience in the John Ken-
November 22, 1973

nedy and Lyndon B. Johnson administrations, the results of a law somewhat similar to the legislation now before us, and even harsher in some respects.
Many of those who spoke in favour of this bill said that they wanted to help the police. On this point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote what Mr. Clark, who was in charge of security in the United States, told us. He said, and I quote:

I think it hurts the police in many ways: I think it makes them defensive; I think it makes the public more hostile and suspicious of them, and of their performance, and of what they are doing; I think it makes them justify things that do not need to be justified; it isolates them. I think it also corrupts.

To those who argue that we are going to help the police, I say, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation will have just the opposite effect.
As for immorality, remember the first case brought before the Supreme Court of the United States, namely the Olmstead case .. .

-in which Oliver Wendell Holmes described wiretapping as a dirty business ... It is far more than a dirty business: it tinkers with the foundations for individual integrity.
How else are the people going to know what is going on? Finally, what happens? Everybody thinks he is tapped and bugged. He really does.
[ Translation]
And right here in parliament, Mr. Speaker, nothing in the law could prevent someone from phoning an hon. member and registering his conversation. I would like to quote from Mr. Ramsey Clark's testimony previously cited in parliament, in which he stated:

I come further because of my great concern about government lawlessness, the excessive use of force, violence, treachery and secrecy, and because I believe your fortunate country has a high opportunity and, with that, a high obligation to show the world that we can act fairly with safety.
[ Translation]
Obviously, some may not be convinced of the immorality of wiretapping but, Mr. Speaker, I think, that in such a field human dignity and integrity require that we should refrain from resorting to such procedures, especially when the evidence shows that they are inefficient.
In the United States, in spite of stricter legislation than the bill introduced today, the scandals are of common knowledge and I do not refer to what is going on here, since the legislation was almost non-existent, but abuses at home as abroad are entirely unfortunate.
Consider, Mr. Speaker, that in recent months an aide of the president of the United States admitted that he used wiretapping to register a conversation with the attorney general of the United States. We know also that the advocate of non-violence, Martin Luther King, was also the victim of such procedure. We are also acquainted with several other scandals. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we come to the conclusion that this is a really degrading method.
When Mr. Ramsey Clark, as attorney general of the United States, prohibited the use of that procedure, the
Protection of Privacy
statistics have shown that the arrests and convictions of criminals, especially in organized crime, had tripled during those years. And I could quote some examples.
l English]
When you look at the report in the administrative office of the United States courts for 1972 you will find places like California where no wiretaps were applied for. It is a pretty big place.
It has almost the same population as Canada.
There is a lot of activity out there. There is pretty effective crime control and crime fighting. It is every bit as effective, or more so, than New York city. You find Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania-whole places that have had a lot of organized crime but no wiretapping. And they can be effective. You find almost two-thirds of all the wiretapping in two states, New York and New Jersey. It is a matter of habit, and it is a very unfortunate habit. I do not think you will find more effective organized criminal activity than in the New York city area.
Where wiretapping is very common.
[ Translation]
I said earlier that during all the years he was in charge of security, the attorney general of the United States had not allowed the use of those methods, and the number of charges increased. He mentioned cases where a staff of more than 30 policemen was needed to tap a single person. He explained how several American cities, by making the same human efforts in professionalizing their police force, had obtained far quicker results and at a much lower cost.
So much for the immorality and inefficiency of that practice. I could also mention the numerous scandals that arose. For example, in the Ellsberg case in the United States, it took two years before someone admitted in court that the accused had been submitted to wiretapping. That, among other things made the state lose its case.
And as Mr. Ramsay Clark said:

You will find, I think, as we have, that wiretapping is always associated with scandals.
[ Translation]
And he shared his experience with us. He stated that in his opinion much better results had been obtained with these police forces on which both money and efforts had been spent to give their members a professional training and this, without jeopardizing in any way the individuals' dignity and integrity.
These, Mr. Speaker, are the reasons why I am against wiretapping. I feel that the amendment introduced by the opposition is a step in the right direction, because the bill in its present form appears to me to be much too wide in scope in respect of crimes known as indictable offences which may entail electronic wiretapping; on the other hand, I am absolutely against any bugging in all other areas, especially as regards domestic matters.
That is the way I see it, Mr. Speaker. I feel that, taking into account the experience of the United States where a law such as this existed, scandals multiplied. And when I think of the United States where, according to the evidence we have heard, only the attorney general of the United States:

November 22, 1973
Protection of Privacy

Only the Attorney General of the United States is authorized to sign a wiretapping operation, while in Canada it might be someone with a special authorization, whether from the Minister of Justice of Canada or the Attorney General of any province. I think this is too many people. I just want to remind the House that Edgar J. Hoover, the former chief of the FBI, during most of his career never took the responsibility of signing a wiretap; he always asked the Attorney General himself to do it.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, considering the fact that our population is ten times smaller than that of the United States, where problems related to crime are much more important, I suggest that the passage of an even wider legislation than the American one seems to be a nonsense. I believe that the causes of crime are well known, especially social inequities, and its remedies are complex. It is not through such methods that we will solve the problem. The comparison between the advantages and disadvantages shows that in order to achieve security in this country and maintain our citizens' freedom, we should spend more money on our police forces' training rather than resort to a system under which our citizens will never be sure that they are not bugged, and, on the other hand, policemen themselves will be suspected by their fellow-citizens.
Those are the reasons why, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset of my remarks, I am in conscience opposed to any form of electronic surveillance.


