1973-11-27

Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members might want to allow me to refer quickly to the statement made yesterday by the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with reference particularly to the temperature in public buildings. It was felt that hon. members would want to comply with the suggestion made by the minister at the time, and agreed to by hon. members, that perhaps we might make our contribution by having the temperature in the building reduced. My understanding is that the temperature in the parliament buildings' offices and this chamber will be in the 68 to 70 degree range. I am informed it is now down to 70 and dropping. I am sure this temperature will assist hon. members to keep their tempers cool, as usual, and assist them with their cold logic.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House to a motion, which is seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the serious situation created economically and to the export trade because wheat is not being moved as fairly and expeditiously as it should be, the railway companies preferring transport of more lucrative commodities and products and continuing to deny a fair and reasonable share of freight cars for wheat transport.
To secure action beneficial to the wheat farmer and to the Canadian economy, the government is urged to bring before the House at once legislation to provide for a boxcar controller with authority to allocate the needed boxcars for wheat, and to include therein substantial penalties for failure to provide such cars as shall be directed by the said controller.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that I recognize the actual motion but I will inquire whether there is unanimous consent to the motion proposed by the right hon. member
for Prince Albert under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Canada, through a diplomatic note to the United States, urgently requests the United States to establish a moratorium on all further construction on the North Dakota project known as the Garrison Diversion Unit until Ottawa is assured "that Canadian rights and interests have been fully protected" under the Boundary Waters Treaty, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the House of Commons approves and supports in principle the diplomatic note defending Canadian rights and interests under the Boundary Waters Treaty in order to avoid the needless polluting of two major Canadian river systems.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion also requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether there were nays. I will inquire again. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I heard some nays but they were faint. The Chair is placed in a difficult situation. I will inquire again, and if any member has a serious objection and wishes to so indicate I will recognize that hon. member. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I think there is unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
November 27, 1973
George Derby Hospital Site
[ Translation]

Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the recent price increases of 10 to 50 per cent on more than 700 food products and since this is obviously taking unfair advantage of consumers, especially low and medium income families, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House request the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices to examine as soon as possible why the Food Prices Review Board is not more effective and to report to the House giving appropriate suggestions to control these increases more effectively.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore, the motion cannot be put.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the federal government expropriated approximately 200 acres of property belonging to the municipality of Burnaby during the second world war on the basis of wartime need, and in view of the fact the federal government has ignored the municipality of Burnaby throughout negotiations with the provincial government in respect of the transfer of the said property, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Nelson):
That this House direct the Minister of Veterans Affairs to forthwith invite the municipality to full participation in negotiations with a view to returning the unused portion of the George Derby Hospital site to the municipality of Burnaby for the original purchase price.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills:
November 21, 1973-Mr. Horner (Crowfoot)-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan".
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am informed that the hon. member for Elgin has given notice of a bill also dealing with contributions and benefits payable to farmers and fishermen under the Canada Pension Plan. The Chair has reservations about some aspects of the bills, particularly in relation to the provisions of Standing Order 62. I have no intention of making a ruling at this point, but perhaps we might wait until both bills are before the House, at which time the hon. members might be given the opportunity to present their views on the procedural point, following which, again in due course, the Chair might give a ruling on the basis of the advice given by hon. members.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: With the reservation you have expressed, Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to allow the matter to stand.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT AMENDMENTS RESPECTING EQUALIZATION FORMULA, ELIGIBILITY FOR PAYMENT, POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-233, to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1972, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Revision Act, 1964 and the Income Tax Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: Orders the day.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I might have the permission of the House to revert to motions. I thought you had been given notice of my desire to table a document.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table in both official languages the final report of the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Committee on the review of the benefit control program and my letter of acknowledgement to Mr. Anatole Lesyk, chairman of the advisory committee.
November 27, 1973


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, while on motions, and inasmuch as a resolution just presented on the subject has been approved unanimously by the House, I should like to table a copy of Note No. 432 addressed to the United States State Department concerning the effect on water quality in the Souris River of the proposed Garrison Diversion Project in the State of North Dakota.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who said last evening he had heard, for the first time about a week ago that companies supplying Canada with oil from sources other than Arab countries were invoking a force majeure clause which might reduce deliveries to Canada by some 125,000 barrels a day. Is the minister accepting the right of these companies to invoke this clause or is he registering any protest or disputing in any way the right of the companies concerned to invoke this clause and thus reduce contractual deliveries to Canada?


Hon.. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. gentleman did not understand me. I was referring to the decision of the supplying company, which is not a company under Canadian jurisdiction, to invoke the force majeure clause. In other words, the Canadian company is entitled by contract to receive the supply of these quantities of oil but subject to the condition of the contract which has been invoked by the other contracting party that there would be a pro-rationing.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the minister whether the government of Canada is accepting that the supplying companies are acting within the terms of their contracts in so reducing the daily deliveries of oil to Canada? When the minister was asked a few weeks ago in the House if he was making any representations with regard to the multinational corporations, he then said he preferred to deal with the Canadian companies. I still ask the minister whether he accepts the position taken by the supplying companies and whether he intends to accept without dispute their right under these contracts to cut deliveries to Canada by 125,000 barrels a day?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me we do not have any choice in this regard but to accept
Oral Questions
what is the contractual arrangement. We have a right to receive oil but this is subject to certain conditions. We find, unlike the situation several weeks ago, that the suppliers of the oil are now making reference to the force majeure. I am not sure whether they have done so specifically so far or merely indicated their intention to do so. In either event, this is a condition upon which we receive that oil, and I am not sure that we have any other choice but to accept it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the minister or anybody else in the government of Canada making inquiries to satisfy themselves that this reduction in deliveries is valid or whether it is not? Is anybody making any examination to determine whether rights contracted to Canada are being lived up to or is the minister simply accepting somebody else's word that this is okay?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by my officials that this is the contractual basis and I have taken their advice.


JUSTIFICATION FOR INCREASES IN PRICES OF GASOLINE AND HOME HEATING OIL
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a question based on his statement last night in which he announced he had agreed to increases of four cents to five cents a gallon for motor gasoline in the eastern market as of December 1. Would the minister inform the House whether he was requested to agree to an increase in the price of home heating fuel as well and what the price situation in respect of home heating oil will be as of December 1?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My understanding is that because both products are manufactured from the same imported crude it would apply to both products and it would apply equally in terms of cost, that is to say, about the same increase.


David Lewis: Will the minister explain to the House, if the price increase was to apply to home fuel oil as well as to motor gasoline, what caused him to refer only to motor gasoline in his statement last night?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I gave that as an example of the increase.


David Lewis: Can the minister also inform the House as to what the price increase in crude oil has been since mid-October on which this increase in motor gasoline and home fuel oil prices is justified since, as he announced on November 1, there has already been a two cents a gallon increase based on the increase on crude up to mid-October?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member will recall that not only was there an increase in the early fall but there was an increase in the Arab tax reference price of about 70 per cent and an increase in the Venezuelan price of about 56 per cent after the two cents increase to which he referred had taken place. The figures for each individu-
8172

November 27, 1973
Oral Questions
al company vary, but in effect what is now being passed through is the cost increase related to the very substantial increases that occurred as the result of the 70 per cent and 56 per cent increases.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall recognize the hon. member for York South for another supplementary, followed by the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


David Lewis: I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he has examined the profits of the corporations concerned which increased between 40 per cent and 50 per cent during the first three quarters of 1973 over the same period in 1972 and whether, if he made such an examination, he asked the companies to absorb at least part of the increase in the price of crude oil before handing it on to the consumers of Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman will recall that the condition upon which we obtained the agreement for restraint in September was that identified international cost increases could be passed on. So we were carrying out our side of that particular undertaking.


POSSIBLE SALE OF OIL BY ARAB COUNTRIES TO PROVINCE OF QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
A few days ago an official of one Arab country whose name I have forgotten stated during a visit in Quebec that his country was ready to sell oil to Quebec after agreement with that province, but that it was not ready to negotiate with Ottawa. Is the minister aware of that visit in Quebec and would the federal government object if Quebec transacted with one of the Arab countries?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We do not approve such an arrangement between an Arab government and the Quebec government. Quebec does not really enjoy an international status, but it is quite possible that agreements could be negotiated between Quebec and Arab companies.
I will point out to the Quebec companies that such an arrangement with Arab countries is perhaps not so effective, given the experience of the past days.


NAMES OF FOREIGN COMPANIES SUPPLYING OIL TO CANADA INTENDING TO USE &quot;FORCE MAJEURE&quot; CLAUSE IN CONTRACTS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary follows the line taken by the Official Leader of the Opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, following the questions by the Leader of the Official Opposition-


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -would the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources give parliament the name or names of the supplying companies that have threatened to apply force majeure?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly have to check on that. I think that the suppliers of the Canadian companies are probably well known, for example, Creole in Venezuela and Aramco in Saudi Arabia.


ADVANCE DELIVERY TO PROVINCES OF STATEMENT MADE BY MINISTER
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the fact that for reasons best known to itself the government entrusted to the Department of External Affairs the advance delivery to the provinces of last night's energy statement, can the minister explain why advance copies of that statement were not received by several provinces, including New Brunswick and Manitoba?


An hon. Member:: They are not recognized.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much whether it is part of my responsibilities to deliver messages to the provinces of Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: Since this was the practice followed last night and it is apparently a new practice and therefore a new policy of the government of Canada, based on this precedent can the minister advise if the government, as a result of its various dealings with the provincial governments, now feels it is necessary to establish embassies in all the provinces?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REASON FOR USE OF &quot;FORCE MAJEURE&quot; CLAUSE IN CONTRACTS BY FOREIGN COMPANIES SUPPLYING OIL TO CANADA
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would the minister say whether the force majeure which is being suggested by the oil supplying companies is as a result of their being cut off at the source by the producing countries and therefore they do not have the oil, or is it because the supplying companies have decided arbitrarily to deliver that oil to some other country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that it has been a decision of the supplying companies, and it may be related under the conditions of the contracts they have with other countries to other supply obligations.
November 27, 1973


QUANTITY OF OIL TO BE MOVED FROM ONTARIO INTO QUEBEC THIS WINTER-SUPPLIES PURCHASED BY GOVERNMENT
Peter Colwell Bawden: I suggest that the minister might look into that because I believe he will find he is incorrect. I have one further question. Has the minister now had an opportunity to determine what quantities of oil during this winter will be moving from Ontario into Quebec, and also what supplies have been purchased abroad so that he can try to determine from these areas what supplies will be available to overcome the deficiency?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to ask that the second part of the question be referred to the Minister of Supply and Services-


Peter Colwell Bawden: Well, speak to him.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -whose departmental
responsibility it is to make acquisitions. With respect to the first part, I regret I cannot answer this afternoon. I will have to get the answer later.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary South will be recognized for a further supplementary and then I will recognize the hon. member for Malpeque.


Peter Colwell Bawden: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but these ministers keep playing pingpong. Would the Minister of Supply and Services tell us what quantities he has now purchased abroad, when these will be available to Canada, and perhaps say what the price is going to be?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the figures remain the same: we have bought 40 million gallons in the Caribbean and in Roumania. A first shipment has been unloaded in St. John's, Newfoundland, and a second will probably be unloaded at Quebec City into Caloil tanks. A third has also left on November 24. We have thus scheduled oil shipments from the Caribbean until the month of December. With regards to Roumanian oil, a first shipment is expected for early December. As for the price we paid, since we are still studying the markets, as I have said previously, and we intend to negotiate with all those who can supply us with extra oil, I would prefer not to reveal it.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I will direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Are non-Canadian airlines taking on an abnormal amount
Oral Questions
of fuel at Canadian airports for trans-Atlantic and other international flights? Whether or not this is true, what action is the government taking to guarantee that Canadian charter flight activities this winter will have a suitable supply of fuel in Florida and other southern destinations so that this important industry, the small airlines and charter carriers, will not be eliminated?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to inquire into that question.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. What measures are being envisaged to protect northern television viewers from the numerous foul-ups and program repetitions which they have had to suffer since the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation began to use the Anik satellite to transmit feed from Toronto to Vancouver using the north as a relay point instead of treating it as an audience?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has a very valid complaint.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: It has been the subject of a petition received from people in the Northwest Territories. I only wish I could offer the hon. member a short or quick solution to the problem but I cannot. Maybe we might meet later and I will point out to the hon. member some of the difficulties.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister and I am sure that some southerners would be interested in it as well. When can the Northwest Territories expect to have its own television production centre?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer that.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halton.


Mr. O'Connor:: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who seems to have vacated the House temporarily.

November 27, 1973
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



GOVERNMENT VIEW ON PARTICIPATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF PALESTINIAN PEOPLE IN MIDDLE EAST PEACE CONFERENCE

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs fresh from his waits and welcomes in the Soviet Union. Can he advise if it is the view of the Canadian government that representatives of the Palestinian people should participate in the Middle East peace conference, a view held, inter alia, by Mr. Gromyko and the Canadian Council of Churches?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Gromyko said to me it was the view of the Soviet government that there should be some representation from the Palestinian people, I said that the Canadian government was generally in sympathy with this point of view.



FOOD PRICES


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Is he aware of the 10 per cent increase in the retail price of at least 768 food products and, if so, what will he do to correct such a situation? It is proper to point out that such an increase took place during the week of November 19, 1973.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am taking this question as notice and shall reply to it later.



FINANCE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister inform the House whether Canada was asked to take part in a meeting of finance ministers in France this past weekend, and does he know if the deteriorating economic situation and continuing fall of the stock market was discussed?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, Canada was not invited to participate in that meeting.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that employees of the Atmospheric Environment Service at Vancouver have protested against the feasibility of moving that service to the proposed new Pacific Environment Centre in North Vancouver and because this site was chosen based on a proposed third crossing of Burrard Inlet which is now in doubt, can the minister advise when the new in-depth study, which was referred to in answers to questions on July 25 that appear in Hansard, will take place, reviewing the site selection?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is incorrect in assuming that the site in North Vancouver was chosen conditional upon the construction of another crossing over Vancouver Harbour. In answer to the second part of his question, we hope that the in-depth study will be made public in a month or so.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Can the minister assure the House that no final decision will be taken without hearing the views of the employees and municipal planning officials?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the views of the employees have already been sought.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Have his officials informed him that petroleum products are going across customs points in eastern Canada into the United States at an unprecedented rate in the past few days and, if not, will the minister make an inquiry and report to the House immediately?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose the rate would be the problem. The problem would be whether or not there are export permits for the shipments being made. Customs officials have instructions, and have had for some time, to require permits for petroleum exports. I am not aware of any shipments crossing from Canada to the United States without such permits.
November 27, 1973



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Owing to the fact that many unemployment insurance overpayments are the result of errors made by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and also due to the fact that these overpayments are often in excess of $1,000, is the minister considering putting a ceiling on the amount of the benefits a recipient must repay if the error is entirely the fault of the Unemployment Insurance Commission?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, by far the bulk of the so-called overpayments are the result of control action taken after the payment, not as a result of error on the part of the commission. However, even in the case where there may have been a clerical error the act requires us to collect these overpayments. We try to arrange with the claimant subject to the repayment the most reasonable method of repayment spread over a period of time.



FINAL REPORT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON BENEFIT CONTROL PROGRAM

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister how long he has had the second report from the advisory committee to the Unemployment Insurance Commission and why it has not yet been tabled?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think I personnally received it last Tuesday or Wednesday. I met with the advisory committee yesterday and I tabled the report just a few minutes ago.

[ Translation]



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Since statistics show that small enterprises employ 60 per cent of wage earners in Canada, can the minister tell the House whether his department's policy will better favour small industry development by giving special consideration to the allocation of grants as well as to the industrial decentralization in order to bring closer together the small industry and the abundant manpower to be found in rural community?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, basically the hon. gentleman has outlined what I have said on several occasions is
Oral Questions
one of the objectives of the reorganization. I am still primarily concerned with manufacturing and processing and to that extent I hope to change the ground rules through which small business can participate. Whether we can extend that form of assistance to service industries is something that is still being discussed with the provinces.



AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT FOR COMPANIES TO QUALIFY FOR ASSISTANCE

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Would the minister tell the House whether in the legislation he intends to introduce he is considering softening the rules and lowering the minimum amount to be invested before anyone may benefit from this legislation?
[ English]


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if in using the word "softening" it is meant that we would reduce, for instance, the amount of fixed capital costs that would be required for assistance, the answer is that this is precisely the course that is now being considered.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, normally I would not have to ask this question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs but yesterday, instead of giving a report to the House concerning his discussions with Gromyko, he simply tabled a communique. I would ask the minister whether, during his discussions with Gromyko, he had anything to say concerning the oil embargoes that were then threatened if not actually imposed by the Arab nations against those countries that show any affinity for Israel? Was that subject discussed and, if so, did the minister call upon the U.S.S.R., apparently the custodian of the thinking of the Arab nations, to have these nations refrain from this type of international blackmail?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I did have some discussions with the representatives of the Soviet government when I was in Russia last week. At that time I repeated to the Soviet authorities the same argument that I had given here in the House of Commons and which I believe are supported on all sides, namely, that it is dangerous to use economic weapons as an instrument of political pressure.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, again I dislike to ask this question, but we should have had a report. What was the reaction of the representatives of the U.S.S.R. to whom he spoke, and did he at the same time point out the serious

November 27, 1973
Oral Questions
danger to peace in that the U.S.S.R. is shipping tremendous amounts of munitions to Egypt today, particularly increased since the ceasefire?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware whether or not the Soviet Union had been shipping armaments to the Arab nations or to any particular one of them since the ceasefire, so I was not in a position to raise this question. I did repeat to the Soviet authorities Canadian policy which is not to ship arms to any area of conflict.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently the minister does not read the New York Times.