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


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbak-er) has asked that motion No. 3, standing in his name, wait until tomorrow. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), and the spokesman for the NDP, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), were kind enough to agree to this. Presumably, then, the right hon. gentleman could proceed after orders of the day tomorrow. We might, therefore, stand motion No. 2 and start on the next block of amendments. Is that agreeable?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Did the hon. member ask that motion No. 3 be stood, or should we put motion No. 2 and then proceed to motion No. 5?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Perhaps it could be stood. The mover had to be away tonight at a speaking engagement. Surely we can vote on these amendments in a block.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will listen to whatever the House tells the Chair to listen to. There does not seem to be disagreement about this.


Otto Emil Lang: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the procedure would be that the question would be put, and if there were a division it would be postponed to a time to be set later, so there would be no question of having the division now. My understanding is that we would then proceed to the next group, that is to say, omit the amendment in the name of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and move on to the one in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), continue with that and then go back to the one standing in the name of the hon. member for Prince Albert.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Can we move on to the next group and stand amendment No. 3? I understand the agreement was that beginning with government orders tomorrow, we would start with amendment No. 3.


Walter David Baker: The situation as explained by the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley) is as I understand it. There is to be no doubt, as I understand the agreement, that the right hon. member for Prince Albert will start immediately after orders of the day tomorrow with his amendment, and that the debate on his amendment will continue, regardless of what happens tonight, until that matter is completed. If we start on another amendment tonight, then that amendment will be suspended until the motion standing in the name of the right hon. gentleman is completed. That is my understanding of the agreement. If there has not been an agreement in this respect, then we will continue: we are prepared to deal with the amendment that is before the House, standing in the name of the hon. member for St. Paul's.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair should state what it understands has been understood. If I am wrong I will no doubt be corrected, as has sometimes happened. The debate on motion No. 2 is completed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I complete my understanding of what I understand, and then no doubt hon. members will correct me. The debate on motion No. 2 has been completed, as I understand it.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The proceedings on motion No. 2 have been suspended for the time being; the proceedings on motion No. 3 will not proceed tonight, but immediately after orders of the day tomorrow. At that time motion No. 3, standing in the name of the right hon. member for Prince Albert, will be called. Then it is suggested that we now proceed to a group of motions in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster, namely, Nos. 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 21, which would take us through the rest of the evening. Am I correct in this understanding?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for New Westminster rises on a point of order.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the amendments you dealt with before you came to the package of amendments that I have submitted deal with the emergency permit section of the bill. Now there are three amendments on the order paper dealing with the emergency permits, Nos. 3, 4 and 12. I would ask that if we are going to stand Nos. 3 and 4, we stand No. 12 as well. All

November 22, 1973

that package dealing with the question of emergency permits should surely be dealt with at the same time. There may be some minor differences between the amendments, but I think they are very minor. I believe the business of the House would be expedited if you took the whole package and dealt with them tomorrow, grouping No. 12 with Nos. 3 and 4.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), on the same point of order.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would be concerned, without studying the point, whether motion No. 12 ought to be dealt with in a block if we are saying it ought to be dealt with, in terms of a vote, with items Nos. 3 and 4. If we are going to do that, I would certainly want it clearly understood that we would not necessarily agree. I see the hon. member for New Westminster agrees with that. Subject to that, Mr. Speaker, I do not see any difficulty in dealing with this matter. However, I must file this caveat: if some difficulty did develop on this point, I should like the opportunity to deal with the matter later in continuing with this point of order. But I really do not see any difficulty.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As I understand the agreement-and we are not trying to delay matters-it is that these first two amendments stand. There is one point in amendment No. 2 that concerns me. There is just one section of murder mentioned. That may be influenced by another bill just finished in the other place. I do not know whether that is the concern of the minister. I would ask that motions Nos. 1 and 2 be stood. If tomorrow we come back and speak on these matters, we are not trying to delay things. If the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) will co-operate with our party and the other parties in this regard, I think you will see us move along very quickly on this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before the minister takes part in the point of order, it is the feeling of my colleagues and the Chair that motions Nos. 3 and 4 should be dealt with separately simply because there were objections earlier today to dealing with them together. If that were the wish of the House and nobody pressed us to make a decision otherwise, I think motion No. 12 would be called in due course; I do not think that the hon. member for New Westminster need have any fears in that regard.
If we were to take the course proposed, whether understood or misunderstood by the Chair, we would leave motion No. 2 open to be completed, No. 3 would be stood, No. 4 would be stood and then we could proceed with the package that I understand the hon. member for New Westminster is agreeable to, namely, the seven motions in his name. That would leave us free to go to No. 3 tomorrow after orders of the day, when the right hon. member for Prince Albert can present his motion. We would then go back and complete No. 2 and carry on in logical sequence from there.


Walter David Baker: Is that an order of the House, Mr. Speaker?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, hon. members have talked about agreements. I should make it clear that the only agreement I know anything about is that if we complete motion No. 2, then in the ordinary course-I expect we would,
Protection of Privacy
since hon. members said they wanted to move along-we would not proceed with No. 3 because of a certain understanding about it not being desirable to bring it forward tonight. I do not see the particular point in standing No. 2 in an incomplete state at this time; but I have no objection to agreeing, if it is agreeable to the hon. member for New Westminster, to interrupt his motion and return to No. 3 in the middle of that debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the point I was going to make is parallel to what the Minister of Justice has said. If we have completed the debate on No. 2, why do we need to stand it? It is completely agreed that any vote on it would be deferred. Could we not now call for the yeas and nays, and however it goes, five members probably will stand, and the vote on No. 2 will be deferred. Then we would proceed to the motions proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unless there are members who still wish to speak on No. 2, it seems to me that this is the best way of proceeding. Of course, the votes are deferred until such time as Mr. Speaker calls them, or until the House leaders get together and suggest something that is agreeable to all members. But certainly that vote would not be taken tonight. If that is agreeable, I would put No. 2 and then we could go on to the package of seven motions in the name of the hon. member for New Westminister.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would like No. 2 to be stood. Maybe I am the only one, but there is a technical point that I notice here. I am not prepared to speak on it tonight, but I should like to have the opportunity tomorrow. Surely I could do that. It could be stood and we could go on to the other package, and then the agreement with reference to the motion of the right hon. member for Prince Albert could be put into effect.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This would require the unanimous consent of the House. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has requested, regarding motion No. 2, that he be permitted to reserve his right to speak, or perhaps not to speak on it, until another occasion. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Stanbury:: Another filibuster.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Then motions Nos. 3 and 4 are stood, with the agreement of the House, and it is also understood that No. 3 will be called immediately after orders of the day and routine proceedings are completed tomorrow. Is this also understood?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 stood.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now proceed to the package in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster, motions Nos. 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 21. It is the understanding of the Chair that the hon. member for New Westminster is agreeable that these be put together for the purpose
8066