MOVEMENT OF OIL THROUGH PORTLAND-MONTREAL PIPELINE-STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS RESPECTING CUT-OFFS

Mr. Ian Arrol (York East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister resolve the discrepancies between statements made by several ministers with regard to shipment of oil via the Portland-Montreal pipeline inasmuch as two ministers have stated that there will be no oil cut-offs and another has stated that there will be a cut-off of refined oil shipments?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will give me the details of these statements I will look into them and ask the ministers if there was any conflict in fact.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition for a supplementary and then the hon. member for Spadina.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the Prime Minister reconcile the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a few days ago that Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi had said they were banning any shipments to Portland, to be transported by the pipeline to Canada, and the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday that to his knowledge no such ban existed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the distinction is that there is no boycott of the shipping of oil to Canada by any of those states, but two of them have chosen not to ship oil to Canada by way of landing it in the United States at Portland.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact an estimated 3,000 families were made homeless over the weekend by an earthquake in the Azores which levelled some 80 per cent of the houses on

the island of Pico and on the north side of the island of Faial, and as the local authorities are removing people from the small villages of these two islands because of safety hazards, may I ask the minister what the government of Canada is doing to assist in this emergency affecting relatives of many Portuguese Canadians?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this tragedy has been under consideration in the department and I can say that we will be making a decision within the next few days on a proper response in the way that I know the Canadian people would wish us to make it.



EXTENSION OF OIL PIPELINE TO MONTREAL-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF STATEMENT ON SEPTEMBER 4

Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last Friday, in the question period, I referred to the Prime Minister's statement on page 6184 of Hansard for September 4, which did not indicate that the Prime Minister had announced a decision to build a pipeline to Montreal. The Prime Minister said he would have to check what other words were used. Can the Prime Minister now inform us if he or his staff have located anything to substantiate his claim that he announced on September 4 the decision to build the pipeline?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, and I did not want to convey the impression that on that day I had suggested anything different from what was quoted by the hon. member. What I did indicate on September 4 was that we had indicated the direction in which our policy was to proceed. Subsequent statements by various ministers of the government and myself have put that September 4 statement in a much clearer context, which is one of a firm determination that the pipeline should proceed.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister. It has to do with the decision-making process. Last night the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated, in reply to a question from the hon. member for Regina East as recorded in Hansard, page 8149, that discussions with the province of Quebec have not reached an agreement in principle for the construction of the pipeline. Is it the government's decision to construct such a pipeline whether the government of Quebec agrees or not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister did answer this question quite firmly, that we have a responsibility for assuring security of supply, but at this stage we have no doubt that the province of Quebec will see the validity of that position.
November 27, 1973



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General or the Minister of Public Works, whichever is the more competent in the matter. It relates to the purchase by the Department of Public Works of property adjacent to the RCMP building on Jarvis Street, Toronto. As the property in question now provides housing for over 120 persons and as the City of Toronto has offered to arrange accommodation for these persons in that property until September 1, 1974, will the minister state whether his department intends to accede to the city's request for a lease arrangement to September 1, 1974?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of both ministers I will look into the matter and reply to the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I should remind hon. members that we will be running short of time and we should try to limit supplementaries as much as possible. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Scarborough West on a last supplementary.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, while the ministers are looking into the matter, could I address a supplementary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Considering that the minister has expended considerable effort to be in touch with the municipalities of Canada in a general way at tri-level conferences, and in view of the fact the Department of Public Works acquired the Jarvis Street-Shuter Street property in Toronto without prior consultation with the city or its planning agencies, will the minister undertake to urge his colleagues at least to inform the city or other Canadian cities as to what plans they have in store for properties in municipalities, and whether in this particular case the plan will involve use of the property for surface parking or a horse pasture?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
* * **



SURVEY OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS AND INDUSTRIES TO DETERMINE WHICH STILL RETAIN COAL BURNING CAPABILITY

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has he undertaken a comprehensive survey to determine what public institutions or industries in Canada still retain coal burning capability? If this has been done, can he state whether or not the government has any program for encouraging them to take the pressure off petroleum products by switching back to coal where that is practical?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I must confess I have not myself undertaken such a survey, but it is a useful suggestion by the hon. member.



POSSIBLE STEPS TO CURTAIL SALE OF OIL AND LUBRICANTS TO FOREIGN FISHING FLEETS

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the energy crisis, is the government taking any steps to limit or prohibit the sale of oil and lubricants from Canadian sources to the foreign fishing fleet presently operating on Canada's continental shelf?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, these products are not under National Energy Board control and I think the correct answer to that would be no.



CONSIDERATION OF SHORTAGE OF OIL IN ATLANTIC


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of the Environment. Will the shortage of oil in Atlantic Canada be taken into consideration by Dr. Weeks during his present studies of the over-all effects on industries in Atlantic Canada and the operations of foreign fishing fleets off our coasts if sales to these fleets are prohibited?


John (Jack) Davis: Definitely, Mr. Speaker.



ACTION TO ENSURE NEW ELECTRIC UTILITIES WILL USE NUCLEAR POWER SOURCES RATHER THAN OIL

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the shortages of petroleum products in eastern Canada and the adequate supplies of uranium, does the government plan to take any action to ensure that new electrical utilities coming on stream will use nuclear power sources rather than petroleum as a source of energy, so that we may avoid the situation such as that at the Lennox Generating Station of Ontario Hydro where, as I understand it, some consideration is now being given to converting this petroleum burning plant to coal even before it goes into production?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in general terms, yes, we do have a program such as that now in operation at Gentilly, Quebec, to encourage wider Canadian use of the CANDU reactor. We are pleased that Ontario Hydro, despite the Lennox decision, is going ahead with 8,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity in the next 15 years.

November 27, 1973
Oral Questions



RESEARCH INTO TREATMENT OF DRUG ADDICTS BY ACUPUNCTURE

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the great difficulties that arise in successfully treating drug addicts, and the success reported in the use of acupuncture in detoxifying drug addicts as well as in the treatment of drug addiction, is any similar work being carried on through research or otherwise in Canada?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that research is being carried out just now on this subject, but this is an area in which research should be done. Funds are available either through the Medical Research Council of Canada or through the Non-medical Use of Drugs Research Program for such research, provided suitable projects are submitted.



CLOSING OF CERTAIN REFINERIES BY IMPERIAL OIL

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Having regard to the shortage of refining capacity in Canada and the intention of Imperial Oil to close its refinery in Regina and also, I believe, refineries in Calgary and Winnipeg, has the minister consulted with this company to urge it either not to close these refineries or to delay this action? Has he made a similar approach to any other companies which might have intentions of closing down existing refinery capacity?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. gentleman knows, the shortage of refining capacity really arises in the Great Lakes area, and it is in this area that refinery expansion is planned. At the moment it does not appear there would be much to be gained in terms of dealing with the shortage of supply in the east by opening or re-opening refineries in western Canada. My impression is that the time frame of those closings extends beyond the winter, but I shall be glad to check further to see whether the suggestion the hon. member has made could contribute in any way to alleviating the problem.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby' Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower

and Immigration, of which I gave him notice yesterday. In view of the fact internal government documents from the hon. gentleman's department concerning Mr. John Meier, who is a key witness before the Watergate hearings in the United States, have ended up in the hands of the United States Attorney's office, can the minister advise the House who transmitted these documents and what action has been taken?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Meier has made an application for landed immigrant status in Canada. In the course of investigating his application there was a confidential exchange of information between the United States internal revenue service and the Canadian immigration intelligence service, which is a fairly routine matter. The documents provided to the U.S. internal revenue service were clearly marked "not to be reproduced under any circumstances without the prior approval of the Canadian immigration intelligence service". However, they were passed in error by the internal revenue people to a lawyer acting for Mr. Meier. A written apology has been sent to us by the U.S. internal revenue service with an assurance that such a thing will not happen again.


John Douglas Reynolds: Is the government, in co-operation with the Nixon administration, retaining the private investigation agency Intertel to keep tabs on Mr. Meier's movements in Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



INVOKING OF &quot;FORCE MAJEURE&quot; CLAUSE BY VENEZUELAN COMPANIES SUPPLYING OIL TO CANADA- GOVERNMENT ACTION

Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a further question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the force majeure clause invoked by companies supplying oil to Canada from Venezuela. In view of the serious consequences for Canada, particularly eastern Canada, can the minister tell us what steps he has taken to ascertain whether this action in cutting down Canadian supplies is justified? What action has he taken? I say to him in all fairness he has given the impression to the House this afternoon that he has done nothing, really, to inquire into this situation and to satisfy himself that this diversion of oil contracted for delivery to Canada is in fact justifiable under international law.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I pointed out to the hon. gentleman, the contracts in this regard are made with the Canadian purchaser. We have been in continuous touch with the industry through a liaison committee with regard to supply interruption and the demand situation in Canada, as the hon. gentleman knows, and the action we have taken, through this close liaison, is to identify what the supply situation will be. Perhaps I could remind the hon. gentleman of the actual words I used last night: "We may,
November 27, 1973

therefore, suffer a loss, if world shortfalls are shared equally, of up to 200,000 barrels a day." My understanding at the moment is that this redistribution has not taken place but the companies have indicated there is a prospective interruption under the force majeure provision of the supplying contracts. I repeat, our right to receive the oil is subject to contracts between a Canadian party and a foreign party, and I am advised that one of the terms of the contract is this force majeure provision which could result in a pro rata reduction of the deliveries of oil under contract. We, therefore, as a recipient of the oil, are subject to the conditions of that contract.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I apologize for pursuing this matter, Mr. Speaker, but it is one of vital importance. Is the minister doing anything to look after the interests of the people of this country or is he simply taking the view that a multinational oil company is invoking the force majeure clause and shipping the oil somewhere else? What is the minister doing to look after the interests of Canadians either with respect to cuts which have already taken place or cuts which he says are anticipated?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think we are governed by the law in this situation. The government, like an individual party, has to be governed by the law covering this particular transaction. It is on this basis we have been dealing with the Canadian recipients of this oil. This, as I understand it, is the international practice and one by which, because of the legal obligation, we are bound.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair might recognize the hon. member for Peace River on a supplementary, although we have gone beyond the time allotted to the question period.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I should like to ask the minister, before he meekly accepts this interpretation of a contract by an international company in relation to its own subsidiary, whether he has examined the contract in question and determined whether that interpretation so conveniently made is in accord with Canadian or Venezuelan law, and will he take competent legal advice-I emphasize the word "competent"-as to the application of the conflict of laws principle to this contract?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have no hesitation in accepting the competence of my advisers on this particular question.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Danson:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, at the time of the adjournment last night I was speaking in the debate on Bill S-4 and I called it ten o'clock. I notice, looking at Hansard, that the hon. member for Timiskam-ing is recorded as calling it ten o'clock. Obviously the reporter did not hear me. I believe the hon. member for Timiskaming will appreciate the fact I was speaking at the time and had not completed my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's point is hypothetical since we are dealing with another order of business this afternoon.
Protection of Privacy


Barnett Jerome Danson: I wanted to clear the record before that debate resumes.


Mr. Speaker:: I have noted the hon. member's point and when we return to that item we shall take into account his suggestion that he had called it ten o'clock and would have a claim to the first call from the Chair.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, November 23, 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. 3.
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was interrupted on November 23, I was calling attention to the principle which in my view lay behind the amendment proposed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I think it might be restated as follows: no person, no organization, no police force, no agency whether public or private, shall have the right, in the event of an emergency whether real or imagined, to interfere with the privacy of any citizen unless that interference is sanctioned by the courts and is conducted under the due process of law.
I think that is an extremely important and fundamental provision in British justice, one that no person in this House or indeed no member of the government ought to interfere with lightly. But the government has seen fit to bring before parliament a bill which, if it is passed, will be a giant step forward in that, for the first time in this country, it will legalize the right of a public body, the police forces of this country, to invade the privacy of individuals who, in accordance with our system of justice, are construed to be innocent until they are proven guilty.
This is an important principle that has been made necessary because it is recognized by the community that those forces that would tear down our institutions now have the technological skill in the field of wiretapping, bugging and use of electronic devices to achieve their ends. This is why it is felt-I believe everyone supports this view-that the police forces of this country should have that same power. Although that is true, that is not to say that Canadians ought to be placed in the position where this right can be used, even for a short period of time, in an untrammeled fashion, without control and without reason. I think it is a sound principle, if we are going to take this step, to ensure at the same time that if the evidence that is going to be gathered is to be used, then it ought to be used only when its use has been sanctioned by the courts, which are the ultimate protectors of the rights of all Canadians.
8180
November 27, 1973

Protection of Privacy
We have had to balance, and we will have to balance in this debate, the importance of the protection of society and the importance of operating our police forces in an efficient manner with the very important, fundamental, human rights that all of us regard as sacred. We are not just talking about the use of electronic devices as this use may apply to some third party; we sometimes forget that we are talking about use of these devices in many cases as they apply to each of us. I think all of us agree with the principle that our police forces should be given all legitimate help. But I do not believe that any reasonable member of the House or of any other place, and I dare to say any member of a police force in this country, would take the position that there ought not to be some recognition of those rights before evidence is used against a person in a courtroom.
I read with great interest the speech of the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) who spoke on Friday afternoon. In the course of his speech he said it is immoral to wiretap. Then he outlined a number of other ways in which immorality could exist in police work-for example, the policeman who must hit someone, the policeman who must use a billy, as he put it. Then, in defending the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) in this matter, he went on to say this, as reported at page 8099 of Hansard:
-if our experience shows that attorneys general across the country report that this particular section is being abused, it will be a very simple matter to bring in an amendment to have the law changed.
I think that is exactly the same as advocating that we ought to change the burden of proof in the majority of criminal cases, that we ought to put the burden upon the accused person; that a person who is caught in the talons of the law ought to prove himself innocent. There would be an unfairness with respect to the shifting of the burden. I think there would be an unfairness with respect to the preservation of individual rights and the right to privacy of any citizen, which is a very fundamental right, indeed I would dare say an inalienable right, if we were to reverse the principle that is inherent in our legal system and not couple it with the amendment put forward by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).
With great respect to the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, with whose judgment as a lawyer I agree most of the time, I think he has turned his principles around in an effort to support a Minister of Justice who seems determined to bull this bill through the House in its present form without those protections to which I have referred. I, for one, am not prepared to support a Minister of Justice who does not include those protections in the bill.
It is easy for us to think of examples. The minister gave some examples in his speech on Friday of situations where it would be useful, where it could be helpful, where it might be expedient in a particular case, to have access to the emergency provisions, access to that faceless agent in some particular case at some future time. I suppose I could think of other examples where these emergency provisions might be useful. But if we adopt the argument of the Minister of Justice and say that in all cases involving the prosecution of criminals, persons who are innocent until they are proven guilty, the ends will always justify the means, we are getting dangerously close to doing something we have always avoided under the criminal law of

this country. With some few exceptions, the public has always been entitled to the protection of reasonable doubt. As far as this bill is concerned, the public ought to be entitled to the protection that would be built into the bill if the amendment of the right hon. member for Prince Albert were accepted. I urge the members of the House to accept the amendment for this reason.
A lot has been said during this debate about the maintenance of "law and order". One part of law and order is the protection offered by the courts. The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) referred to the difficulties of prolongation, but as I understand it no such mechanism has received sanction as being part of our criminal processes. I think it will be a sad day for this country when we decide that in the name of so-called law and order we must deny the basic meaning of that very important phrase. However, in some of the speeches of the Minister of Justice, and I regret to say in some of the speeches of members who support him, we are coming very close to doing exactly that.
We are moving into a new area of deep, untested waters in terms of the administration of criminal justice in this country. When we take that kind of step it is my respectful submission to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to my colleagues in this House, that we ought to tread lightly, and ought not to move with the full force of the law until we see how this operates. We ought not to do, as the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton suggests: Try it and if we do not like it, get rid of it, because in the process of trying it there could be abuses that even that hon. member could not comprehend at this time.
I have had experience on both sides of the counsel table. I have worked with the police in the prosecution of cases, and I have also defended those who have been charged. I would rather our attitude be that the rights of citizens in our society be preserved as long as we can preserve them, while at the same time maintaining law and order. Surely, that is not unreasonable when, as the right hon. member for Prince Albert suggests, there are 600 judges in this country-actually there are 900-who could make that order authorizing a wiretap within the law. I cannot conceive of any emergency situation in which a police force acting reasonably and within the present laws would find its hands tied unless that police force intended to act improperly. I do not think we should demean the names of the police forces of this country by suggesting that they would act in such fashion. I also think we should preserve the principle that has run through our British law that an individual is innocent before the law until proven guilty. Merely because somebody is being investigated does not mean we should cast aside this principle which protects the individual even though he may be charged. We would be doing this in terms of invasion of privacy if the bill passes unamended.
We are being asked in this bill to take a great step in respect of investigation. By adopting this bill we are giving a licence to the police forces of this country to do what they could not do before while holding up their heads. We would be saying that which was once immoral is now moral and legal. When we take such a step I do not think it is unreasonable for us at the same time to ask
November 27, 1973

these police forces, which I hold in high regard, to observe the very simple request that they protect our citizens by going to the courts, as the protectors of the public right in this matter, for permission to take that giant step in respect of investigation.
I do not think it is too much for this parliament to suggest to the government that without that kind of protection in the bill we will not support it, but with that protection we will support it. I do not think our efforts to protect society are opposed in any way or involve a lessening of the powers or the rights of the police to investigate. I do not believe that in order to maintain law and order we should consider society to the exclusion of individual rights. I believe these two concepts are intertwined. It is to the credit of this House of Commons that the dean of this House, who served in the courts of this country longer than many of us will live, and in the highest office here, was the one to bring forward this very good amendment which will make this new bill, adopting a new concept of investigation, palatable, reasonable and equitable.
Let me ask my friends, wherever they sit in this House in terms of the centre aisle, to support the principle that has so appropriately been brought forward by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. This principle is in essence the protection of the community from excesses and to ensure that when police forces in this country use the device this parliament is giving for the first time, they produce evidence which is admissible without question and not subject to the usual requirements of proof, and that such evidence will be produced under the sanction and the protection provided by the courts. That is our duty.


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have always found the hon. member to be fair, and I do not object to the way in which he has presented his case, but I do take strong exception to one of his comments. I know that he did not intend offence when he suggested that in talking in favour of this bill I was abrogating my principles in order to support the minister. First of all, it is not appropriate to impute motives to an hon. member. I do not think he meant to do that. In the second place, and I know the right hon. gentleman would support me in this principle, I would not deviate from my principles in the interest of simply supporting a piece of legislation, and if I did so I would resign my seat tomorrow.