November 22, 1973
Protection of Privacy
of debate at report stage, and I gather nobody is opposed to this suggestion.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) moves motions Nos. 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 21 as follows:
No. 5. That Bill C-176, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be amended in clause 2 by deleting the words "or an agent specially designated in writing for the purpose of this section" in lines 37 to 39 at page 3.
No. 6. That Bill C-176, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be amended in clause 2 by deleting lines 30 to 47 inclusive at page 3 and lines 1 to 37 inclusive at page 4.
No. 9. That Bill C-176, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be amended in clause 2 by deleting lines 38 to 46 inclusive at page 4, lines 1 to 46 inclusive at page 5 and lines 1 to 21 inclusive at page 6.
No. 10. That Bill C-176, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be amended in clause 2 by deleting lines 22 to 46 inclusive at page 6 and lines 1 to 7 inclusive at page 7.
No. 14. That Bill C-176, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be amended in clause 2 by deleting lines 1 to 8 inclusive at page 11.
No. 15. That Bill C-176, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be amended in clause 2 by deleting lines 18 to 39 inclusive at page 11 and lines 1 to 7 inclusive at page 12.
No. 21. That Bill C-176, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act be amended in clause 4 by deleting lines 5 to 8 inclusive at page 20.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I will embark upon a brief explanation because I think that will suffice in showing what I had in mind in proposing these amendments. The present bill provides authorization for police to wiretap for purposes of the Official Secrets Act, the Criminal Code and for all indictable offences. The effect of the seven amendments standing in my name is this: they seek to remove authority for the police to wiretap for purposes of the Criminal Code. They would allow the provisions of the Official Secrets Act to prevail and if these amendments pass wiretapping for those purposes will still be permissible.
Let me explain first why I have excepted the Official Secrets Act. I listened carefully to the evidence Ramsey Clark gave before the committee. I think there is a rationale for considering the security of the state. For example, compare the state of international law with the state of law within a nation. It is important for the relationship between the police force and the population to be established: it is vital and important for the population to respect the police, respect the methods the police use and respect the laws which the police enforce. In international law we are in a different ball game. International law is at a very primitive level. Therefore, where the security of the state is concerned, I feel a legitimate exception can be made for the use of what I consider an immoral device for electronic surveillance.
Having said that, I wish to address a few remarks through you, Mr. Speaker, to the charming hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin). She made a short address, a very interesting one, in which she told us why we need this bill. She said that we must really get down to the business of law and order, of apprehending criminals, and

we must not throw roadblocks in the way of the police. That, I take it, was the substance of her remarks.
That is the rationale used by every totalitarian state in the world. If we are to have that kind of state, that kind of system, I will move out of the country. I hope the charming hon. member will consider most carefully the question of law and order from both sides. She must consider that respect for law and order will increase only if laws are worth respecting, and that in a society such as ours which depends on consensus the devices used to enforce law and order should be ones we can honour and respect and should not be ones of which we are ashamed.
Someone has said that mine is a purist position. I do not think it is. I think it really asks both sides of this question to be examined. When you have examined it carefully, I think you will come down on the side of a complete ban on wiretapping except in those cases noted. I speak for myself on this issue and not for the caucus of my party, which has other ideas on this subject.
This afternoon the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) suggested that in future I might tap on the door of the Conservative Party in view of the approach I have taken to the civil libertarian issue. I must say I have always respected the Conservative Party on issues like this. More than once-this afternoon and this evening-I have heard Conservative members express concern for the rights of individuals. They do not want to see us turn into a monolithic state which does not allow freedom of speech, freedom of privacy or freedom of personality. I have great sympathy for the views of my friends to my right. It is when we come to economic issues that we part company; we are far apart on economic issues.


William George Knight: Especially on what the oil companies are doing.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A monolithic state which robs the individual of freedom is a state made up of large, multinational corporations. That is why I have been so disappointed in hearing members to my right defend large, multinational oil companies.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) mentioned the proceedings in committee and pointed out that the minister cannot have it both ways on this bill. When the minister first brought forward, this bill I am sure many in the civil liberties field congratulated him because they thought the bill provided protection of privacy. These protections are necessary and important. But the minister cannot have it both ways. When the bill was before the committee the minister suggested we were throwing roadblocks in the way. He told committee members we were unnecessarily delaying a good bill and that we needed this legislation.
I noticed, however, that after passing amendments which the Conservative Party had presented, the Minin-ster of Justice (Mr. Lang) suddenly found that we needed to look at the bill more closely: he intended to bring together the attorneys general from all across Canada to look at the bill. He cannot have it both ways. That committee was not partisan. I echo the remarks of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal on this point. It was a good committee and because of its work I think we will wind up with a stronger bill.
November 22, 1973

Let me say this about the motions the House is presently considering. If they do not pass this time, it is certain that somebody else will come forward at some time in the future, say in ten years, and present similar amendments. Why do I say that? Considering the direction the world is taking and nations generally are taking, we will need to ban these kinds of electronic surveillance devices; I mean, ban them in the hands of private citizens and ban them in the hands of those who work for the public.


Albanie Morin: Don't say that in the province of Quebec.


John Gilbert: After the FLQ episode, it should be said.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: There was a report this morning from Quebec that two more lawyers have been bugged, wiretapped.


Albanie Morin: Not by the police.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We do not know that, madam. I say that through you, of course, Mr. Speaker. It is interesting to note that if the bill were passed as it now is, without motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey), what happened in Quebec would be perfectly legal. As I pointed out this afternoon, it is usually easy to find reasons for accusing a lawyer of wrongdoing and it is quite easy to obtain authorization. For example, the Income Tax Act could be used as a device to gain permission to bug.
If I may return to the amendments before the House, they would bar the use of this immoral device in connection with the Criminal Code, except in cases already noted. You must understand the pervasiveness of the device and how widely it can be used. The report from the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), which I read, indicates that in 1972-73 there were 663 taps, resulting in four prosecutions, two of them successful. That is a success rate of one-third of one per cent.
The trouble with the electronic device is, first of all, that it does not do what the police want it to do. Not only does it not increase the efficiency of the police or increase their ability to convict; quite often the use of the device will inhibit the prosecution. Evidence obtained through its use may be ruled as inadmissible and, if that kind of evidence is relied on, a good case could go down the drain. We have to ask ourselves whether these two convictions would have occurred if other good police devices had been used. I submit the traditional ways of obtaining evidence, such as getting out of the car, walking around and talking to people, are the kinds of police activity that work. To give them these new electronic toys, hide them in closets and let them stay there for 18 hours interfering with the privacy of thousands of citizens while a person is under suspicion, is so pervasive and erosive of the right of freedom of speech that on balance we cannot afford to use this kind of device in a civilized society.
I predict that if we continue to use this immoral device we will have reports in the future and someone will stand up in this House in five years' time and again attempt to ban it. I hope he is successful. I hope the time will come when we realize we have an obligation and a duty not only
Protection of Privacy
to our citizens but to citizens of other countries to take the leadership in this field.
Many members have quoted Ramsey Clark. I wish to quote what he said about the use of wiretap when he appeared before our committee. He was one of the most successful attorneys general of the United States. His attack on organized crime was as successful as any. He is not some bleeding-heart liberal who is not willing to use the practical devices available, where they are moral devices, in order to reduce or prevent crime. He said:
I come not to give advice but to express my impressions of the experience of your neighbour to the south. I come because I desperately hope to see from nations in this world the new moral leadership that if founded on the proposition that governments can protect their people without acting unfairly or immorally themselves in any respect. I believe that. I do not believe the rule of law can be an effective means of social change otherwise. I do not believe it can have the respect of the people otherwise and I have not seen a society or a people who believe that wiretapping is moral. It is inherently immoral and therefore to justify it you have to say the end thoughts justify these means.
I come further because of my great concern about government lawlessness, the excessive use of force, violence, treachery and secrecy, and because I believe your fortunate country has a high opportunity and, with that, a high obligation to show the world that we can act fairly with safety.
I submit that is a very statesman like approach to law enforcement. The hon. member Fundy-Royal mentioned the cliche of law and order. In fact, the advocates of law and order in the United States have found themselves on the wrong side of the law all the time. I sometimes wonder how legitimate was their concern when they found it so easy to violate laws that applied to them.
We have to ask ourselves whether these devices increase or enhance the success of prosecutions. There is no doubt in my mind that they do not. It is wasteful of a police officer's time, inordinately expensive, thoroughly inefficient and extremely unsuccessful. To embark upon this device and avoid very real changes to improve efficiency in the use of our police forces in this country-I have great respect for our police forces-is to reduce respect for law and order, to reduce respect for the police and thereby to increase the likelihood of further acts of crime.


Albanie Morin: You should be a policeman for 15 days.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I will end my remarks on that note. I think there are a number of police officers in this country who agree with this approach, although I am sure it is not the majority opinion.


An hon. Member:: That's for sure.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I think on any fair examination of what you are going to get and what you are not going to get, you will be very sorry.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) has once again put before us the proposal he put before the House in earlier debate, and in committee. It is a proposal to remove entirely the possibility of law enforcement officers who are attempting to enforce the law against organized and serious crime in this country using wiretapping or other electronic surveillance that is necessary for their investigative procedures. I find it strange that the
26635-80!

November 22, 1973
Protection of Privacy
hon. member can in this way ignore the important provisions that are contained in this bill to protect our citizens and their liberty and to ensure that proper criminal investigation can take place on our behalf by the police. We should not forget that is what law enforcement is all about: it is activity by the police on our behalf in an attempt to discover and root out organized crime and other serious criminal activity.
Earlier in the day we noted the important moves this bill makes in creating new offences in order to protect privacy, making it unlawful without proper permission to use electronic intrusion to invade the privacy of anyone. Even more important is the general outline of the possession and sale of electronic surveillance devices. The hon. member for New Westminster neglected to observe the careful safeguards and provisions contained in the bill to ensure that electronic surveillance, even in the hands of law enforcement officers, is a rare and last resort device.
I was somewhat amused to hear the hon. member express his concern that the police might be bogged down by the use or availability of this electronic equipment. He indicated he was concerned they might use these devices instead of other things and other methods which in his view are much more effective in police work. I found it rather amusing to hear him show his concern in this way, concern that our police do not know their business as well as the hon. member seems to know it.
The hon. member also ignored the fact that the bill provides the narrow cases in which these devices should be used. It provides that an application to use these devices must be made in a way which holds an attorney general, an elected officer provincially, or the solicitor general, an elected federal officer, responsible for deciding upon any application. It involves an application to a judge. It involves putting before the judge the facts in relation to which an electronic intrusion or wiretapping is needed. It must be shown to the judge that other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, that other investigative procedures are not likely to succeed, and that the urgency of the matter is such as to make it impracticable to carry out the investigation using other investigative procedures.
This is an indication that other investigative measures are to be used in preference to electronic surveillance even though from an expert police point of view electronic surveillance might be the equal of the other methods. It is only when other approaches are not adequate or would fail that electronic surveillance can be resorted to. Then again, the hon. member seems to overlook the safeguard which is provided by requiring the most comprehensive set of records to be kept by attorneys general concerning the use of this equipment-the number of times permission is granted, the circumstances and the consequences.
I find it strange that the hon. member should lack the respect he usually seems to show for political processes, when considering this extremely important form of protection against undue use of electronic equipment for surveillance. But then, he would have none of it at all even in circumstances where it has been approved by a judge to whom it has been demonstrated that other methods would