Mrs. Albanie Morin (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, of all the 10 provinces, Quebec is the province that has seen a lot of disturbance, violence and unrest in the last 10 years. So, it will not come as a surprise to you when I say that we in the province of Quebec crave law and order. Were I to consult the population today on this government's proposal to permit wiretapping by the police in emergencies for up to 36 hours without a permit I would probably get an 85 per cent affirmative reply. Some of the people I have consulted have suggested that the police should not ask for permission at all.
Of course, there will be some people who are against this bill. Even in my own riding I would probably find some "godfathers", and you know the meaning I give to that phrase, some extremists, some criminals and others who have something to hide who would oppose this measure,
Protection of Privacy
but the great majority would not be in favour of removing from the police the only tool which enables them to detect and prevent 80 per cent of crime. Why should the police be put in an inferior position to criminals who have no qualms about using bugging devices of any kind? I hope the right hon. member for Prince Albert does not believe that if his amendment were to pass it would prevent any criminal from using wiretapping. Negative laws result in criminals adopting more astute ways of avoiding the law. The hon. member should read about what happened in Montreal two weeks ago to see how criminals react to the law. For instance, the underworld did not hesitate to eliminate three members of the same family and burn to death the one responsible for the three murders. I suggest that voting for the amendment of the right hon. member for Prince Albert would be voting for the removal from the police of a tool criminals would not hesitate to use.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert mentioned that wiretapping by police in emergency cases without a permit was "the essence of tyranny". It is very odd that the right hon. gentleman should react in such a manner, especially since he has as a colleague the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who, up until very recently, was the symbol of law and order in the province of Quebec. I need not remind the right hon. gentleman that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe once upon a time was a semi-god in our province. The different parties respected him, his colleagues listened to him, labour unions feared him and the general public hailed him as a public leader. That hon. member stood for law and order.
Permit me, Mr. Speaker, to quote some excerpts taken from that hon. member's speeches when he ran in the leadership campaign some years ago.
[Transla tion]
They say that I personify law and order.
[ English]
I will translate this: "They say that I personify law and order and why not. I declare myself in favour of law and order. Please give us the tools to decide and act." A little later he said:
[ Translation]
We have to establish a climate of stability by law and order. [English]
Then, he condemned the work of the Quebec government because it prevented the work of the police corps. So, again was he in favour of tying the hands of the police? Not at all. Let me quote what the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe had to say before the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on June 7:
I believe that it is a good thing to declare openly that revelations which nowadays are made by the Commission of Inquiry into organized crime in Montreal represent but a tiny portion of the whole set-up. What is unknown about the Mafia-
In Montreal.
-is much more considerable and is much more to fear.
This is the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe speaking. He continues:
I remember a case which I will give you as an example:-There was rivalry between the two groups in the east end of Montreal
8182

November 27, 1973
Protection of Privacy
and, in the course of rivalry, one member of the opposite groups was violently beaten and injured. It was decided to gain revenge that they should kill the chief of the other group. They put a bomb in a car a few feet from the school. The bomb was supposed to explode at 8.30 a.m., at a time when we were told there would be more than 1,000 school children. Because of the wiretapping, we were able-
The police were able.
-to discover this project, to stop the individual and prevent not only the murder of the chief of the opposite group but also the killing of innocent children.
I shall relate another case which was told to me very recently. In Quebec City a woman bank manager was advised by the police that because of wiretapping they were aware that there would be a bank holdup in her bank. As a result they were able to deal with this attempted robbery of the bank and arrest the bank robbers. Again, through "wiretapping they were able to prevent a bank robbery. The hon. member for Prince Albert is up in arms because the proposed bill jeopardizes the individual's right to privacy. I wonder whether the fact that school children's lives were saved because of wiretapping is not sufficient proof that public good should supersede the right of citizens. Mr. Justice Tremblay last week rendered a decision along this line when he said:

It is the public and general interest of the people of Quebec which is opposed to the interest of 2,000 of its inhabitants.

Should we not conclude from this very famous decision that where public safety and public good demands it, the right of the individual should be put aside, that is, that the police should have the right to wiretap when public safety demands it.
Again I refer to the minutes of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs at page 14:22 where the hon. member for Saint Hyacinthe is reported as having said:
. .. we worry and we say that this might go too far . . .
Then, he said that he feels the examples are very numerous which lead to the conclusion that it would be impossible to protect society adequately against professional criminals if the activities of the police were restricted.
Again I ask the hon. member for Prince Albert how he can qualify this bill as being the essence of tyranny when the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe says that we cannot protect society against professional criminals if we restrict the activities of the police. Police should be able to wiretap at all times and without any permit when the public good and public safety demand it. I doubt that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe thought any differently when he held the position of Attorney General of Quebec. We in the province of Quebec long for law and order. As I said, the reason the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe once upon a time was very popular is that he was for law and order.
We have seen a lot of unrest and disorder in our province, particularly during such riots as the student's march upon Parliament Hill to protest Bill 63, a march which was infiltrated by such radicals as Lemieux, Bourgault, Char-trand, Laliberte and Charbonneau, and again the St. John the Baptiste uprising in Montreal when police cars were overturned and set afire, when private property was ransacked and looted, when horses had their sides slashed

because they were mounted by policemen and when rocks and Molotov cocktails were thrown at our Prime Minister while the Quebec leader and the Montreal mayor ran for shelter. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe sided with the police during this critical period and even condemned the acts of the Quebec government which sabotaged the police work. But the hon. member had no doubt at that time that the citizen's right had to be put aside for the public good.
It is impossible to protect a society against professional criminals if we restrict police activities, said the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. He said that if we were to restrict police activities it would be like removing the tools from the police; it would be like cutting off their arms and asking them to dig their own graves. This is the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe speaking. It appears now that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe has changed his mind about wiretapping. It is not the first time he has flip-flopped. You know, the population of Saint-Hyacinthe may also change its mind in the next election.


An hon. Member:: They will give him a bigger majority.


Albanie Morin: I would be in favour of letting the police wiretap whenever necessary. Of course, Bill C-176 does not go that far unfortunately. It includes very stiff penalties for those who disobey the law. For instance, section 178.11 states that anyone who wilfully intercepts a private communication by means of an electromagnetic, accoustic or mechanical device, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for five years. This is quite a stiff penalty for the offence of listening to one's conversation compared to the penalty for armed robbery.
Section 178.18 states that anyone selling or purchasing any electromagnetic, accoustic or mechanical device for the interception of private communications is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for two years. Compare that to other offences in respect of a person selling stolen goods. Section 178.20 states that anyone who uses or discloses such private communication in a way other than as stipulated by the bill is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for two years. Finally, section 178.21 stipulates punitive damages up to $5,000. This is a very stiff penalty. So there are restrictions or stipulations limiting or preventing excesses in wiretapping activity.
Many of the amendments introduced by hon. members across the Chamber would be more beneficial to the criminals than to society. What they do not seem to realize is that even if this bill tries to impose a certain control on electronic devices, it does not necessarily mean the use of such devices by criminals would be controlled. They would only find more astute ways to avoid the law. So, the two parties across the Chamber should not be surprised if they do not find any support in the province of Quebec. They do not stand for law and order. No one will deny that the crime rate is constantly increasing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
November 27, 1973


Albanie Morin: Nobody can deny that the crime rate is constantly increasing. Criminals are becoming more and more specialized, and yet the methods used for fighting this increase in crime are constantly being eroded. Quebec has not hesitated to prove that it wants law and order. For instance, the October 29 election was a vote against separatism, but it was also a vote for law and order. Rene Levesque himself admitted that a week or so ago when he stated publicly that the population still associated his party with the FLQ. It is true that the Parti Quebecois is a political party and the FLQ is a subversive group, but the people who see such persons as Chartrand, Lemieux and Charbonneau within the Parti Quebecois cannot be blamed for thinking as they do.
Another proof that Quebeckers want law and order was demonstrated during the common front crisis in 1972 when three labour union leaders were incarcerated. First of all, they defied the government. The population cheered when the union leaders were incarcerated. And again, after the last election-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Albanie Morin: Laugh all you want.


Mr. Atkey:: No, I cry.


Albanie Morin: Again, after the last election, when the same union leaders asked the population to bring down the Bourassa government, how did the population react? By an overwhelming majority, a sweep of 102 seats for the Liberals. So the NDP must not forget that the unions in our province have been a source of unrest, disorder and trouble. The NDP and the Conservative party should keep this in mind when this bill comes up for the vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have not taken part in this debate until now for two reasons: First of all, because I was not a member of the committee which studied the provisions of the bill in detail, and second because I admit that like many members I am perturbed about the decisions which we as members of parliament are being asked to make. On the one hand, I am absolutely opposed to the invasion of privacy of any person in Canada by private individuals or by representatives of the government for any reason. On the other hand, I recognize the difficulties which exist in this country.
I cannot ignore the fact that in a recent case in Toronto some people who were very deeply involved in trafficking heroin-a very dangerous drug-were convicted and sentenced to life to a large extent on the basis of evidence obtained by wiretapping. So I find it difficult to join my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), in supporting laws which would totally prohibit wiretapping. I want to say to the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) that the doubts which I have about voting against any kind of wiretapping are removed to a large extent when I hear the kind of impassioned bigotry which she exhibited in her speech during the last few moments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Protection of Privacy


David Orlikow: The position of our party on the question of federalism is clear to every person in Canada. We oppose separatism, we oppose violence under any circumstances. We oppose separatism even when it is put forward by people who may agree with us on certain other matters.
I have no use politically or personally for a person like Michel Chartrand, but he has a right to express his point of view as much as I, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert or the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), as long as it is done in a legal way. I want to tell the hon. member for Louis-Hebert that it will be a sad day for this country when, because she or I or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) disagree with Mr. Chartrand, Mr. LaLiberte or Mr. Levesque, somebody can begin to listen in to their private conversations.
I want to say to the hon. member for Louis-Hebert that the police are not always right. A few weeks ago I finished reading a couple of books dealing with certain incidents in Canadian history. They deal with the general strike which took place in Winnipeg in 1919, and in the course of dealing with that strike one of the books relates what the role of the police was. It was not a very good role for the simple reason that the police believed, as is obvious to anybody who looks at the history of the time and of the strike, that that was an attempt to create a revolution. The police were wrong and they did things which they should not have done. I also read a book which recounted the events surrounding the trek of the unemployed, which began in Vancouver, to Ottawa to make representations to the then Conservative government headed by R. B. Bennett. That book recounts the activities of the police and the RCMP. Again, things were done which should not have been done because the police and the government of the day believed that it was the beginning of a Communist revolution in Canada, which it was not.
Let us look at the province of Quebec. A few years ago there was a strike of the copper workers at Murdochville and the then provincial government of Quebec headed by Mr. Duplessis, who was also the attorney general, used the Quebec police to break that strike. The labour leaders, not just the Quebec labour leaders but the then president of the Canadian Labour Congress, participated in a protest march against the handling of that strike. Let me tell the hon. member for Louis-Hebert-and I wish she would listen for a few moments-that one of the people who participated in that march protesting the actions of the police was a professor at the University of Montreal law school whose name happened to be Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Mr. Trudeau was not saying at that time in the 1960's that because the government of Quebec had said that the strike at Murdochville was illegal, because the police of Quebec were taking violent action to break that strike-


David Réal Caouette: The Asbestos strike.


David Orlikow: That is a separate matter and I do not have the time to tell the hon. member for Louis-Hebert about the Asbestos strike and how the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) was involved in it.


Albanie Morin: That was 25 years ago.


David Orlikow: That interjection by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert indicates her views on this kind of matter,

November 27, 1973
Protection of Privacy
her view, I suppose, that because it happened 25 years ago it does not matter. Maybe she thinks that the Minister of Transport would not do in 1973 what he did 25 years ago when he was the leader of CNTU. Maybe she thinks that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) would not do in 1973 what he did at the time of the strike at Murdoch-ville. I am not prepared to go along with the supposition of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert. If the Minister of Transport thinks what he did in Asbestos was wrong, and that the police should have had more right to bop him over the head, he ought to come in here and tell us so. And if the Prime Minister thinks that what he did at Murdoch-ville was wrong, he ought to come in here and tell us.


Mr. Prud'homme:: It was right then.


David Orlikow: The hon. member says it was right then.


George Albert Proud: And it is still the right thing today.


David Orlikow: The hon. member does not have to tell me that. I agree that it was the right thing then, and it is the right thing now. But the hon. member ought to tell that to the hon. member for Louis-Hebert who said, and I tried to take it down exactly-I am sure she will correct me if I am wrong-that in her view whatever the police want to do in order to protect the public safety or in order to protect the public good is permissible. I want to say that I am not prepared to give anybody the right to do anything he or she wants. I am, however, prepared to let people, including the police, Crown prosecutors, the attorney general and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), do everything which the law permits them to do.
The hon. member for Louis-Hebert gave an account of crimes which have taken place in the province of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, crimes take place in other parts of Canada. Those crimes in Quebec took place when we had no wiretapping laws. Those crimes took place when the police were permitted to wiretap because there was no law. Evidence was presented to the committee that in one year the RCMP were involved in over 600 wiretaps. There is no question that the Quebec Provincial Police and the Ontario Provincial Police are involved in wiretapping. I know that the Ontario Provincial Police have published some figures showing how many times they have been involved in wiretapping. I have no doubt in my mind that municipal police forces, including the city of Montreal police, have been involved in wiretapping. If wiretapping without any kind of controls would prevent crimes, as the hon. member for Louis-Hebert seemed to argue and in fact did argue then why have we had all the crimes? Why have we had all the robberies, the murders and all the rest? If there is organized crime in Montreal, if there is organized murder in Montreal, if there is organized gambling in Montreal, and if wiretapping could have prevented it, why has it not been prevented?
I want to pose a question which the hon. member for Louis-Hebert should think about. Why is it that in Quebec, which has more wiretapping than any other province, where the courts are the toughest in the sentences which they impose on people who are found guilty of murder, bank robberies, and that kind of crime, there is more crime than in other provinces? The law enforcement agencies

and the courts have been very tough in Quebec. I suggest to the hon. member that rather than come here and rant about the need for unlimited wiretapping she address herself to the very serious question of why these things are taking place in Quebec more than in other provinces.


Albanie Morin: The criminals are better organized.


David Orlikow: I suggest to the hon. member that if these things take place in Quebec more than in other provinces, it is not because criminals are better organized but because of the social conditions in Quebec, because of the poverty in Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: This is not a criticism, it is a statement of fact. The poverty and social conditions in Quebec have led to that kind of atmosphere.


George Albert Proud: It is because Montreal is a big centre. You cannot have much crime in the rural districts of Saskatchewan.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am not raising this point because I am critical of the people of Quebec or the governments of Quebec. I am simply saying to the hon. member that if she is concerned, as she should be, about the matters which she has raised she ought not to bring forth what purports to be a solution but in fact is a red herring. She ought not to bring forth simplistic, and what I consider to be stupid arguments which can have only one effect, to dissuade members like myself, who are inclined to vote for the bill in respect of many of its provisions, from voting for it if we gave her exaggerated arguments the attention she would like us to give them.


Albanie Morin: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


David Orlikow: Certainly. Go Ahead.


Albanie Morin: He just mentioned that there were exaggerations in my speech. I would like him to specify what those exaggerations were.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to know what those exaggerations were, I refer her to that part of her speech in which she inferred that the only people who are concerned about the possibility that the police will be given authority which they can misuse, or which they might misuse, are people who are somehow sympathetic to the desires of criminals, or separatists, or revolutionaries, and so on. I suggest to her that the hon. member for Matane (De Bane), and others on the government side who have expressed reservations about the bill, could take the same exception that I have taken to the hon. member's exaggerations.
I want to try to look at this question in a rational, objective way. I admit that for me it is difficult to be objective. As a person who has always been concerned about civil liberties, the easiest thing for me to do would be to vote against the bill because in principle I am opposed to permitting wiretapping in any circumstances. But I am trying to face up to a situation as it exists in the 1970's. I am trying to face up to the fact we do have
November 27, 1973

increasing sale and distribution of hard drugs, with terrible consequences for young people. I am trying to face up to the fact that we do have organized crime which is involved not only in drug trafficking but in gambling and other serious offences. Although the claims with respect to the number of cases of subversion and espionage are exaggerated one hundredfold, I am trying to face up to the situation in that respect, to see how far I can go, if any distance at all, in voting for a bill which will give the police the right to wiretap under certain conditions because the needs of the people as a whole in certain cases are more important than the right to privacy of individuals.
If the speech by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert were the only one made on behalf of the bill I feel that under no circumstances could I vote for the bill. Yet I am prepared to vote for the bill under certain conditions. What are those conditions? They are that the police can only wiretap given the fact that they know or suspect that certain types of very serious offences are being committed or are likely to be committed. I believe that we have to specify because I think we have to take responsibility for the types of criminal offences on which we would permit wiretapping to take place. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the interjection of the hon. member just now, but if it had no more validity than her speech or earlier interjections I think I can quite legitimately ignore it.
I do not believe-and it is not because I have anything against the RCMP or the provincial police of Quebec or the city of Winnipeg police or any other police force-that we should give any person an unrestricted right to do anything he wants to do. If we are going to permit wiretapping, and I for one am prepared to accept that wiretapping under very limited conditions is necessary, then I want the police to be required to appear before somebody with responsibility in order to ask for permission. I am not sure whether there are 600 judges as the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said or whether there are 800 as I think the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said, but surely if there are between 600 and 800 judges in this country it ought not to be too difficult for the police in any area to get permission fairly quickly, on an emergency basis, from one of them. I do not think it is too much to ask of Canadian judges, through the passage of this bill, that maybe once a year one of them would be awakened in the middle of the night to deal with a request for permission from the police to proceed with wiretapping. I do not think that is too serious, Mr. Speaker. I am not enthused, and that is putting it mildly, by any suggestion that the power to grant this permission should be extended, however. I am not enthused with the suggestion that the Attorneys General should have this right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the 20 minutes allotted to him under the rules of the House have expired. However, he may continue if there is unanimous consent. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed.
Protection of Privacy