not succeed. He would prevent the police from using this equipment. He would prevent them from using it in a case, for example, where an extortion gang had kidnapped a person or persons and was making demands, and where it might be possible, as a result of information known to the police, to find out the location of the persons in question but only through the use of devices of the modern age.


Erik Nielsen: They would do it anyway.


Otto Emil Lang: He would bar them from using it, or have them use it in an unlawful fashion, if I take the words of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) as I heard them. But most strange to me, perhaps, was the way he could say, quoting Ramsey Clark, that electronic supervision or surveillance was not really very effective. The experience of Mr. Clark and of the hon. member may be alike, but none of it was in police work. The whole point of our making it a very serious offence to use wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping equipment, the whole point of our making it a serious offence for ordinary citizens to possess such equipment is that so many citizens are finding it intriguing and useful to invade the privacy of others.
I do not understand how it could be said at the same time that it would not be useful or that it would simply impose a burden upon the law enforcement officers. To me, that is strange logic. We wish to remove this equipment from the hands of ordinary citizens, and by making its possession a serious offence we have a real chance of doing so. By taking this approach, by making possession of an offence it is much more likely we shall be able to deter citizens generally from using this equipment; a penalty attached merely to use would probably not be nearly as effective.
But who is it we shall not deter from using this equipment? It is those elements in our society which it is most difficult for our law enforcement officers to combat-the most organized and effective elements of the criminal underworld, those who are engaged in the most serious of crimes. Such elements as these would not be deterred from using surveillance equipment when it suited their needs. It would be small comfort for us to have outlawed these devices and then to find that the organized element in crime continued to use them while the police were prevented from doing so, even though they would otherwise be much better able to rout out that particular offence as well as other serious criminal offences committed by such groups. Even so, under the present bill it must be demonstrated before a judge that other investigative methods are inadequate or have failed. Only in these circumstances is it permissible to turn to these additional devices.
Many of us in this House are aware of the need to safeguard our liberties in every way, of the need to encourage the highest of standards in our law enforcement officers. We do not accomplish this by making all law easy for them to carry out. I can think of the changes in the bail law, for example. An accused person is considered innocent until proven guilty. We felt it desirable to make it possible for such a person to be at large more readily and not to be imprisoned simply because he might be poor and unable to find cash or a bondsman to get him out of custody. We took action along these lines even though we
November 22, 1973

knew that doing so would add somewhat to the difficulties of law enforcement officers. But we should respect the fact that most of these officers are upholders of the tradition of Canadian law and will do their best in every way to enforce the law.
I think it is wrong for individual members of the House or for members of the public to generalize on the basis of a single incident, or a few incidents, and go on to question the police forces as a whole. What we want to do here is to make the work of the police in enforcing the law more effective by allowing, in very carefully controlled circumstances, the use of wiretapping and electronic devices. I think it is vital, therefore, that we oppose the amendment put forward by the hon. member for New Westminster and make it possible, with all the careful controls which have been inserted in the bill, for the police to use electronic equipment in their enforcement work when it is really necessary for them to fall back on such a choice.


Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, just like several members of this House, and particularly Liberal members, I agree with the minister and I am opposed to these proposed amendments.
An overall review of this bill reveals that it stems from the duty the state has to protect its secrets, its information, its institutions and its policy against spying, indiscretion, subversion and illegal intrusion. On the other hand, we can dispute the efficiency of the organization and structures established by the state to fulfill its responsibilities in an area where fundamental liberties of the individual can be at stake.
In all countries, security practices include a set of measures. There is a series of measures on the classification, care, handling and transmission of documents and materials to be protected. Some technical devices come into play and here some concern was expressed on the infringement of the state and of the individuals and organizations on what we agree to call the right to privacy. The problem is vast and includes for instance the wiretapping of telephone conversations and the use of wiretapping devices, cameras with telephoto lenses as well as some other very sophisticated equipment used by the police and other organizations to detect offences or get information.
One question seems to raise some concern: It is the use of certain technical investigation procedures to collect information. Of course, the security measures involving personnel for instance, are the basis of any efficient security system. However, normal legal procedures may sometimes lead to injustice and the same thing applies to security procedures. This is why whatever arrangements are made to protect the rights of the individual his most important right, which is the right to fair treatment, finally depends on the existence of a policy.
Through this bill we want to define this policy. This is the question I ask hon. members tonight: Should we once and for all define a policy on wiretapping? Many people seem to hesitate and yet a fair amount of time has been used by a number of hon. members since the biginning of this debate to suggest that this practice is being enormously abused. Thousands of electronic wiretapping cases are
Protection of Privacy
mentioned but if you consider the statistics you wonder where is the abuser. They say that thousands of people will be spied upon to find only maybe one criminal. The statistics supplied by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) for 1971-72 show that about 663 wiretappings have occurred.
I wonder why this debate is allowed to drag on since it seems that each member has at heart the protection of privacy and also the country's security requirements. If I had to give another title to the bill I would call it: Protection of privacy and security requirements in Canada. This is what the bill is all about. Through this bill we have attempted to create offences as regards the use, interruption and monitoring of private conversations as well as possession and sale of wiretapping devices.
Even though we may disagree, I think that the general feeling in the House is that enough has been said. For the third time within three years we are dealing with this bill. We had another chance to do that in March 1970 and in June 1971, and for eight or nine months we have been considering this bill in the House. Many members participated in the debate. We have moved amendments in the Standing Committee of Justice and Legal Affairs.
As a Canadian representing voters in the province of Quebec, I ask once and for all that we put an end to this debate and say: Yes, what we want is to protect the individual. We also want order within our country. A moment ago, I heard some members say that it was immoral to provide the tools that police officers need to fight against organized crime and drug traffic.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to have better evidence, for then it is also immoral for a police officer to carry a handgun to kill an individual. It is immoral to kill someone with a handgun. I say that we must give policemen the necessary tools to carry out the fight against crime.
That is what people expect from us. It is time that we reassured them, that we endured order in this country and I do not see why all hon. members could not agree unanimously on that. Perhaps the law will not be perfect but at least it will be a start, a step toward the instauration of order and security for the government and every individual in this country.
We want this great country to be beautiful but yet we must consider that people today are looking at us and saying: What are you waiting for to act? It is urgent. We see the abuses indulged in at present in the province of Quebec, especially in Montreal, as well as in many other places.
We want to regulate all those things, we want through most effective legislation to protect the public, and that is the purpose of our mandate to sit in this House. That is what is expected of us today and I, for one, make it a duty in conscience. We should act as responsible men in this House and make decisions rather than mere speeches.

November 22, 1973
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, on July 10 I addressed a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) asking whether he would give immediate consideration to the Laborde Simat report which recommends that runway 05-23 at the Lethbridge airport be lengthened to 13,000 feet, considering that southern Alberta is rapidly becoming the largest livestock feeding and processing area in Canada, exporting breeding cattle and dressed beef to the Pacific rim countries and Europe.
In this year, 1.4 million pounds of beef were exported to the Pacific rim countries. Of the 1.4 million pounds, 943,000 pounds came from Alberta. That represents 66 per cent of all beef exported from Canada. Yet in 1972 only 81,000 pounds were exported to the rim countries, with all of it coming from Alberta. If you take these figures you will find, Mr. Speaker, that from 1972 to 1973 exports of beef from Alberta to the rim countries increased by approximately 862,000 pounds. That is astonishing increase, and even more astonishing when you consider that that is only one year's exports.
In a report written for the then minister of agriculture, Mr. Olson, entitled "Canadian Agriculture in the Seventies", the report states on page 60 that through research government must attempt to anticipate international trade developments before they occur. The task force has also observed that there is insufficient forward-looking. Yet on July 30 the deputy minister of transport stated:
Many of the conclusions are based on propositions which however well founded in theory are still hypothetical.
So here you have one department saying there is not sufficient forward-looking, and another department saying, "Sorry; we cannot help you because you are looking forward." I would suggest that the deputy minister take the suggestion of the Department of Agriculture and look forward. If he were to do that, maybe our other transportation problems could be straightened out. He also states that the Calgary airport, with its updated facilities, will cater to cargo needs allied to the Lethbridge region for some years to come. This statement does not take cognizance of the government of Alberta developing markets in the Pacific rim countries for protein and, in particular, beef products. The Calgary airport cannot possibly serve the needs of the southern Alberta cattle industry, considering it would require surface transportation hauls which would reduce the shelf-life of the product. Last year, packing plants in the city of Lethbridge slaughtered 29 per cent of all cattle slaughtered in Alberta and 11.5 per cent of all cattle slaughtered in Canada. The whole problem of marketing in relation to the flow of animals from

pasture through the feedlots to the packing houses would be hindered.
The facilities of the Calgary airport will not assist the growth and development of southern Alberta. I thought it was the policy of the Government of Canada to assist the decentralization of growth from larger metropolitan centres to communities the size of Lethbridge which show a potential for growth. At the now famous Western Economic Opportunities Conference held in Calgary, the federal government stated it was anxious to see air transportation developed still further. Then on the other hand it states, "No, this study is purely hypothetical." I might add that it is not. This type of double-dealing cannot but do its share of damage to the people's sense of faith and trust in the political system.
With Japan desiring to increase the nutritional levels of its people and to stimulate domestic beef production, this will no doubt create a growing demand for products from southern Alberta. The long distances involved and problems such as perishability and weight loss in the shipment of cattle will create real opportunities for airlifting produce to world markets. Thus, airlifting facilities right in the heart of the livestock industry will reduce the per unit cost of the air movement of goods and a whole new range of lower value goods will be transported by air.
The largest aircraft that runway 05-23 can accommodate at present under full payload is the Boeing 737, which has only short to medium range flying capability. This runway cannot handle the bigger long range aircraft required to serve distant markets such as Pacific rim countries. The federal government is in the process of building a $1.5 million agricultural research station near Lethbridge. It has spent millions of dollars in DREE grants for processing industries. This government and the provincial government have spent tens of millions of dollars on new irrigation methods in southern Alberta. The investments of Canadians and Albertans cannot be maximized unless there are proper means of transportation and facilities which will make these investments pay off.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), the Minister of Transport, and the Deputy Minister of Transport all say we need more proof, more evidence and more documented facts before they will do anything for the Lethbridge airport. If this is the case, there is no need for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. This department does not sit back and wait for things to happen. Instead, it goes out and develops trade. It hunts down trade when it knows it has a product to sell. When the LIP program was established, the government knew there was unemployment so it set aside millions of dollars and said, "If you want to work, we will help you."
I will give the federal government credit, Mr. Speaker, for having the foresight to see the potential for growth in the Lethbridge constituency. They realized that the largest cattle feeding operations in Canada are located in the Lethbridge constituency. They realized that Lethbridge could be a real boom district, with the right investment. With the investments of the federal government and the province of Alberta, Lethbridge is on its way to fantastic expansion.
November 22, 1973


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Guay).