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago I am not enthused by the idea that we give that right to the Attorneys General, even though there are now three provincial governments which are NDP and in which there are NDP Attorneys General. I am even less enthused that it be extended to an agent or agents. It seems to me that when we give such people the right to permit the police to wiretap without a hearing, that we are extending the right so broadly that in fact it vitiates the whole purpose of this bill.
I want to conclude by saying one word to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), Mr. Speaker. I want a bill which will prohibit wiretapping by people who are not government officials, that is, police or other Crown officials. I want a bill which will regulate the way in which the law enforcements agents can use wiretapping. I think it is a disgrace that up until now we have not had such a law. I want to tell the minister that I am not prepared to vote for a law which will permit the minister, the Liberal government and the Liberal Party, to tell the people who are concerned about civil liberties that we are fighting for a law which prohibits or regulates or limits wiretapping and, on the other hand, find that the bill has so many exemptions and exceptions that anybody who wants to wiretap can do it. If that is the choice, Mr. Speaker, I, for one, am not prepared to let the minister get the political credit for a bill which in fact does not control wiretapping.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-176 concerning wiretaping is very important and serious for all Canadians, whom we must protect in every way we can.
A few minutes ago, I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin); I congratulate her for such a frank explanation of the situation existing not only in Quebec but also in all other provinces. We know better the Quebec situation than the one in other provinces because Quebec is the province we live in. As to what the member for Louis-Hebert says about subversion in the province of Quebec, it is not partly true, it is perfectly true; besides, she dares calling a spade a spade.
Mr. Speaker, for some people wiretaping is a touchy issue. As for me, I say very frankly that I am not afraid at all of bugging devices. Besides, I think my Parliament office phone has already been bugged. It makes no difference to me that everybody should know that I never intended to overthrow established order or justice by violence or revolution.
Therefore Mr. Speaker, one is much less afraid of bugging devices if he has nothing to fear about his behaviour. That does not mean we recommend the use of bugging devices in all Canadian homes, no, but as far as suspects are concerned, people making divisive statements, wishing to overthrow all that exists in Canada and to break down the system-as we hear them say-I believe that for the protection of people, we should take the necessary action to know where those people are going. We do not want to intercept conversations of honest people, who live normally, but those who want to destroy society, Mr. Speaker. It

November 27, 1973
Protection of Privacy
seems to me that we should not object to the use of bugging devices.
Reference was made a while ago to organized crime. It does exist. We have proof of that. It exists, not only in Montreal but in Toronto, in Winnipeg and in Vancouver. Yesterday or the day before, I was told that American criminals were already at work in Vancouver, they are firmly established there as the Mafia is in Montreal, or so they say. If some people push drugs, for instance, thus impairing the future of our young people, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is logical for the RCMP to take measures to expose those who want to destroy the foundations of society and family. They do not hesitate to destroy family.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Louis-Hebert mentioned union leaders Chartrand, Laberge, Charbon-neau and Pepin. She was right. During the provincial election, where I did not vote Liberal, 102 ridings out of 110 voted for this party. Those people appealed to defeat Mr. Bourassa, to crush the government; they said they were talking on behalf of one million union members. I shall not talk against unions, but against union leaders who think that all union members will follow them in their revolutionary actions; they got a rather bitter answer on October 29 last in the province of Quebec. If they have not understood, and I think they have not yet, the answer will come later. However, those people try by all means to create disorder to serve their own ends.
For instance, Laberge from the FTQ, standing on a car in Montreal in 1971, said to all the people around him: beat policemen, get through the cordons of police, do not give a dam about the law. Can we call him a man who is respectful of authority? In his capacity as president of the FTQ, he wants to be respected, but let us look at the doings within the union. In the construction area in Montreal, for example, the Laberge boys, his organizers, the bouncers as they are called, received an order to go and break the faces of those who did not want to participate in a strike. What about the freedom for which they say they are fighting? Strikes are held in the name of freedom but those who question a strike are not entitled to that same freedom. Bouncers are hired to go and break their faces, to injure them, to break some of their bones and keep them away from work.
I saw Pepin's CNTU organization at work in the construction dispute in my own area of Rouyn-Noranda and Val d'Or where the guys did not want to participate in a construction strike and reported for work. Those union leaders sent three carloads with six bouncers in each of them from Montreal to Val d'Or and Rouyn to go and break the faces of workers in my area. I am not talking through my hat here. One would be frightened at hearing the members of those organizations.
Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Louis-Hebert talked about the presence of FLQ members within the organization of the Parti Quebecois she did not say, nor did I, that Rene Levesque was an FLQ member. No. I believe Rene Levesque is a sensitive man, a man who wants reforms through law and order. But the fact remains that all revolutionnary elements in the province of Quebec were part of the organization of the Parti Quebecois. That is not lying, that is telling the truth.

Today's paper talks about the arrival in this country of Mrs. Allende. I welcome her, she is a visitor. But let us look at who takes care of it. Let us look at this. I quote from an article by Louis Delorimier:
Big demonstration at the Forum
Who is going to be there? Let us listen:
At the Forum-
-It will be on December 1, I think-
-a public meeting to stress international solidarity and to be attended by the widow of the late president of Chile. In addition of the events in Chile it will be centered on the struggle of the grape pickers in California-
-They have grapes in California, we have cabbage-heads in the province of Quebec-
-represented by trade unionist Cesar Chavez, the struggle of the Greek, of the coffee workers in Angola, and Africa, of the swindled immigrants, of the Portuguese and betrayed Palestinians.
-I should also mention the workers swindled by people like Laberge, Pepin, Chartrand and Charbonneau. They are a bunch of cheats. They lie to the workers, they order strikes because it serves their own interest. It is the workers that pay the price of strikes and not their labour leaders. Then after five or six months of strike they are asked to go back to work while the labour leaders did not lose a day's wage. Family men and women have been obliged to do without essentials to give a decent living to their children. Who cares?


Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: What has that got to do with wiretapping?


David Réal Caouette: For the hon. member's information it has something to do with wiretapping because they use them to get information about the organization of those people. The hon. member certainly knows that because when he was a newsman he used to eavesdrop. He was a real walking bugging device.
[ English]
Put it through your hat. The hon. member only has a hat holder; that's all he has.
[ Translation]


Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: That is good.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I think it is good and moreover, it is true.
Mr. Speaker, let us see who will be in the Montreal Forum: Marcel Pepin from the CNTU, Louis Laberge from the QFL, Micheline Sicotte from the CEQ; all of them will take the opportunity to praise the merit of their own union. A number of strikers from Firestone Co. Ltd., from Canadian Gypsum Co. Ltd., from Price Brothers Co. Ltd. and from other places will be there. Passing through Ottawa on her way to Montreal, Mrs. Allende will meet the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and the Prime Minister of Canada, the right hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and in this order: first the leader of the New Democratic Party, second, the Prime Minister of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to Mrs. Allende being welcomed courteously because Canadians are polite people. But why do Pepin, Charbonneau and the others not talk about people expropriated in Cuba by leftists and
November 27, 1973

communists? Why is it that only communists are always right? When the leaders are communists, they talk about the revolution and when the leaders are from private industry, they talk about reactionary attitude and repression. Then, in the countries where people are fighting for their freedom, they call that a repression.
But, when a government takes over the whole country, they call that a popular revolution for liberation. Let us try to understand something. Let us have a look at the People's Republic of China to see what kind of freedom people have. Let us have a look at the USSR to see what kind of freedom they have. Even scientists are put in prison in Moscow because there is no freedom in that country. If Chartrand, Pepin and Laberge were to act in Cuba as they do in Montreal, they would be sent before the firing squad within 12 hours, everybody knows that. But in this country, they are free to talk. I have no objection to their voicing their opinion. But, Mr. Speaker, those people who call for freedom want to be free to take our freedom from us. You understand what I mean. This is the kind of freedom they want. Once we have lost our freedom, we will be unhappy.
We saw some years ago young students in Czechoslovakia, in Prague, ask for permission to write what they thought. The government said: No. The young people rebelled and they wanted to recover a part of the freedom their parents had abandoned some 30 years earlier. These are the sons of those who made the revolution who ask today for the freedom to write what they want in Czechoslovakia. What was done about it? Russian tanks were sent to crush those who talked about the conquest of freedom.
Mr. Speaker, why does the New Democratic Party always take the defence of communists, socialists, those who reduce the freedom of the worker, of the human being, of industries? We allow them to organize themselves, we have enabled unions to come into existence. Here in Canada, we still have a right to have a different opinion and to tell frankly, bluntly and even stupidly that we do not agree with someone. We have a right to fight. And we would lose this right? They would like to take it from us? If ever people like Messrs. Pepin, Laberge, Chartrand and Charbonneau have the power in a province like Quebec, we could give up our individual freedom as lost. We will no longer have the right to express ourselves freely as we have at present, this sacred right that we wish to preserve and maintain.
Mr. Speaker, once more I will be asked: What has this to do with wiretapping? This has a lot to do. I suggest that these people should be continuously watched. This is why we are surely going to support Bill C-176, because we are neither ashamed nor afraid of our acts, even less afraid to express our views. We will not prevent Mr. Chartrand and others from expressing their views but we will prevent them from organizing indictable offences, killings, like disputes between workmen who are doing the same job. Some people even said that organized crime has infiltrated the QFL. A few politicians said so, and I even think it was Mr. Jerome Choquette.
Mr. Speaker, we must protect society and in order to trace criminals, even the New Democratic Party agrees that wiretapping must be used. But once they are traced,
Protection of Privacy
they are given too much freedom. Yesterday or the day before the Solicitor General was speaking to students at Vanier College. He was referring to the rights of inmates and he admitted that the latter had not enough freedom. Everyday a few of them escape. Two more escaped yesterday from a penitentiary. Others will do the same. He also referred to capital punishment for notorious criminals who are undoubtedly guilty, but who, he said, would not be hanged. The minister said that he blames first prison guards who are too strict. We should be more liberal, more human, more tolerant in other words, to enable inmates to escape. He is now referring to the death penalty. He says: "I have yet to sign the death warrant of a convict. If I had to as he confided to the Vanier College students, I wonder if I could continue as solicitor general. This means that he would resign if he had to sign a death warrant.


Mr. Allmand:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I stated my position on this question to the House of Commons, and I do not think the newspaper report correctly states what I said yesterday at Vanier College. If the hon. member wants to know my position on this matter I shall be pleased to convey it to him.


David Réal Caouette: I take the minister's word. But this appeared in another newspaper this morning, Le Devoir. It says:

The restoration of a punitive system would be a backward step." This was stated by the solicitor general. Is it not true?


William Warren Allmand: True.


David Réal Caouette: Is that right?


William Warren Allmand: Yes.


David Réal Caouette: Fine, it is true. In the next column, the following can be read: "An increasing number of abortions are performed in Canada." On the same page, that is on page 7, it says in one column that we must be more lenient for gangsters and prisoners and in the next one: "An increasing number of abortions are performed in Canada." We are increasingly ready to approve that.
Mr. Speaker, this has not much to do with wiretapping, but still then we could probably-


George Albert Proud: Such is not the government's policy.


David Réal Caouette: Indeed no. The minister is entitled to his opinions, but I know that some of his Liberal colleagues entirely disagree with him, especially as far as the death penalty and criminals are concerned. In fact, we saw it when a vote was held on the matter.
However, Mr. Speaker, this is all to say that subversive activities exist and must be controlled. Unless one is a revolutionary, one has clearly nothing to fear from wiretapping, the police, or anything else. I have never been roughed up by the police, yet I have met some. If I made

November 27, 1973
Protection of Privacy
errors, went astray, broke the law, then I would be arrested like anybody else. But we live in a country where people are free, and as long as they respect law and order and justice, there is no reason to fear wiretaps. On the other hand, those that want to overthrow the government by force, by violence, with arms, with bloodshed, those people must be watched closely by the RCMP, by the provincial and municipal police, is short by all those whose duty is to maintain law, order, and peace.


Peter Reilly: I notice that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), in whose name this bill stands, was on this side of the House during most of the remarks made by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) and that during most of the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) he was out in the lobby. Frankly, with friends like that, I don't blame him one bit for getting out of his seat. The leader of the Creditiste party calls me a journalist who listens at doors. Certainly, I never listened at his door. I doubt very much whether anything of any value would emerge, judging from the remarks the hon. member made this afternoon.
I cannot recall having sat in one place and listened to as big and bubbling a pot of disconnected, irrelevant hysterical hyperbole in all my life since the heyday of Senator McCarthy-and I don't mean Eugene. We have heard speeches this afternoon which have been highly entertaining, I grant you, but they have all had one thing in common, and it is this: they had absolutely nothing to do with the motion before us. We heard from the hon. member for Louis-Hebert an indictment of union leaders and of union members, and of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) and more of the same from the leader of the Creditiste party. But we have really heard no argument addressed to the amendment which stands in the name of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). No one advanced any reasons why it should not pass. I want to rise to support that amendment and to say that unless it becomes part of the bill I cannot support the bill.
I have profound reservations about this bill, and I am not at all sure that I like it even with the amendment proposed by the right hon. gentleman. I am not a lawyer and I am not qualified to speak on the legal ramifications of the bill, particularly as they apply to evidence in a court of law. But I do know one thing. The right of the individual to his or her privacy, the right of the individual in this society to be protected from the police-and I use those words advisedly-is the most important area in which we can legislate in this parliament. It is for that reason that I have decided to speak on this bill, and it is for that reason that I feel very strongly about the matter at hand.
For the very first time we are granting permission to people to transmit electronically, and to record, the private conversations of other people. In some cases we are going a step further and, for the first time, allowing proceedings thus transmitted and transcribed to be admitted as evidence in a court of law, and allowing secondary evidence that is obtained by virtue of that mechanical

transmission to be used as evidence against an accused. That is a very serious step to take.
All of the remarks of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert notwithstanding, this is not a step that we should take lightly. I would prefer a simple one paragraph bill dealing with this whole matter which would provide that it shall be an indictable offence punishable by up to five years in prison for any person to transmit or to record the private conversations of another person or persons without their consent. I think that would be a fine bill, but I know it would not get support from a majority of members in this House. To suggest, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) has-and this is the heart of the matter that we are discussing here-that there should be a 36-hour more or less free fire zone during which the police, without any kind of authority from a judge, can bug someone's telephone or plant transmitting devices on their person, in their luggage or in their clothing, is to vacate a very important area of his responsibility.
Not only the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are involved in this matter, as we keep hearing. The minister seems to be intent on trying to persuade us that only the RCMP will be using these devices. I suggest to you that we should look at the kind of people who will be using these devices, and using them free from any kind of supervision of a judicial nature if this bill passes without amendment. Not only will there be the provincial police forces of Ontario and Quebec; not only will there be the notorious anti-subversive squad of the Montreal police force, whom I would not trust two feet never mind with a wiretapping device for 36 hours, as would be the case if the bill passes as the minister wants, but there will be a multiplicity of departmental agents who will be running around looking for bugging equipment and for permission to use it.
If history tells us one thing, Mr. Speaker, it is that if you give people a licence to do something they will go ahead and do it just as quickly as they can. We will have people from the income tax branch, the national revenue department, the labour department and all departments under whose jurisdiction lie statutes with any kind of sanctions in them at all in regard to offences wanting to wiretap and bug people's conversations in the interest of preserving the security of the state. I suggest to hon. members that we are embarking upon a very serious step if we allow such people to move one inch without the approval of the last bulwark that we have against the invasion of privacy of the individual, namely the judiciary.
I think it is nonsense to suggest that judges cannot be found. Judges have always been found to sign search warrants. It was not too long ago that a woman arrested for picketing the United States embassy was arraigned in her jail cell. A judge came down from the courts to No. 1 station in his robes and arraigned her right in the jail, and I will have more to say about that to the minister at another time. But judges are available. Judges have always been available and they are paid to be available. I do not believe for one moment that the minister can sell any reasonable person the argument that the police need 36 hours of untrammeled, free fire time to plant these bugs.
The minister says that we must help the police. I do not want to bind the hands of the police, but where do we
November 27, 1973

draw the line when we help the police? It would help the police, I suppose, if you gave every policeman a lettre de cachet so that he could imprison anyone for any reason at all and keep them there for the rest of their lives. If the minister thinks that that is far fetched, let me refer him to an incident which happened well within his lifetime.
The minister says to us that we should trust the Attorneys General. Why should we? What mystical quality have Attorneys General that we should repose our confidence in them? Ten years ago or a little better an Attorney General in the legislature of Ontario seriously presented to that house a bill that would have allowed the police commission to imprison people for the rest of their natural lives if they refused to give evidence, without habeas corpus, without the right to counsel, without even the right to a phone call to their families.


An hon. Member:: That was a Tory government.


Peter Reilly: I do not care who it was, it was a wrong bill. This was an Attorney General and he had to resign. Of course, this "hat holder" here, as the leader of the Credi-tiste party calls me, had the honour of being able to expose that bill for the rampant invasion of civil liberties that it was. The bill was withdrawn and the Attorney General subsequently resigned, and frankly I am very proud to have had a part to play in that. But there is an Attorney General for you.
It was an Attorney General in the province of Newfoundland who, not too many years ago, wanted to bring in the RCMP as strikebreakers. It was an Attorney General and premier of the province of Quebec, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) told us, who brought in the infamous padlock law. Lastly, it was a minister of justice of that government, and a former minister of justice, now Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who suspended the civil liberties of every person in this country three years ago, a very unhappy period in our history. Hundreds of people were thrust into prison in Montreal without right to civil liberty, without the right to call a lawyer, without habeas corpus. They had no rights at all. No charges were laid, no charges were withdrawn. People were released from jail under a cloud, and there is no telling how many careers have been damaged or wrecked because of that careless act. So, we have no cause to trust Attorneys General, and I do not think we have any cause to give untrammeled license to police forces either.
Let me give the Minister of Justice another example of a case in which the RCMP almost ruined a man's career, doubtless with the aid of wiretapping. This was at a time when I was with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and was the volunteer and unpaid president of one of those "vile, disgusting international trade unions" that so offend the hon. member for Louis-Hebert and her spiritual colleague in the Creditiste party. One of my associates in the city of Montreal applied for a job to which he was entitled under the terms of the collective agreement but which the corporation refused to give him. Upon examination I was told in secret by a senior official of the CBC that the reason he was not going to get the job was that the RCMP had informed the CBC that he was a security risk. Moreover, if I even told him the real reason, then I would be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act.
Protection of Privacy
I am pleased to say that I did tell him. I went straight to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) who was our lawyer. We went to arbitration and the arbitration board went to the then minister of justice, the Hon. Davie Fulton. He appointed a judicial inquiry which found that there was no colour of right at all for the RCMP to have branded this man a security risk. Yet unless this kind of vigorous action on his behalf had been taken, this man's career would have been frozen at a very junior level, and he was a married man with children. The RCMP, this famous agency that the minister wants to let loose with wiretapping equipment for 36 hours at a crack without judicial approval, this finest police force in Canada, made a grievous mistake that very nearly ruined the life of one man and his family, and I dare say this has been repeated many, many times. Certainly it has been repeated at other levels and by various police forces in this country. Certainly, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert and her spiritual leader are not the only ones who would move against organized crime. Many people have suggested how badly we need a policy in respect of wiretapping. As I have said before, what this represents is provision to police forces of a lettre de cachet. With this power the police force will not have to bug anyone. If they suspect someone they can put him in the clink until he confesses.
I have had some experience with organized crime. I lived in Montreal for a couple of years during which time I was employed by one of those international labour unions, and I happened to begin by organizing the wrong group of hacks. One night on the way home a long, high-powered, low-slung, black car pulled up alongside. Three men jumped out and beat me within an inch of my life. They told me before they left precisely why they had done it. My leader found out they were operating on a contract from a Mafia person in Montreal who is well-known to my grinning colleagues over there. If someone offered me the chance to have these men apprehended and sent to jail by means of an illegal or unauthorized wiretap, although I bear the scars of the encounter with me to this very day, I would still say "no". I would rather that these men go free, and I mean this, than to have the privacy of individual liberties in Canada interfered with by the police or anybody else.
Let me return to the subject matter at hand. We are discussing whether the bill should be amended to provide that at no time should the police or any other agency be able to interfere with, intercept, transmit or record the private conversation of an individual without the approval of a judge. I suggest to you that I have demonstrated here cases in which both the police and politicians, be they Attorneys General or not, have proven massively fallible, and we have one bulwark in this country against abuse by police power, and that is the judiciary. In my experience this is a fairly reliable bulwark. I think the voluntary giving to police forces a hunting licence to snoop and to pry into people's conversations, and later use that evidence in court, is to limit our civil liberties to an unacceptable extent. I urge all hon. members to vote for the amendment proposed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert.

November 27, 1973
Protection of Privacy


Mr.   Terry@: Mr. Speaker, the subject before the House is one of essential and fundamental importance to all Canadians. It is one which has become associated, both symbolically and in actuality, with the freedom of each individual to be left alone. Privacy at the option of the individual must be protected, as it is one of the essential personal rights of a free and democratic society. This premise is recognized by most members of this House, with the one or two notable exceptions we have heard from this afternoon, and also by a large majority of Canadians. It is, therefore, astonishing to the general public to learn that it is only now, in 1973, decades after the capability to eavesdrop by electronic methods became possible, that we are finally taking steps to control its use. That the potential, and in some cases the actual abuse of such gadgetry, has been allowed to exist unchecked and uncontrolled for so long is a sad commentary on past parliaments and past ministers of justice.
One of the subjects under discussion in this bill which interests me the most is what has become known as "the indirect evidence principle". This concerns whether evidence resulting from an illegal wiretap as opposed to the tape or the transcript of the tape itself may be used in evidence against an accused at a trial. The minister, having had this right deleted by the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, has made vigorous efforts to persuade public opinion that indirect evidence should be admissible in spite of the illegality of the wiretap. The minister has been singularly unsuccessful in his attempts to change public opinion. A cursory examination of editorial and other comment, including letters to the editor and so forth, from across the country has been almost uniformly against such attempts. The minister has even been criticized for attempting to reverse the will of this committee which proposed the amendment unsatisfactorily to him.
I suggest it is somewhat unfair to criticize the minister at this stage of the proceedings. Surely, each of the parliamentary steps toward final enactment has a substantive purpose and can be used by any member of this House to make what changes he deems necessary. If any single stage is merely a rubberstamp of initial stages, then we are wasting our time and such a step should be eliminated. Nor can I agree with the somewhat alarmist view of the Montreal Gazette which headlined its lead editorial last Thursday with the words "Lang Must Be Stoped". I suggest the minister is not a mad scientist out to destroy the world with his amendment. I feel, rather, that he probably falls into the category of ministers described by the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) on television last week when he referred to some ministers as being under the control of their senior officials.
As to the substantive aspects of his position in respect of this amendment, I suggest he is dead wrong. He will not have my support nor, I hope, the support of the majority of the members of this House. The assumption has generally been that the rule permitting indirect evidence would apply only to the police: That is, the police only may make use of the exceptions to the general prohibition in the statute against wiretapping. As the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly) pointed out, a closer examination of the wording of the statute would indicate this is not the case.
The bill permits applications for electronic surveillance permits to be made by peace officers and public officers. Under the Interpretation Act "public officer" includes:
-any person in the public service of Canada
(i)	who is authorized by or under an enactment to do or
enforce the doing of an act or thing or to exercise a power, or
(ii)	upon whom a duty is imposed by or under an enactment;
By giving the very broad meaning enunciated by this
Interpretation Act to the words "public officer" we can see that they could include customs and excise tax officers, enforcement people, income tax investigators, and even prison guards or game wardens. Those are all people who, under the broad definition of the section, should be included as "public officers". Thus, with this extremely wide variety of persons permitted under the statute to avail themselves of the permits, providing they make the appropriate application through an agent or the Attorney General, it is encumbent upon us to devise rules and strictures which are onerous and which provide every protection to the indivual from the abuse of the exemption allowed under this bill.
It has been said that in Canada we enjoy outstanding police forces which would be little inclined to disobey the law and that there would be little to fear from abuse of the indirect evidence privilege if the minister's amendment were to carry. Police forces and other public officers are, for the most part, no doubt well-intentioned public servants. Thus, I would suggest that if this is the case they would have no hesitation whatsoever in accepting an amendment which does nothing more than require them to follow a simple procedure designed to guarantee protection of the civil rights of each and every Canadian. This simple procedure involves making an application through one of the many agents, which the Attorney General or the Minister of Justice will be able to appoint, who in turn will sign the application so that it may be taken before a judge ex parte. Then, upon completion of a simple affidavit, the elements of which are clearly set out in the statute, the public officer or peace officer will be granted the permission to wiretap within the restrictions of the order set out by the court.
I suggest that this procedure could be carried out quickly with a minimum of red tape and a minimum of delay. The attitude and actions of the minister and others against the elimination of the provision permitting indirect evidence from an illegal tap makes me, and I believe many others, suspicious because we feel the incidence of illegal taps will be high. If this were not the case, they would see no substantial hindrance to justice in requiring this simple procedure to be followed. Proponents of the use of indirect evidence cite the recent Ansano case in Toronto where the electronic eavesdropping devices led to the conviction of a group of heroin importers. They cite this case as though it would not have been solved if the amendments before the House were, in fact the law. This is a lot of nonsense. The police had more than sufficient time to apply for the necessary authorization had this step been required by law. Having done so, the full evidence, both direct and indirect, resulting from the use of these


bugs, would have been equally admissible had this bill with the indirect amendment been the law.
Why the great outcry at ensuring that police and others must obey the law? To leave the fine and/or jail sentence as the only deterrent is no assurance. Who will investigate and charge the police? The police? The same practice that has developed with statements will develop with electronic eavesdropping devices. As those of us who are lawyers involved in defence work will know, as often as not a statement is disallowed at the voir dire, but the accused is convicted nevertheless on evidence turned up by the police after the so-called confession has been extracted from him by one means or another. The argument has been made that to automatically exclude indirect evidence from an illegal wiretap would serve to hamper and handcuff police investigations of serious crimes, again as though there need be some trade-off between the protection of civil rights and the vigorous investigation and enforcement of the law by police agencies. I think this is a point that the hon. member for Louis-Hebert attempted to make. I think she missed the point entirely. I think her argument perhaps was well refuted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) when he referred to it as a red herring.
The exclusion of indirect evidence would not hamper any honest and hard working police officer or force acting in good faith. Such officers and forces would regularly adhere to the law in obtaining the necessary authorizations and permits prior to carrying out any electronic surveillance. The real benefit derived is the protection of each and every one of us from overzealous police officers and other public servants who would know that to obtain any information, other than with proper authority, would be a fruitless task. Clearly there does not necessarily exist a trade-off between civil rights and law enforcement, as the investigative powers of the law enforcement agencies can be maintained but under authority and with permission. The greater good to society would be to ensure the protection of the individual's right to privacy rather than open the door to abuse by allowing indirect evidence to be admissible. Members of this House and this parliament have the opportunity to substantially improve the quality of criminal justice in this country. This House should take this opportunity by rejecting the minister's indirect evidence amendment and by allowing the amendment that was passed by the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to stand as it is.


Mr. Lang:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that there have been some informal discussions and there might be agreement to stand motion No. 3, because some further discussions are taking place. Perhaps we could consider the group of amendments standing in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) with which we had begun to deal previously.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to agree on behalf of our party. Discussions are taking place and I hope we can arrange an accommodation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Broadview on a point of order.
Protection of Privacy


Mr. Gilbert:: No, Mr. Speaker. I was about to participate in the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Then, the Chair will call upon the hon. member for Broadview.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, my comments in respect of this amendment will be very brief. I think the amendment was fully explained when it was presented by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). It was attacked by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). My comments are prompted because of the speech this afternoon by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin). The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) set forth our position in regards to this particular amendment on second reading. I happen to set forth the position of the New Democratic Party with regard to our support for the principle of this bill. I said we supported the bill in principle and that we would try to obtain amendments in committee that would further strengthen it. We did that. We are now at the report stage and the hon. member for Prince Albert is bringing forward another amendment which he thinks will further strengthen the bill. But even after having said we would support the bill, after hearing the speech of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert and the speech of the Leader of the Social Credit Party I am almost inclined to say that we will not support the principle of the bill.
Were it not for members such as the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) and the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) who gave some really accurate assessments of the principles of this bill, I would strongly recommend to my colleagues that we not support the bill. When I heard the hon. member for Louis-Hebert speak I thought she was announcing principles which would be applicable to a totalitarian country. When she attacked the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), she failed to mention that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe was present at those committee hearings. He heard Ramsey Clark speak, and I think he has changed his position. I am rather proud of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe for having changed his position. His change of position was brought about by the tremendous experience in Quebec, and especially the recent experience there.
One can never be proud of some of the activities of the metropolitan police in Montreal with regard to wiretaps. Most of the wiretaps that they have used would be illegal under the present bill. They would not only put wiretaps on a person who is about to commit an indictable offence but also in certain places. In other words, if a fellow with a criminal career frequents a place where criminals hang about, the police would seek permission to wiretap that place. In fact, it would be just a mere fishing expedition for evidence in which they would be participating. I was rather ashamed of the performance of the Montreal police when they gave their evidence.
The evidence of the RCMP was rather terrifying when you realize the number of wiretaps they use, the number of charges they lay and the number of convictions they obtain. Also, the record of the Toronto police is not a

November 27, 1973
Protection of Privacy
proud record. They were fishing and they were obtaining evidence against people in a way that should not have been allowed. When I heard the Leader of the Social Credit Party say, righteously and proudly, that he has been wiretapped and that it does not make any difference to him, my reaction was that if it does not make any difference to him it certainly makes a great deal of difference to me. To think that a member of parliament would be tapped and would be proud of it is just outrageous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: It strikes at the dignity of members of parliament. I am inclined to think that ever since he took that trip to Taiwan and spoke to Chiang Kai-Shek his thinking has been totally led astray. This puts him on a par with the hon. member for Louis-Hebert.


George Albert Proud: She has not gone there yet.


John Gilbert: I think the amendment set forth by the right hon. member for Prince Albert is one with which the majority of hon. members agree because of the experiences they have had with the police. I thought the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly) put on the record examples of some of the actions of Attorneys General and the police of which we should all be reminded. We are put in the position of having to protect the freedom of the public. This amendment goes a long way toward protecting the freedom of the individual and his right to privacy. The Minister of Justice in his speech bore heavily on the question of fear, the possibility that certain nefarious conduct might take place on the weekend and that the police would be left without any tools or techniques with which to apprehend the individual.
Again, I would remind hon. members of the study of Mr. Schwartz on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Association which showed that in the last three years there had been one bugging device installed by federal police in connection with a kidnapping case, none for homicide or espionage, and that over 90 per cent of such devices had been used for gambling operations. That makes a big impression on me. I do not like the attitude of the minister who attempts to place fear in the hearts of members that they will not help law enforcement officers if they do not accept his line and reject the amendment of the right hon. member. I am inclined to think that what we need is a minister who has confidence in members of the House. When we bring forth amendments, I think he must treat them with the respect that they command. The basis for these amendments that have been brought forth is the experience that some of us have had in the practice of law and in other fields. Under no circumstances could I support the position of the minister when he appeals to the fear of members. Therefore, I repeat that the hon. member for New Westminster has set forth our position and we will support the amendment put forward by the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we stand motion No. 3 and proceed to the five motions in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



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 Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale)-Health-Availability of Drug Isoprenaline, without prescription; the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Nelson)-External Affairs-Famine in Ethiopia-Direct assistance by Canada.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[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.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before calling on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guay) to complete his remarks, may I point out that when he last had the floor motions Nos. 5 and others were being considered.
[ Translation]


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, once again I have the honour to resume the speech on the protection of privacy bill which I started a few days ago in this House and, as I said earlier, I believe like many others in this House that we should come to a conclusion as soon as possible concerning the bill and the amendments.
Today I listened to the speeches made by hon. members on both sides of the House. There is a lot of talk about the abuses that are, have been or will be committed. I would like to say before the House that if we want these abuses to end, we must pass legislation. I find it somewhat abnormal that for the third time in as many years we should be debating this bill on wiretapping.
In 1970, we were unable to continue the debate. In June 1972, when an election was announced, we were unable to go on. And now for about eight months, we have debated this bill which I think is essential if we want to give our police forces the tools that they require.
There is a lot of talk about privacy, but too often law and order are forgotten. When we see what is happening in today's society, we should realize that there is an urgent need for legislation which will allow us to live more peacefully. Too often, we hear that this legislation will
November 27, 1973

allow police officers to use wiretapping devices. I would say this legislation does not allow policemen to wiretap, but rather it forbids any use of such devices except when police work is concerned and in clearly defined circumstances. In other words, the policeman or agent who will apply for a permit to wiretap will have to prove to a Superior Court judge that they have tried every other means at their disposal. They will also have to specify the type of offence they want to investigate through listening to other citizens, be they members of crime syndicates, drug dealers or ordinary criminals not associated with any organization. So I think this is really a way of giving Canada instruments which, of course, might not be perfect.
As I said several times already, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin), the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) and myself have discussed this point recently. It seems to me that everyone agrees on the principle that there is a need to pass such a legislation.
I am asking all hon. members today what they are waiting for to legislate on this matter and to enact rules and standards that will allow police officers to use wiretapping to insure the order we all want and need in our country. What do we want? We want a legislation strict enough, yet flexible enough to enable us to protect the privacy of the individual while insuring a minimum security for our society.
If I had to give a title to this bill, it might be a double title:	Protection of Privacy and Canadian Security
Requirements Act. After several committee meetings, the minister himself agreed to amend the bill in a sense because we said that we were living in a democratic society. We have put this bill forward without taking the very rigid position that we would not accept any amendment.
I think the bill before the House for discussion at the report stage is precisely a proof of co-operation on the part of the government and we would expect the same attitude from the three opposition parties. I see three former Attorneys General among the Progressive Conservatives. They remind us at every opportunity that they have been Attorney General or minister of justice in their province. I wonder what they are doing here. They always tell us they did so much in their province and settled so many problems.
I ask them what tax, law or penal reform they carried out when they were themselves attorney generals or ministers of justice. The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe is always prepared to suggest major law reforms. I can well remember the time when he was minister of justice in Quebec. I am not asking him to answer for his mandate. What did he do to improve the legislation within his department? What did he do in the field of law or penal reform? This is what I am asking him. Today not only he has changed party but he has also changed his mind. I think he has too much on his mind today. All he can suggest when very important questions are being discussed in this House are inquiries.
Protection of Privacy
Once again, during the oral question period this afternoon, inquiries have been suggested in the field of oil, justice and penal institutions. Inquiries are constantly being suggested. As for me, I do not want to live in the past. We know that we have been elected by the people. We were elected by responsible citizens and we should know their problems. It is up to us to tackle those problems together in order to solve them. We do not have to find out what went wrong in the past but to try to say what we shall do all together so that things will be better in the future, how to deal with the problems and what instrument should be given police officers to enable them to establish the order we need within society, whether at the municipal, provincial or national level.
Such is the electoral mandate we were given by the people. I cannot see why we have discussed such an important issue during three years when all members seem to agree at least on the principle of this bill. Should we have to give our opinion, let us do so in the House, let us put an end to long speeches and let us vote on those amendments because the people gave us a mandate. It is up to us to fulfil that obligation because we will have to account for it if we have not carried it out in the most efficient way so as to provide protection not only for the individual but for society as a whole.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) set forth his position with regard to the amendments we are now discussing. It is what is known in our caucus as the purist position, but I must say that his views are not shared by all members of the caucus. This does not mean that his views are wrong. It may be that they are too far advanced. I think I can set fourth the view of the majority of the members of our caucus. We feel that we need legislation making it illegal to wiretap, but that an exception or exceptions should be made. We set forth this view in our speeches on second reading, and we strove to make amendments to strengthen the bill in committee.
The majority of our members feel that because of prevailing conditions we should give police the authorization to wiretap in specific cases. As I understand the amendments of the hon. member for New Westminster, he would establish the simple principle that there shall be no wiretapping, and rest his case there. When I heard the views set forth by the former U.S. Attorney General, Mr. Ramsey Clark, I was almost persuaded to accept that position. He had a very strong case to make. Mr. Speaker, you will note that I am having difficulty choosing my words probably because philosophically I agree with the amendments, but from a practical standpoint I think it would be difficult to adopt that position at this time.
I would hope that after three to five years or maybe less, we could come back and make the amendments suggested by the hon. member for New Westminster. At this time I think we have to proceed with the principles set forth in the bill, hoping to strengthen them along the way. This means that I am almost accepting the right of the police to wiretap with regard to serious offences. Mr. Speaker, I must admit that probably this is the position I am taking