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to hear the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt) mention some of the things-


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hon. member should know there is no point of order.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I noticed that we had gone three minutes past the hour when I rose to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The point of order can be raised tomorrow, but the Clerk has given notice of the time to the Chair.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the hon. member for Lethbridge mention some of the actions taken by the federal government in his area, particularly in Lethbridge and the surrounding area. These are some of the benefits; but there are many more which I could mention if I had time. However, speaking on the question proper, the Laborde Simat report, which was prepared for the industrial development department of the city of Lethbridge, reached the ministry on July 13. It is under study within the ministry and further discussions will undoubtedly take place between city officials and the regional administrator for air in Edmonton, and possibly with headquarters officers here in Ottawa.
The city's interest in improving all facilities at Lethbridge is appreciated, and a cordial and effective communication relationship exists at both the regional and the headquarters' levels of the ministry with the city. Already there has been considerable progress in arrangements affecting future development of the commercial area of Lethbridge airport and the ministry is discussing with the city improvements to the terminal as a result of the city being selected as host for the 1975 Canada winter games.
I can only say that at the moment the ministry has not made plans for the runway extension proposed. Should economic studies and forecasts support such an action, we would proceed consistent with national priorities and available funds in future years.


GRAIN-PROVISION OF CARS BY RAILWAYS TO TRANSPORT WHEAT
William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, in the prairie region, and in respect of western grain producers, one of the most elementary things in supplying them with stability of income is the continuity of the export of their grain into international markets. This fall, the problem in terms of the transportation of that grain has been the most serious it has been for decades. Last January I raised the matter of boxcars for the movement of wheat. That was almost ten months ago. Now we are in exactly the same position; in fact, we are in a worse position.
Adjournment Debate
What are some of the facts outlining that position as of today? Ten years ago, cars suitable for grain movement and similar commodities numbered 88,000. Today, the number of cars suitable for the movement of grain and similar commodities, such as lumber, is 48,000. We have, in a decade, a drop of 40,000 cars which are capable of moving grain. At the port of Vancouver, one of the most important terminal delivery points for the export market, there are between 400 and 500 cars a day for the movement of grain. That is operating at 50 per cent capacity. In terms of employment, at this terminal at least 50 per cent of the men are laid off.
There are ten ships presently loading, and there are at least seven more waiting. At Thunder Bay, which has the capacity to handle 60 million bushels, we have 30 million bushels on hand. Some people might say we have 41 million bushels on hand, but actually we have in fact 11 million bushels of screenings and other commodities not related to the export market.
In the country elevator system we have stocks on hand to the point where the Saskatchewan elevator system is 73 per cent full, which means that hundreds of country elevators across Saskatchewan are entirely plugged. The CN is 1,500 cars a week ahead of the CPR in the movement of grain; and for that I commend the CN. But what is happening is that the CN and the CP are using the present situation and the strike which took place months ago as an excuse to blackmail this government into supplying them with more hopper cars, as they did before.
What the government must do is to move in the direction of taking over the CPR and developing one national transportation system. One of their immediate actions should be to stop the CPR from scrapping Nos. 22 and 24 grain cars, cars that they are scrapping for metal at the plant in Regina. I understand they have been scrapping hundreds of them. Another thing that the government might attempt to do is establish a national boxcar allocater under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Commission. He would have power to instruct the railways to supply an adequate number of cars as required under the National Transportation Act, in order to move our commodities into position for the export market-and not only the export market but the domestic market, in terms of feed grains for eastern Canada.
Hon. members from Quebec have been complaining that they are not assured of sufficient supplies for the winter. That could be the case because of the problem created by the railways and also the problem created by the minister's feed grain policy in allowing the country elevators to become plugged, instead of using the quota system. I could say more about this but I will argue it some other day. I say to the minister that I am pleased to see he is here to respond to what is an extremely serious situation. We all have to do what we possibly can in the House of Commons to alleviate the situation, and I look forward to hearing his suggestions tonight to try to solve the problem before the dead of winter sets in.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that figures do not lie. But certainly it is true that figures can be used in a misleading way. The

November 22, 1973
Adjournment Debate
figures to which the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) referred when he spoke of the numbers of cars having gone from 88,000 to 48,000 are, of course, basically accurate in terms of the available boxcars but they ignore the fundamental fact which he should take into account if he wishes to make a full argument, namely, that many other cars of a specialized nature have been put to service to replace the boxcars which were used in the old days, the hopper cars and the specialized cars now in place. The point is that the grain car fleet is deteriorating; that is one of the reasons we put into the Prairies 2,000 hopper cars for the great benefit of the prairie grain farmer.
The hon. member for Assiniboia and his colleagues do a great disservice to the grain industry and to farmers generally when they criticize us for having put those 2,000 cars in place. They seem to ignore the fact that at present we have requests from the Canadian Wheat Board, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and many other organizations to do again what we did before. The hon. member should ask himself: If he were to direct cars into the grain movement, from which of his colleagues in the House, or from which other members in the House would he get them? Is he going to take them from the lumber movement in British Columbia, where one of his colleagues is frequently screaming about cars; or from the potash movement? The fact is there are more cars in the potash movement today than there were a year ago.
The economy is booming and there is pressure on our railway situation. This is compounded by the fact that our boxcar fleet is deteriorating. That is one of the reasons we bought hopper cars and studied the transportation system. The fact is that there is a large number of cars in the grain movement; and we have been careful to urge the railways to put in more. There is no point in suggesting, in this connection, that we do something about nationalizing the CPR. The problem is the same on the CNR. Both are trying to move the grain. Stocks are a little low at Vancouver and Thunder Bay, but in both places they have gone up since the strike ended. We will not let up in our efforts but will continue, as we have in the past, to do everything in our power to make the transportation system work better for every individual farmer.