November 27, 1973
Protection of Privacy
at this stage but I would say that it is not a fixed position that will last for some time. I hope that we would get to the purist position as quickly as possible. I think that if we do adopt the principles of this bill, this will not give the police the opportunity to engage in massive or numerous wiretaps. I think that the police have within their power the techniques of combatting crime without the use of wiretaps and I would hope that such devices would be used only as a last resort.
The minister has pointed out that the basis for an authorization on an application to the judge is that other investigative measures have failed. When I think of the inefficiency of wiretapping, the possible corruption of wiretapping, the corrosiveness of wiretapping, I am very hesitant to give the police too much power. I would hope that we could have a police force within Canada which would use the ordinary techniques of investigation, which would be paid the highest possible salaries and which would perform with the highest possible efficiency. If they are going to rely on wiretapping as the main instrument for police investigative work, I have certain fears that those goals will not be achieved.
We in the New Democratic Party are prepared to accept the principle at this stage and to give the police the right to wiretap in certain circumstances but I am sure that we reserve the right in years to come to try to attain the position that the hon. member for New Westminster is asking for today. Therefore, speaking on behalf of the majority of members of our caucus, we will support the principle of the bill and reject the amendments set forth by the hon. member for New Westminster.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the group of amendments put forward by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), may I say on behalf of our party that we, too, find ourselves unable to agree with the rather courageous and forward-looking approach which he is attempting to take. In the extensive evidence that was laid before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs at the hearings throughout June and July, I was surprised at the way in which the various police forces of this country came forward and honestly and openly disclosed the extent to which they had in the past engaged in electronic surveillance of various sorts. I was particularly impressed with the candor shown by the RCMP, and with the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), in revealing the extent of surveillance in both criminal oper-tions and security service operations which I believe heretofore had always remained a matter not for public consumption but a part of the internal intelligence or documentation of the Solicitor General's department.
I might say that I was also impressed with the open stance taken by the Montreal urban community police and their counsel, Mr. Jacques Dagenais, who did come forward and disclose the extent to which they relied on electronic surveillance and the methods used. While I certainly would not want to agree with some of their submissions on the form which the legislation before us should take, I think they are to be congratulated for their public spirit in coming forward and indicating what they had done and what they would like to do in the interests of law enforcement in the future.
I was only disappointed that other police forces did not come forward in the standing committee of the previous parliament or of this parliament with the same sort of candor, forthrightness and openness that these two police forces did. In particular, I refer to the other large Canadian city, the police force of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. It did not see fit to come forward during the last parliament with the sort of candor for which one would hope. Indeed, it took some considerable effort on the part of the chairman, and other members of the committee in the last parliament, to extract from the chief of police of metropolitan Toronto the sort of information which committee members thought was necessary to reach the sort of decisions that they eventually reached.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think there is enough evidence on record to show that the police forces of this country at all three levels, federal, municipal and provincial, require electronic surveillance as a means of law enforcement but under very controlled situations. Most of the argument in committee really concerned the nature, scope and extent of the control, but what has been termed the purist view, that we should not have any wiretapping at all legally authorized in this country, was clearly a minority position.
The position that I took, and my party took, in favouring controlled wiretapping by the police in certain circumstances was based not only on the evidence placed before us that this was indeed an effective means of law enforcement, but it was based on the practical realization that we legislators might set up a strict prohibition, a strict barrier to utilization of what otherwise might be seen as a necessary device in many ways. We may set up a system which would lead to flouting the law, bypassing the law, by those who, in the pursuit of their duties, may sometimes see a violation of the law as justifiable to achieve their ends; that is the apprehension and conviction of those engaged in criminal activity. It would be a sorry day in this country if we were to set up a law which might force law enforcement officers, and others in this country, to pursue a course of action which would in effect be a violation of the law.
Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, I do want to pay tribute to the courage of the hon. member for New Westminster who has put forward, so articulately, the purist view. I wish we lived in a society in which his view was the prevailing one. If we did, I might be one of the first to jump on board in support of his position. Indeed, if the situation which is contemplated in this legislation of controlled wiretapping by the police does not work out, if there are overzealous uses of wiretapping, overzealous authorizations by judges, overzealous applications granted by Attorneys General or their agents or Solicitors General and their agents and there is a compelling public outcry, which I think would ensue in this country which is always conscious of individual and fundamental freedom, then it may be that in five years time or eight years time we will move closer to the purer position advocated by the hon. member. In the event that there is the sort of abuse which I have suggested, which I hope will not occur, then I will be with him in support of the purer position.

November 27, 1973

I respectfully suggest, in view of evidence that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), the RCMP and Montreal police have placed before us, there is need for controlled and limited wiretapping in this country. Therefore my party and I are in the position of having to oppose the grouping of amendments as put forward by the hon. member. That does not in any way detract from the position we have taken on other amendments before the House or on amendments which have yet to be debated. There are important principles relating to the nature, scope and extent of control which must be considered. I would not want my remarks today to be construed in any way as a diminution of or withdrawal from earlier positions taken, positions which were forcefully put by some colleagues.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on the motions now before the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 5, standing in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). All those in favour will please say, yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Leggatt) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 6, standing in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). All those in favour will please say, yea.


An hon. Member:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Leggatt) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 9, in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). All those in favour will please say, yea.


An hon. Member:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 9 (Mr. Leggatt) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 10, in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). All those in favour will please say, yea.
Protection of Privacy


An hon. Member:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 10 (Mr. Leggatt) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 14, in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). Those in favour will please say, yea.


An hon. Member:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say, nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 14 (Mr. Leggatt) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 15, in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). Those in favour will please say, yea.


An hon. Member:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say, nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 15 (Mr. Leggatt) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 21, in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). Those in favour will please say, yea.


An hon. Member:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say, nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 21 (Mr. Leggatt) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the House is now to return to consideration of motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey).


Otto Emil Lang: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think there is some disposition to continue standing motions Nos. 2 and 3 and consider motion No. 7 standing in my name.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 27, 1973
Protection of Privacy


Otto Emil Lang: That Bill C-176, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be amended by striking out:
(a)	line 46 at page 4 and substituting the following:
"unlikely to succeed; and"
(b)	line 5 at page 5 and substituting the following:
"cedures."
(c)	lines 6 to 8 at page 5.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a fairly simple amendment which has the effect, notwithstanding the language of the technical amendment, of removing subparagraph (d) of subsection (1) of section 178.13. Subparagraph (d) referred to is to be found between lines 6 and 8 inclusive on page 5 of the bill. It may not be desirable to repeat any aspect of the definition of offence as lawyers, in looking at the legislation later, may be misled into thinking that the definition of offence, as it will be in the bill proper, is somehow affected by this particular clause, or that the requirement in the application is somehow affected. I therefore ask hon. members for their support in removing this particular part of the clause.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of my party, I say that we will accept this as a necessary amendment, as it clears up an ambiguity in the bill. The minister rightly pointed out that the definition of the word "offence" is the subject matter with which motion No. 2, which has been allowed to stand, is concerned. If both definitions were left in the bill, the result could be confusion.
When the committee considered the matter, it was felt that the term "offence" could be defined as any indictable offence. Since then we have moved to other ground. Therefore, speaking on behalf of my party, I can say that we accept the minister's amendment.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the remarks made by the previous speaker. This is a necessary tidying up amendment and I do not think it is necessary to speak on it at length.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 7 (Mr. Lang) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House wish to proceed with Motion No. 8, standing in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: No. 8.
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 purposes of section 178.12 by the Solicitor General of Canada or the Attorney General, as the case may be" in lines 43 to 46 at page 5 and line 1 at page 6.


Otto Emil Lang: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would agree to moving two other motions standing in his name. They might be considered all at the same time, as the same principle is involved in each one.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I could also move motions Nos. 17 and 18, which seem to make up the package. I wonder if, for purposes of debate, we could agree that these motions could be grouped as part of a package to be debated.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that motions Nos. 8, 17 and 18 will be grouped and put to the House for purposes of debate as one unit?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That Bill C-176, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, he amended in Clause 2 by deleting the words "and agents to be named in the report who were specially designated in writing by him for the purposes of section 178.2" in lines 5 to 9 at page 15 and the words "or by agents to be named in the report who were specially designated in writing by him for the purpose of that section," in lines 11 to 14 at page 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 the words "or by agents specially designated in writing by him for the purposes of that section," in lines 30 to 32 at page 18.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in order to clarify the purpose of the amendment I ought to read the clause as printed, and then refer to the proposed amendment. Clause 178.12 is concerned with the application to a judge for permission to wiretap. The first part of clause 178.12 reads:
An application for an authorization shall be made ex parte and in writing to a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction, or a judge as defined in section 482 and shall be signed by the Attorney General of the Province in which the application is made or the Solicitor General of Canada or an agent specially designated in writing for the purposes of this section by . ..
Before the bill went to committee, the word "agent" alone was used. The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) succeeded with an amendment which designated the agent and restricted to some extent the number of people in this country who would be authorized to permit this kind of invasion of privacy.
I am still not satisfied that the bill contains sufficient restrictions. Let me explain why. It is entirely feasible, under the present wording, that every sergeant of police in the country, every corporal, could be designated. In fact, it is possible to designate every peace officer as long as he is named, and the names are not hard to come by. It may be thought I am taking this to ridiculous limits, but let me remind hon. members that the purpose of the bill is to restrict unnecessary surveillance of the public by the police.
We still come back to the morality of wiretapping. The bill still provides that the Solicitor General or the Attor-
November 27, 1973

neys General of the provinces can designate anyone they care to choose as their agents and that these persons then have authority to commence the process of wiretapping; they have authority to issue permits without the approval of a court, under the emergency provisions. We have just been debating the question whether or not they should avoid the judicial process. If we recall the statistics quoted earlier, the evidence was that the RCMP initiated 663 wiretaps in the year 1972-73. Consider the number of conversations overheard on those wiretaps; they must have run into the hundreds of thousands. Now consider that under the bill as it stands there is no real restriction on the number of people who can initiate these kinds of proceedings. I suggest that by leaving in the bill the provision to which I have called attention, we invite the consequences that all of us fear, namely, that we shall move closer to a police state, as was ably advocated this afternoon by the hon. lady from Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin).
I do not think it is proper that we should pass legislation which places no limit upon the number of people who can initiate this kind of proceeding. While we may have confidence in the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General and in the various Attorneys General-after all, three of them are NDP Attorneys General-expanding the capacity to initiate wiretapping as is being done in this section simply opens the door to further abuse.
I said that theoretically every peace officer in the country could be specially designated. Indeed, the agent need not be a peace officer; he or she could be anyone an Attorney General might think to be an appropriate person. The other day the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) suggested we should take another look at the bill before us because, he said, it was a very good bill and one which really did safeguard privacy. I did so, but I kept finding other provisions which suggest that rather than safeguarding privacy, it is basically an open cheque to the police to engage in as much surveillance as they deem necessary. In almost every circumstance mentioned in the bill one can think of ways in which the restrictions contained in it could be overcome.
Consider the information which must be supplied to a judge before authority is granted. Assume an agent, having been given authority, goes to a judge. If he knows who the person is, he must divulge this information. If he does not, he must divulge the place he intends to wiretap. If he does not know the place, then at least he has to tell the judge what means he intends to use in order to wiretap. This affords very little protection to the public since it is entirely feasible that the police might suspect that tenants in a certain apartment block were engaged, say, in drug trafficking, in which case they might tap or bug the whole apartment block.
I am bound to revert to the position I have already taken. When you open this door you have opened a Pandora's box, and it cannot be closed again despite all the tinkering that may be done, all the amendments that may be adopted. In our heart of hearts we know that wiretapping is an immoral act and, as such, it is an act in which we do not want the police to participate. As the hon. member for Louis-Hebert would have it, we should let the police do anything they like as long as they catch crimi-
Protection of Privacy
nals. In those circumstances I suggest there would soon be many more criminals for the police to catch, because people would lose respect for the means by which the law is enforced. That kind of society is not one in which I think most of us in this House would wish to live. What the hon. lady said, really, was this: We have to fight fire with fire. If criminals have the means, then we must have the means. If criminals kill, then we had better kill.
Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to get out of the mire of that kind of criminal society for the last thousand years, and if we follow the logic of the hon. member we shall go back to that mire. It is the first rule of society that there be respect for law and order. But it must be the kind of law and the kind of order that merits respect: and when you get involved in wiretapping you are engaged in an immoral activity which none of us respect.
It is not good enough for a person to say, "I have nothing to hide and therefore I do not mind being under surveillance." That is straight from George Orwell's "1984". It reflects the madness that enters society when everyone's activity is constantly under surveillance and the privacy of the individual is lost. Freedom of speech is lost. It is lost because of self-censorship. It is lost because if you get on a telephone and think your words are being overheard, you will be less inclined to say what you think.
Consent to wiretapping is one of the most insidious things which can be foisted on a population. It is insidious because it grows imperceptibly. Surely we in this House should, above all, be concerned about respect for the individual and his rights within a free society. If all this is to be thrown away on the ground that we are protecting people from criminals, it will not really be worth living in society because all that will emerge is a totalitarian state.
Directing my attention, now, to the specific amendments which have been proposed, I think it is important to restrict the number of people who can initiate this wire tapping procedure. To do so is to say to the people of Canada, "We respect your privacy and we want you to enjoy the protection which we believe any civilized society should afford to its citizens." But that does not only mean protection from criminals; it means protection from government, or it might also mean protection from multinational corporations who wish to spy on their employees.
I know the hon. member for Louis-Hebert feels strongly about this. I hope she will look at the other side, because there is another side. I hope she will look at the other side in the way the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) did, who took time to examine all the evidence. On balance, I think she will rethink her position. I know she is not a person of such firm and fixed ideas that she is not interested in listening to others, because she spends so much time in the House.
I urge the House to endorse this package of amendments because I think it says something to the people of Canada. We do not wish to have any abuse of wiretapping law, and this is one of the ways we have of saying that.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey).
November 27, 1973

Protection of Privacy


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I do not speak with the-


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice rises on a point of order.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the statement made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) I would like to point out that if the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe has changed his mind so often it might well be because of that. He should look at the climate that exists in the province of Quebec; he would realize that only two Tory members were elected there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows as well as I do that this is not a point of order. The hon. member will be given a chance to participate in the debate and the Chair will give him an opportunity to make his speech after the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) has completed his.
[ English]


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for St. Paul's. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) is rising on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay).


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, on the particular point of order just raised, I think the hon. member should consider that if political consideration is his chief concern in the way he is treating this bill, then I can understand some of the speeches we are hearing from the other side of the House.


Mr. Paproski:: Right on. Shame!


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, in addressing myself to the three amendments which have been proposed in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), I might say that this is one of the issues which before the standing committee did not have the vigorous and detailed debate which might have been useful to all hon. members, not only in the committee but in the House, in approaching the matter now before us. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), when dealing with motion No. 3, expressed considerable concern about the term "agent" and the use of that term with very few, if any, restrictions, particularly any use of the term that might allow emergency permits under section 178.15.
By restricting the application to the Solicitor General or the Attorney General, without permitting them to authorize any agents at all, would be virtually to paralyse the law enforcement agencies in their use of electronic surveillance as a legitimate means of law enforcement, except in large cities where the Attorney General or Solicitor General might reside or would be available.
This has caused me some concern, but I am also concerned by the lack of restriction and the lack of definition of the term "agent". It is for that reason that I moved a

motion in committee, which was accepted, to the effect that the agents be specifically named in the annual reports of the Attorney General and Solicitor General. I appreciate that this is a minimal protection at best and it is protection that comes after the event; in other words, it comes after many applications for authorization have been sought.
Nevertheless, in speaking only for myself, my inclination is to let the sections stand as they are now, subject to any further comment that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) might have on the proposed amendments put forward by the hon. member for New Westminster. I think this is one area where the opposition at both federal and provincial levels, as well as the press in doing their duty, may scrutinize the annual reports of the Attorney General and Solicitor General to see that there are not abuses here, that there are not an undue number of agents named, or that there are not persons named as agents who lack the sort of competence, responsibility and quality that we would all agree should reside in a person exercising powers under this important but somewhat dangerous legislation.
So without wanting to be definitive or completely unequivocal on the matter, my inclination would be to let the legislation stand in its present form and to try out this "agent" provision, with a very strong injunction to the Attorney General and Solicitor General that they take great care and exercise caution in regard to the number and competence of the individuals they choose to name as agents.
Certainly I think there would have to be some regional considerations here. Again I refer to my home province of Ontario where I think it would be quite reasonable to suggest that there be an agent in western Ontario, certainly one in northern Ontario, one in eastern Ontario, and of course the Attorney General himself usually resides in Toronto which is the seat of the provincial government. I am sure that similar arrangements could be worked out for the other provinces.
I would be opposed to, and appalled by, any suggestion that all chiefs of police or all police officers, or indeed all justices of the peace, should be named agents. I think that would go beyond the spirit and the intendment of this particular piece of legislation in its present form. Again, I rest my case until I hear the comments of the Minister of Justice.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the words of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) who has indicated the difficulties that would be involved with the amendments proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). Let me first of all say how much I share the view of the hon. member for St. Paul's. The responsibility of a Solicitor General or Attorney General should, in my view, certainly be exercised carefully in regard to the manner of designation, and the practices that are followed by the very best of police forces and police units ought to be followed and be generalized in the way in which very careful use is made of the power to designate.
As has been said by the hon. member, the bill does require very special designation of such persons by the
November 27, 1973

Attorney General or Solicitor General. This is a requirement that gives that flexibility to the Attorney General or Solicitor General to appoint the person who is most likely capable of exercising judgment and also to be in place in order to carry out this function. The problem of leaving the matter to the Solicitor General or Attorney General is, or course, a very serious one in terms of this availability at a certain point in time or at a certain place, and therefore one to be avoided.
Everyone who looks at this act should recognize the very important protections that are built in, in an attempt to assure that the very best kind of conduct does accompany the use of this rather special device, one which is intended to be used only when other devices are not going to succeed in regard to persons involved in serious crime. The reporting provisions are of extreme importance. The reports generally required would include the names of the persons who have been authorized, so that there will be an opportunity to scrutinize the conduct of Attorneys General and Solicitors General in the appointing and designating of these persons.
The reports, in addition, are designed to be very complete in the information they give about the way in which an application was made, whether an application was granted, whether there were renewals and the number of persons identified in an authorization in respect of whom proceedings were commenced. This is the kind of information required in the reports which are to be made annually by the Solicitor General and by Attorneys General put before this House and made a matter of public record. Some of the Attorneys General of the provinces may feel there is a legitimate question as to whether parliament ought to impose upon them this kind of obligation to report in what is essentially a political way. I think it is essential and is the right of parliament to do this because, after all, it is this parliament that has the obligation to make laws which protect our citizens.
As a result of the Criminal Code and long tradition in this country, the provincial Attorney General is the officer charged with carrying out the law enacted by this parliament. It does seem to me, in looking at this power to obtain authorization to use an electronic device to intercept a communication, that we have quite properly looked at the question involving the kind of report to be made by provincial Attorneys General. In making those reports public and available to members of parliament, I think it follows that in order to do our job properly we must examine the reports.
The political processes of the provinces should aid us, as well, in that the members of the opposition there will ordinarily be zealous in pointing out any misuse or abuse in the manner in which the Attorney General of a province carries out his obligation. We, as the makers of law in this parliament, continue to have the right and the duty to examine these reports from the provincial Attorneys General. We also have the obligation to examine the reports so as to determine whether the Attorneys General properly carry out their function; and we should have the right to make changes if we find these officers are not operating in an appropriate manner. After all, that is our obligation and our function.
Protection of Privacy
The reporting provision is one I rely upon as being very necessary in this statute. Here again, this is important as a controlling device in respect of naming the agents who can make application to an Attorney General. The Attorneys General will have to focus very carefully on this question, and I am sure the suggestion of the hon. member for St. Paul's was made in this vein. What he is suggesting is that this should be done. I am sure he has reference to the discretion which is commonly applied to these matters by the very best police forces. We on our part will be charged with the obligation of seeing that Attorneys General throughout this country do in fact apply the kind of standard which should be applied in respect of police units throughout this country. I refer to the high quality of standard that can be found among many police units now in existence in our country.
Therefore, I hope hon. members will oppose this amendment proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster in order that the operational possibilities of using electronic intrusion when really needed in order to detect serious crime and enforce the law can, in fact, be a workable procedure.


Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the amendment put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leg-gatt), I should perhaps say by way of preface that I am not a lawyer and I have no experience in the administration of the law. I am inclined to feel that this matter should not be left exclusively to the advice of lawyers, so I want to add a layman's point of view.
My position is simply that, rather than starting off by permitting a fairly wide use of the principle of agency, it would seem to make more sense to be more cautious by starting off with a limitation as suggested by the hon. member's amendment. If after a period of time it becomes evident that the provisions set out in the hon. member's amendment are not sufficient to meet the problems toward which this act is directed, surely that is the time to broaden the use of the principle of agency.
I am perhaps not so sure as the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) that the spirit of the law will be observed if the letter of the law does not make the spirit explicit. Therefore, I believe there is good reason for arguing that the use of the principle of agency should be restricted to those persons designated in my colleague's amendment. If, after experience of a year or two, it seems clear that this is an unworkable restriction, then perhaps the doctrine of agency can be expanded further. Therefore, I believe that the spirit of the law as enunciated by the hon. member for St. Paul's should be made explicit in the letter of the law.
I should like to add one additional comment in respect of the argument put forward by the hon. member for New Westminster when he addressed himself to the principle of this legislation. I do not agree entirely with him that the use of wiretapping under certain circumstances is in itself immoral. I believe that the state has rights, just as an individual has rights, and there are certain circumstances under which the state may apply those rights. This bill sets forth one of those circumstances.

November 27, 1973
Protection of Privacy
I suggest there is great merit in the suggestion that we should proceed cautiously and conservatively in respect of this matter of individual rights. I hope hon. members will forgive me as a member of the NDP for making the suggestion, in respect of privacy, that the state's rights can be expanded if necessary. Here I refer directly to the use of a number of agents. It is much easier to expand legislation which starts off by being narrow than it is to narrow legislation that starts off by being too wide.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of motion No. 8 submitted by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). In substance, the effect of the amendment would be to delete the words "or an agent specially designated in writing", referring to section 178.12 of Bill C-176.
I think the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey), the minister, and the mover of the motion, set forth the history of what has happened in respect of this particular section and these words in the original bill. The minister used the word "agent", and at the committee stage the hon. member for St. Paul's, in order to make it more precise and to impose greater responsibility on the minister, introduced an amendment so that it would read "an agent specially designated in writing". The minister this afternoon, in speaking in support of the hon. member for St. Paul's, indicated that the reporting provisions of the legislation gave all the protection that was required with regard to this section.
I disagree with the argument advanced by the minister. The reason my colleague from New Westminster moved the amendment was to impose the full responsibility on the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General or the Attorneys General of the provinces. This should not place any great restriction or any great additional burden on the job. When one reflects on what has happened in Canada with regard to wiretapping in the last few years, one wonders who gave the authority to wiretap. Certainly it could not have been the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General. In all probability the authority came from the local police. We have seen the widespread use of wiretapping that has prevailed in the large Canadian cities, more especially Montreal and Toronto.
If we reflect for a moment and try to understand what has happened in the United States, it might be helpful to note that in the United States, in order for a wiretap to be permitted the authorization must be signed by the Attorney General. The reason is that in the final analysis the Attorney General must be held responsible for the issuance of the wiretap authorization. It is rather interesting to remember that J. Edgar Hoover would not act in respect of a wiretap unless the authorization was signed by an Attorney General, because he realized that ultimately the responsibility would have to fall on someone and if he signed the authorization for the wiretap he would be held

primarily responsible. Therefore J. Edgar Hoover, being a very cautious person, imposed the final responsibility on the Attorney General.
I think that is where the responsibility lies. I cannot see how any burden is involved when an application is made for authorization to wiretap, if the minister is required to review the application which can then be set in motion for authorization by a judge. When I think of men like J. Edgar Hoover having wiretaps on men like Martin Luther King, I realize just how necessary it is to impose responsibility in this respect. Martin Luther King was wiretapped in the United States. Here we would have a situation, if we agree with the wording of the minister, as amended by the hon. member for St. Paul's, in which a person who is an agent specially designated in writing can act without the knowledge of the minister.
I can foresee the minister being placed in a position where it would be very awkward for him. He could raise the standard excuse that he did not know that an authorization had been given in the particular circumstances. We in this party would not want to see the minister placed in that position, because we feel he should have full responsibility in respect of the right to apply for authorization to wiretap.
This afternoon the minister was very vague about the type of person who would be specially designated in writing for the purpose of this section. Had he given a more complete explanation he would have said which persons could be designated. He might have said, for instance, that he would designate the deputy attorney general and leave it at that, because the deputy attorney general, the deputy minister of justice and the deputy solicitor general work very closely with the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General, and so on. However, he did not say that. He left it very vague and did not answer the question. I have a fear that the persons he would designate would be persons such as the chiefs of police in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and so on-those in the big cities. As my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) says, it could even be a Crown prosecutor.
This takes away from the sense of responsibility which we think should rest with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) or the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). Therefore, the amendment presented by my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), makes sense. It gives protection to all Canadians and ensures that this provision with regard to the authorization of wiretapping will not be abused.
Again I repeat that the Minister of Justice should never place himself in a position where he can say, "I did not issue it. The person that I designated issued it, and possibly in the circumstances I would not have issued it". I think he should be placed in the same position as that of the attorneys general in the United States, that when an authorization for a wiretap is issued, the Attorney General takes the full blame.
I hope the hon. member for St. Paul's will see the wisdom of this amendment because even though he is trying to tighten the amendment by using the words "agents specially designated" he is really not getting to
November 27, 1973

the crux of the matter. He thinks that the reporting requirement in the bill will solve his problems, and his anxieties will be answered-but that is not so.
We have seen various Ministers of Justice over the years. Since 1965 I have seen at least three or four. In Ontario I have seen various Ministers of Justice and Attorneys General; they have all had different attitudes with regard to problems like these. I, for one, am chary with regard to giving them too much power and at the same time an excuse with regard to this important section of the bill. Therefore, I urge the hon. member for St. Paul's and his colleagues to support this amendment which will strengthen the bill, avoid abuses that may take place, and make this far better legislation for the protection of all Canadians.
[Transla tion]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on Bill C-176 and more specifically on amendments Nos. 8, 17 and 18 aimed at replacing the word "agent" in clause 178.12.
We all know that this clause deals with applications for authorization. While speaking recently on this legislation I have stated my concern, which is shared by many other hon. members, about the political pressures which might be exerted when a wire-tapping application is made.
While generally supporting this bill as well as the principle of wiretapping, since this is one way among others to fight organized crime, it remains that Parliament should ensure that the political power will not exert direct pressures for political purposes as far as wiretapping is concerned. This is how I conceive clause 178.12 since the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is ultimately responsible for empowering someone to authorize wiretapping.
I would like to make a few brief remarks. I will join the excellent remarks of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) who stated this afternoon that we should obviously give all possible facilities to our law enforcement officers to fight organized crime efficiently. Moreover, I am sure the hon. member for Louis-Hebert will also agree that this must not be done for the benefit of particular political interests but to protect society as a whole. Here is what concerns me; subclause (a) reads and I quote:
(a)	the Solicitor General of Canada personally, if the offence under investigation is one in respect of which proceedings, if any, may be instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada, or
Then it goes on describing circumstances requiring that it be accompanied by:
an affidavit which may be sworn on the information and belief of a peace officer or public officer deposing to the following matters, namely:
Mr. Speaker, what has me worried is the too direct intervention of the political power in the judiciary power. Perhaps some of my colleagues of the other parties will not share my point of view, but experience to date has shown that the judiciary and political powers are too often related. Finally, the population can rightfully ask what is the real distinction between the judiciary, legislative and executive powers.
Protection of Privacy
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that specific procedures must be found to enable the judiciary to act by itself so that it can be dissociated from the political power. This is why I welcome with interest the proposed amendments. I for one intend to support them since the bill offers no such assurances.


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


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I circulated through the usual channels the proposal, on which I think there is general agreement, that we defer the vote on this motion to the time when votes are taken at a later date.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I understand that, but I ftill have to put the question.


Otto Emil Lang: It is agreeable, Mr. Speaker, if we can now agree that the debate on this matter is concluded and the question will be put at a later date which will be arranged by agreement. This will avoid having a division now.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Speaking for the official opposition, let me say that this is in accordance with my understanding of the arrangement, namely, that the vote will be deferred until a later time which is to be agreed.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we do not mind this arrangement-in fact, under certain circumstances it would be welcome-but we would be willing to regard the debate on this motion as concluded. We could order the vote, but have it deferred.
[ Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: On behalf of the fourth party but not the least in importance, I wish to say that it is not against the proposal and we hope that this debate will end as soon as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The question is on motions Nos. 8, 17 and 18. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motions stands deferred. I will now have to ask the minister where we go from here.

November 27, 1973
Protection of Privacy


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I suggest we go quickly to motion No. 11 standing in my name, and thereafter to motion No. 13 standing in my name.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Otto Emil Lang: That Bill C-176, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be amended by striking out:
(a)	lines 8 to 44 at page 7 and substituting the following:
178.15 (1) Where the Attorney General of a province or the
Solicitor General of Canada or an agent specially designated in writing for the purposes of this section by the Attorney General of a province or the Solicitor General of Canada is satisfied that circumstances exist that would justify the giving of an authorization for the interception of private communications but the urgency of the situation requires that interceptions commence before an authorization could, with reasonable diligence, be obtained, he may, on such terms and conditions, if any, as he considers advisable, give a permit for the interception of private communications between persons, at a place and in a manner designated by him in the permit.
(2) Where a permit for the interception of private communications is given under subsection (1), the person giving it shall, in every case, forthwith report thereon with full particulars to the Attorney General by whom he was designated for the purposes of this section or to the Solicitor General of Canada, as the case may be, who shall thereupon
(a)	direct that an application for an authorization to intercept private communications in the circumstances to which the permit relates be made,
(b)	direct that an application for approval of the permit be made, or
(c)	revoke the permit or confirm any prior revocation thereof by the person who gave the permit."
(b)	lines 14 to 39 at page 8 and substituting the following:
(4) An application for approval of a permit for the interception of private communications shall be made ex parte and in writing to a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge as defined in section 482 and shall be signed by an agent who would have been entitled to apply for an authorization to intercept private communications in the circumstances to which the permit relates; and such approval may be given if the judge to whom the application is made is satisfied that, at the time the permit was given, circumstances existed that would have justified the giving of an authorization to intercept private communications in the circumstances to which the permit relates and that the urgency of the situation required that interceptions commence before an authorization could, with reasonable diligence, have been obtained."

He said: Mr. Speaker, this is simply an amendment to correct the bill along the lines of the intention of the committee. The report came forward with a change which was not considered to be in accordance with the over-all approach and the report of the committee. This is a motion accordingly tb correct it, and I commend it to the House.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I wish to concur with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). We have examined this amending motion. We believe it to be necessitated by a clerical error in the reporting back of the bill from the committee. I think the amendment accurately reflects the intention of the committee, at least to the best of my recollection. Therefore, I would support it.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger).]


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: On a point of clarification, we are dealing with amendment No. 11 at this time?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Since this party has moved to strike out the emergency permit clause, I would point out this is simply an attempt to amend that clause and there does not seem any point in supporting an amendment to a clause that we have moved to delete from the provisions of the bill. We can understand the minister wishing to amend in accordance with the proceedings of the committee, but nevertheless we cannot support the amendment on the basis that we cannot support the clause it seeks to amend.
[ Transla tion]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, personally I am strongly opposed to amendment No. 11 before us and to amendment No. 13 for several reasons, including, as I said earlier, the intervention of the political power that can always intervene directly under several pretexts.
The reasons for being authorized to use wiretapping devices are as follows:
178.12 (c) the facts relied upon to justify the belief that an
authorization should be given . . .
(d)	the type of private communication proposed to be
intercepted;
(e)	the names and addresses, if known, of all persons, . . . whose
private communications . . . are proposed to be intercepted . ..
(f)	the period for which the authorization is requested; and
(g)	whether other investigative procedures have been tried . . .
With respect to that under the procedure set out by the
original bill the judge must be satisfied that there are no other means available. In making his decision the judge must emphasize the terms with which authorized persons must comply.
The bill also says elsewhere that renewals can be granted by a judge of a Superior Court within a period of 30 days. The same procedure as under clause (4) must be followed.
Mr. Speaker, I fail to find situations so urgent that one judge or another could not be contacted and I fail to see why any minister should have it within his power on the pretence of a so-called emergency to give an authorization to install bugging devices and use them for unknown purposes.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is acceptable and I intend to support it to the extent that I am protected against the possible use by the political power. And I think that if the House agrees to that amendment that means that the House is going against the spirit of this bill which is to protect society and individuals while at the same time giving increased efficiency to justice. Thus it continues to do what has been done in the past, that is allowing the political power to intervene as it wishes according to circumstances in the administration of justice.
Mr. Speaker, in introducing this amendment the minister admits that on certain occasions it is impossible to contact a judge of the Superior Court or any other person. Then let him appoint more judges or take the necessary means so the judicial power can meet the demand, instead
November 27, 1973

of himself giving that authorization on the pretence of an emergency.
On that point I would like to recall that at the time of the so-called emergency during the October crisis, never in this House did any party actually prove there was a state of emergency. We were told that the country was in great danger, but, Mr. Speaker, the government has played at politics as if it were a ping pong game, when under the cover of urgency, a minister or attorney general will grant a permit to use such devices, what powers will Parliament, which has the power to pass this act, have to ask the minister to explain this urgency? That is another weakness of this amendment, Mr. Speaker, and this is why I shall use all my strength to fight against it so that the judicial power instead of the political power be respected in the administration of justice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, further to the remarks of my colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), may I simply point out that if motion No. 3 in the name of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is carried, then of course amending motion No. 11 will be functus. But in the meantime we are opposed to it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Ronald George Atkey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and further to the matter raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I think it should be made perfectly clear that this in effect is simply a housekeeping amendment. As the minister well knows, many of us in this party are opposed to the clause and in fact are in favour of the amendment proposed by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). However, if that amendment fails we would prefer to be stuck with the draft now proposed by the minister, which is correcting a clerical error made in reporting back from the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. We will now deal with No. 13.