AIR CANADA-REQUEST THAT CANADIAN AEROSPACE INDUSTRY BE CONSIDERED IN PURCHASE OF NEW PLANES
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, on October 31 I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) a question, and I am very glad to have the chance to debate it tonight with his very distinguished parliamentary secretary. The question was about Air Canada's plans to purchase aircraft which involve much less Canadian content, in terms of materials and labour, than the Douglas aircraft it has been using. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this matter further because of the imperative need to give priority to Canadian-based members of the aircraft industry.
If the industry is to survive in this country, opportunities for contracts must go first to companies creating jobs for Canadians and contributing to Canada's growth. An example is the Douglas Aircraft Company of Canada. It employs 5,200 people in the metro Toronto area, and twice

since 1965 has had as many as 7,200 on its strength. Its weekly payroll in Toronto is $1 million. Since 1965, the Canadian-made material it exported exceeded what it imported by $258 million. Every DC-9 that is purchased in Canada includes $400,000 worth of Canadian goods. Every DC-10 includes $1.2 million worth. Of the total material required for a DC-9, a substantial amount is manufactured in Toronto. It includes wings, tail sections, sections of fuselage, and floors. The company uses 1,100 Canadian suppliers from Nova Scotia to British Columbia, all of them creating jobs for their fellow citizens and adding vitality to our free enterprise economy.
The point at issue is not that the government or any Crown corporation such as Air Canada has an obligation to this, or any other company. The point is that the government and its Crown corporations have an obligation to Canadian workers and suppliers. They have an obligation to keep the aircraft industry viable as a Canadian enterprise. They are not fulfilling that obligation now. Instead, they are giving contracts to companies which have few Canadian employees and which purchase very small quantities of Canadian goods. At a time when the government is preaching economic nationalism, it is practising economic continentalism. In its legislation it says "Canada first"; in its contracts it says "Canada maybe".
I am not saying the government and its Crown corporations should not be free to purchase the aircraft they believe meet their needs best. But I do claim they should insist that companies meet a minimum standard of Canadian content in materials and labour. That minimum should be either directly included in the product itself or some other equivalent.
In Australia, all offshore purchases must guarantee there is a 30 per cent Australian content either in the product itself or in some offsetting equivalent. When is the Canadian government going to demand something like that? When is it going to protect the interests of its own people as it should? In his answer on October 31, the minister said:
Whatever type of aircraft Air Canada is going to buy we shall see there is some economic benefit to Canada.
If that is true, let him show us in terms of jobs and materials. There is now a real danger that a major employer in the Toronto area will be affected and numbers of workers deprived of their jobs. This affects not only the company concerned but all the suppliers and providers of services which are related to that company.
How will this be of benefit to Canada? Saying that work has been provided elsewhere does not answer the question. Toronto people are Canadians too, which is sometimes forgotten in this House, and they have every right to have their economic future safeguarded. It is one thing for an agency like the CRTC to suggest that there should be 50 per cent Canadian content on certain radio and television programs. Do we not need the same kind of policy to apply to industry so far as we would be able to carry it out?
I suggest that we must give priority consideration to those industries which are creating jobs for Canadians. They do, after all, ultimately supply the dollars with which we buy goods. At a time when unemployment
November 22, 1973

remains high, when in the aircraft industry there is a gathering together of highly trained, highly skilled people who work in a technologically sophisticated enterprise which is very competitive, nearly always on the edge of difficulty, indeed on the edge of disaster, it is fundamentally necessary for the government to give priority consideration to any company which will provide a significantly large number of jobs for Canadians.
I hope, therefore, that due consideration will be given to the impact of purchasing policies on aircraft producers across this country. I plead for some recognition to be given to aircraft producers in the Toronto area, employing as they do 5,200 people and providing work for the employees of 1,100 suppliers. That is a consideration which ought to be taken seriously. I certainly hope the government will use its good offices in making sure that every consideration is given to these companies.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, the assurance in the answer of the minister which was given to the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse) on October 1 of this year has not changed. The selection of aircraft by a large commercial carrier is a very complex process. In addition to meeting regulatory standards which assure safety of operation, the aircraft characteristics must match the airline's route structure and market. Distances between stops on a route, average and peak numbers of passengers estimated, annual utilization, maintenance
Adjournment Debate
cycles, and ground facilities required and available are some of the many elements which must be considered in the determination of the profitability of a particular aircraft for an airline.
Air Canada's primary role is to provide an efficient and economic air service, and the airline therefore selects aircraft that best satisfy this role. Air Canada selected the L-1011 in preference to the DC-10 because after an exhaustive comparison of the two aircraft Air Canada determined that the L-1011 was much superior in meeting the requirements of its routes and markets. I might add that negotiation of a substantial offset package with Lockheed as a result of the L-1011 purchase will result in much work to Canadian industry at various points in the country.
As has been evident in recent months, the demand for air travel is increasing and Air Canada must add to its fleet if it is to provide the public with the service to which it is entitled. Air Canada has placed proposals before the government which are under consideration. These proposals and their implications for the Canadian aerospace industry will be given very careful consideration. I am keenly aware of the concern, particularly in the Toronto area where so much of the Canadian aerospace industry is located, and I can assure the House that every effort possible will be made to sustain employment levels through this program and other programs which the government is considering.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Friday, November 23, 1973