Otto Emil Lang: Protection of Privacy
No. 13. That Bill C-176, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be amended by
(a)	adding immediately after line 29 at page 9 the following:
"Judge may (2) Where in any proceedings the judge is of the rule	opinion that any private communication or any
evidence other evidence that is inadmissible pursuant to subadmissible section (1) is relevant and that to exclude it as evidence may result in justice not being done in the matter to which the proceedings relate, he may notwithstanding subsection (1), admit such private communication or evidence as evidence in such proceedings."
(b)	by striking out line 30 at page 9 and substituting the following:
"Application (3) Subsection (1) applies to all"- to Subsection (1)
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment which I propose is designed to assure that if credible and relevant evidence is available in the case of a crime being tried in the courts, it can be brought before the courts and weighed by the courts in the determination of the result in that situation. In the course of deliberating upon the question of privacy, a committee of the House of Commons some years ago began examining the question of whether or not in any circumstances evidence ought to be excluded when it is associated with an invasion of privacy, which is being made illegal, essentially, in a criminal way for the first time by this bill. The question was therefore discussed in the committee at the initial stages when the subject matter was before it, in the committee of the last session and again in this session.
The government, in examining the report of the committee in 1969, agreed to go so far as to include the provision in the bill that the actual private communication itself, if intercepted, should not be used later as evidence in a proceeding if it had been intercepted in an unlawful manner. We did that with the view that we could in that way add emphasis to the impact to the importance of privacy, to the value we put upon protecting it. The committee in its deliberations most recently, and in the report which we have before us now, chose to consider and adopt an amendment which would go well beyond that and would exclude indirect evidence which might be obtained as a result of such unlawful interception.
There is no doubt about the good motives of the people involved in that type of proposition, just as there is not in the United States about the rule to exclude evidence obtained in an illegal manner, and generally where in the British tradition it does not exist. The origin of the rule is to add some additional sanction against illegal activity in regard to the evidence being adduced. Even in that regard the rules are unfortunate, because they raise the basic proposition that somehow the police are being rewarded or are profiting from the result of their activity, when it is illegal, if they can bring valid and important evidence before a court in a case which involves something quite different, a serious crime perhaps and someone who stands before the dock of justice accused of that crime. I do not take the view that we should consider it a reward to the
8204

November 27, 1973
Protection of Privacy
police when evidence is adduced in that fashion. I do, however, share the view that the police ought not to engage in illegal activity in obtaining evidence, in the conduct of obtaining evidence on our behalf in law enforcement. That is why we have placed in this bill a very significant sanction indeed to discourage the police or anyone else from using electronic devices to intrude upon privacy.
The basic provision in the bill makes this a crime with a punishment of up to five years in prison-a punishment which might well be used against anyone who invades, without regard to the rights of an individual, his privacy. That is a significant penalty and the main bulwark of our safety, after this bill becomes law, that our privacy will not be invaded.
Why then, not add the additional sanction of keeping the evidence out? I would ask hon. members to turn their attention to the kind of situation in which we might find ourselves. Let us suppose a person is accused of murder and there is a murder weapon-the most relevant of evidence in relation to that crime-with ballistics matching the bullet which was found in the victim, with fingerprints on the weapon which matched the fingerprints of the accused in the dock. If the law were to stay as it has been reported from the committee, that murder weapon could not be admitted in evidence if it was found as a result of information which in any way came from the use of an illegal electronic intrusion or wiretap. That would be true whether the information which led to the finding of the gun was obtained by the police, which is unlikely, or by a private individual's illegal wiretapping.
We are asked, therefore, to see that a court is denied relevant evidence in a case that may be extremely important to law and order, to the cause of justice in our society, to the cause of deterrence of crime, because of something in the background which led to that evidence being adduced. I do not believe that any policeman will lightly use an electronic device without an authorization as provided by the bill when facing a potential five-year jail sentence which we provide for the illegal use of such devices in the legislation.
Do we want lo see a court find a murderer not guilty because a key piece of evidence is kept from that court because of some rule relative to the admissibility of that evidence-not a rule that goes to the basic proposition that that evidence is needed in the court, but which we put in place for quite a different reason? I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that I am looking particularly at evidence which may be obtained in an indirect fashion. Who knows what "indirect" means? How far "indirect" may we trace? Evidence may be obtained in an indirect fashion as a result of an illegal intrusion by someone in society at large, perhaps a criminal, and yet we would be deprived of that evidence in court because of the illegality of the intrusion which was part of the background facts which led to the finding of the evidence, evidence which is unassailable, which is clear-the gun itself.
I therefore urge hon. members to consider my amendment which proposes that a judge in such a situation may examine the evidence, notwithstanding the fact that there may be a taint of illegality in regard to its source; and when it is relevant and when he believes it is in the

interests of justice to do so, he may admit that evidence in the proceedings before him when he is concerned that to exclude it as evidence may result in justice not being done. Surely in those circumstances we ought to want him to be able to admit that evidence in the proceedings before him. Surely we would be doing damage to the whole approach to justice and the approach that people take to justice in our courts if we deprive the court of that evidence in such circumstances.
I have a further concern about a rule that provides for exclusion of evidence that is relevant, and that is the possibility of defence counsel making use of that rule to take a great deal of time in court to determine whether there is anything in the background which suggests that something associated with a taint of illegal wiretapping exists. I am talking about a case in which there is nothing before the court to indicate any wiretapping at all, and evidence is introduced. How will we stop defence counsel in such a case insisting on the right to cross-examine either the witnesses or police at hand, or other police summoned for the purpose to get a full scale of denials that there was any wiretapping in any way, at any time, anyhow, that had any effect on the case?
What if a judge in such a trial said to defense counsel, "I am not going to let you take our time to try to smoke out whether there was any wiretapping"? I am postulating a case in which there is no wiretapping evidence at all, yet the time of the court may be taken up hour after hour because of the insistence of the defence on the right to cross-examine endlessly, because of the rule that evidence, even if associated indirectly with wiretapping, cannot be admitted. Defence counsel would therefore be obligated to see whether there was even any indirect relationship between the evidence before the court and any wiretapping. If the trial judge were to stop him short in that cross-examination-as we know may happen at some time-a court of appeal could well reverse a verdict of guilty in such a case and send the case back on the ground that the trial judge had not allowed sufficient latitude in cross-examination.
In order to discourage illegal wiretapping we have introduced a five-year jail sentence in cases where wiretapping is undertaken illegally.


Ronald George Atkey: The sentence will only apply if you catch the offenders.


Otto Emil Lang: I am sure hon. members do not underrate the ability of defence counsel to cross-examine in an attempt to ascertain if wiretapping was used, even in cases where there is no suggestion of wiretapping having been used. Those who oppose the amendment, I suggest, are showing no concern for the time of the court and the possibility of reversal in cases involving serious charges merely because the trial judge has not permitted counsel to pursue endlessly the quest for something that he has not yet found but which he thinks may be lurking in the background.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?


Otto Emil Lang: Not at this point, if the hon. member does not mind. In addition, I wish to suggest one other serious
November 27, 1973

problem. I point out that relevant evidence ought to be before the court, ought to be admitted, and excluding it does violence to justice. I also point out the procedural problems which arise in connection with this matter as defence counsel will need to examine at length in order to ascertain if there was wiretapping before he can learn if it was done illegally or not.
Another problem was referred to by the committee in 1969. There is the distinct possibility that criminals will place evidence beyond the reach of the court by involving such evidence in an illegal wiretap. The spectre of such an evept should cause us to pause, because the cause of justice would not be served and the person who had committed a serious crime might not be brought to justice. In this connection I wish simply to emphasize that there is included in the bill a five-year penalty for wiretapping.
How can anyone argue with the basic proposition put forward in the amendment, which reads:
Whare in any proceedings the judge is of the opinion that any private communication or any other evidence that is inadmissible pursuant to subsection (1) is relevant and that to exclude it as evidence may result in justice not being done in the matter to which the proceedings relate, he may notwithstanding subsection (1), admit such private communication or evidence as evidence in such proceedings.
Ten provincial Attorneys General have joined in the plea that this rule of exclusion which the committee introduced should not be part of our law. Unanimously, the provincial Attorneys General asked that this not be made part of our law. The Attorney General for British Columbia raised in this letter the very question I was discussing a moment ago, to the consternation of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). He asked, how far must the Crown now prove in each case that none of its evidence was indirectly obtained following an illegal wiretap or, for that matter, how far must it go in every case involving evidence obtained by wiretap? Ten provincial Attorneys General recognize what would happen to the due process of law and to the procedure in our courts under our system of justice if we introduced this exclusion relating to indirect evidence into our jurisprudence at this time.
If I had in other circumstances sought to move forward a provision in our criminal law involving the administration of criminal justice which is in the hands of the provincial Attorneys General, against the wishes of those Attorneys General, without doubt hon. members opposite would have raised a tremendous shout of indignation because the federal government was ignoring the united voices of men charged with certain responsibilities in enforcing the criminal law across the country. Yet they do not do so with regard to the introduction into the Canadian system of law of a rule which has not been all that welcome in the American system.
I wish to refer hon. members to a few words written in the "California Law Review" by Professor D. Barrett of the University of California. He said in part:
Law enforcement is not a game in which liberty triumphs whenever the policeman is defeated. Liberty demands that both official and private lawlessness shall be curbed. And in any specific instance it is hard to say that, put to the choice between permitting the consummation of the defendant's illegal scheme and the policeman's illegal scheme, the court must of necessity favour the defendant. So to say is to abandon any presumption of
Protection of Privacy
official regularity and to assume that the policeman's action always involves a greater social evil than the defendant's. It should be noted that the exclusion of the evidence usually results in the defendant's completely escaping punishment for his act, while the admission of the evidence does not constitute a judicial approval of the officer's conduct, and that officer is still, at least in theory, subject to some form of civil or criminal liability.
And it is more than theory here. The article refers to the obtaining of illegal evidence in the United States. I point out that this bill provides for a penalty of up to five years' imprisonment for the person convicted of illegal wiretapping. The defendant might frequently go free if the rule were to apply. Of course, it might apply rarely. But even in those two or three cases per year, do we really want to allow the person who has engaged in criminal activity, and who may be convicted of a serious crime on the strength of proper evidence put before the court, to go free because certain evidence is excluded?


Erik Nielsen: But he may be innocent.


Otto Emil Lang: My hon. friend opposite says he may be innocent. In that case, all relevant evidence should be before the court and his innocence should not be decided on the basis of the absence of relevant evidence which ought to be before the court.
In practice and in fact we know that certain serious crimes are the special object of police electronic intrusion, the importation and handling of drugs being typical examples. Do we really want the person who has imported and trafficked in heroin to escape conviction because of the operation of a technical rule of evidence which is not related to the offence and not related to the issue of innocence or guilt which the court must decide? That is the wrong way to go about this business.
It is important for the courts to have before them relevant evidence. I therefore urge hon. members to forego what seems to be a hardening and partisan approach to what has been a relatively non-partisan analysis of the law. Let them look at the propositions I have put before the House, which have been put before the House and the community by persons more eloquent than me, in defence of the long-standing Canadian and British rule that relevant evidence ought to be before the court.
We ought not to risk a rule which might bog us down in procedural difficulties. We ought not to allow a rule which might keep from a court evidence which is relevant and whose absence might prevent justice from being done. Those are the words of my amendment, and I commend them to hon. members. I earnestly seek their support so that the bill might be the kind of proud thing it ought to be in introducing the prohibition of electronic intrusion, rather than an occasion of procedural difficulty and an occasion of the courts failing to do justice because evidence which should have been before them could not be considered.


Ronald George Atkey: Tonight we have the spectacle of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) coming into this House in an attempt to overthrow a vote of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which was carried by 11 to 5. This was a vote on an amendment, incor-
26695-7J

November 27, 1973
Protection of Privacy
porated in the bill, which enjoyed support from members of all parties present at the committee proceedings, an amendment about which a number of members from all parties spoke eloquently and, I might say, with much more logic than the minister tonight.
All hon. members should be clear about one thing: if the police obey the law, if they follow the carefully defined procedures in this bill, there will be no problem. The evidence from the wiretap, both direct and indirect, is clearly admissible in any prosecution brought against any person involved in the case on which the Crown is proceeding. Indeed, I would suggest that rather than seeking to take rights away from the police, the bill may be granting them new rights because it can be implied that for the first time the tape itself, provided it is legally obtained, can be admitted directly and played to the court for the judge, and in some cases the jury, to hear. Instead of slowing down the process of justice, this might well expedite it and achieve the goal which all hon. members, including the minister, seek to achieve. I suggest the Minister of Justice is erecting a false and fallacious cloud-


An hon. Member:: Why not a red herring?


Ronald George Atkey: -when he raises the spectre of lengthy cross-examination of police and prosecution witnesses in an attempt to establish the connection of evidence with alleged wiretapping. What the minister forgot to tell the House is that the only connection in which a defence counsel would be interested is a connection with illegally obtained evidence. For some reason, the Minister of Justice forgot to use the word "illegal", and to my mind this is the word we are concerned about. It is illegally obtained evidence with which this entire debate on motion No. 13 is concerned. I suggest the minister might attempt to keep his logic on a shorter leash.


Otto Emil Lang: Yours is short enough.


Ronald George Atkey: That is an injunction given by a gentleman of whom I am sure the minister is aware-Lon Fuller, the eminent professor of jurisprudence and philosophy at Harvard law school. The minister has suggested that the only sanction we need in order to contain illegal wiretapping, whether by police or private investigators, is the threat of prosecution and a fine or a maximum penalty of five years.
I do not belittle the usefulness of those provisions, but looking at the matter practically I doubt that they will be that useful. I say this, having talked to many people involved in law enforcement, including police officers. For if the police are to be engaged in illegal wiretapping- some have been in the past, and some may be in the future-who is going to catch them? If they have a system worked out within their respective forces, who is going to be there to discover their equipment and lay a charge? If they are caught, it will be by happenstance; and what I fear is that some of the police in this country, unless the bill remains in its present form, will ignore the carefully defined procedures for seeking an authorization. After all, is the risk worth it? If they can use the indirect evidence, albeit from an illegal tap, isn't that really the object of

their exercise, particularly if the sanction of a penalty does not really deter as a practical measure?
If hon. members had listened to the evidence placed before the justice committee, and if they had read the evidence given before a committee of the previous parliament, they would be aware how little used those particular provisions will be. A number of arguments were produced before the standing committee to show why illegally obtained evidence, direct and indirect, should be excluded from any court proceedings. I thought one of the most eloquent expositions of that viewpoint was put forward by a Liberal government supporter, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) who in my judgment presented the committee with the sort of argument that makes good common sense. He said:
I would support the substance of what Mr. Atkey is trying to achieve and, subject to further consideration of his wording, I think probably the wording as well.
In looking at the administration of justice we are not concerned only with what happens in a court, where the attempt to decide whether a particular person is guilty or not guilty of an offence with which he is charged is the prime consideration.
Mark these words. The hon. member went on to say:
But the administration of justice is a broader thing than that. It involves courts but it also involves administration of the law in the narrower sense, that is, what happens with the police forces, what happens with the whole executive arm of governments on the side. Here it seems to me that we have a very important goal of honesty and good faith in the dealings of those who are administering the law.
We are, I suppose, confronted with a fundamental question here. Which kind of failing do we think is worse? Do we think it is worse to let go a criminal who is guilty, or do we think it worse not to take sufficient sanctions against bad faith in the administration of justice? In this fundamental choice I am on the side of those who believe that the worst error a legal system can commit is to allow bad faith in the administration of justice. The one thing above all that the public must feel they can rely on is the good faith of those who administer the law.
Those are wise words. I only regret the hon. member has not been more successful in convincing some of his colleagues, particularly the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) of the wisdom of the position he has stated and which I assume he will take in this House. Lest we concern ourselves too much with the more accidental cases of illegal wiretapping, let me refer to some comments made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which came to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs through the memorandum submitted by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) on June 18, 1973.
The Solicitor General, being very honest and forthright as to the nature of the operations of the RCMP, reviewed the criminal operations and the particular electronic surveillance installations which were in place over the past two years. He pointed out that had the provisions of the present bill before the House been in place in the year 1971-72, almost 30 per cent of the wiretap installations put in place by the government would have been illegal, would have been beyond the scope of this bill. In the subsequent year, of the 663 installations completed, 162 would not have come within the terms of the bill-close to 25 per cent of the government's installations. If that sort of
November 27, 1973

pattern of installations were to continue, obviously we would have a pattern of illegal wiretaps.
The Minister of Justice indicated that the original bill which came forward represented some form of compromise in regard to the exclusionary rule in that it would have permitted direct evidence to be excluded if it were illegally obtained, but would have allowed indirect evidence. Again I would draw the minister's attention to some practical considerations. Any person who has ever been interested in and made a study of law enforcement knows that it is not the direct evidence that the police would seek to admit in any case; it is the indirect evidence, the leads, the fruits of the poisoned tree, that the police are really interested in. That is what they want, and if they have it, nothing else matters.
Let me draw the minister's attention to the evidence of the chief of police of metropolitan Toronto, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. This was evidence before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in the last parliament. The chief of police gave evidence to the effect that in the 155 cases of wiretapping leading to criminal prosecution in the courts in Toronto, in not one instance was the actual intercepted conversation used in prosecutions, only the indirect evidence that was obtained as a result of having received that conversation. So I suggest that without some exclusion of the indirect evidence, the entire evidentiary protection through some form of exclusionary rule is meaningless.
During the last parliament a number of submissions were made on behalf of various groups and individuals on this most important question. We all know that this bill has been before this parliament on three separate occasions. A great deal of evidence has been led and I think we should take great pains to consider the whole of the evidence and not only the most recent. One of the briefs presented to the last parliament was that of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and I want to quote from their brief, which was submitted orally and in writing on June 6, 1972. The brief said this, in part;
One of the encouraging aspects of Bill C-6 is the provision for ruling inadmissible all evidence obtained from unauthorized eavesdropping. Unfortunately, however, the prohibition applies only to the actual communication. Experience reveals that the police resort to electronic surveillance primarily for the leads that it produces. Samuel Dash, a noted U.S. commentator on electronic surveillance-
I note that that is the same Sam Dash who is now counsel to the Senate Watergate inquiry in the United States.
has pointed out that wiretapping "is done for the purpose of aiding investigation and never for the purpose of collecting evidence".
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I would refer to a passage in an article by Professor Stanley Beck of Osgoode Hall law school which appeared in the Canadian Bar Review about three years ago. I quote from that article:
The police would be quite content to have the admission of wiretap .. . evidence barred in court... as long as they were free to use it for investigative purposes. This attitude of the police was confirmed to (the author) in conversations with officials of the metropolitan Toronto police force who described the investigative aspects of electronic surveillance as "something more than snooping and something less than a search for specific evidence under a search warrant".
Protection of Privacy
Then the Civil Liberties Association concludes:
Thus the mere exclusion of the taboo conversation will not constitute a sufficient deterrent to the practice of unauthorized surveillance. We know also that victimized citizens are generally reluctant to take action against improper police conduct. In order, therefore, to provide a more effective deterrent, we respectfully submit that the fruits of unlawful eavesdropping also be rendered inadmissible as evidence.
Finally I would refer to comments made again by a supporter of the Liberal government in the last session, Mr. Terrence Murphy, a person who is no longer a member of this House but who perhaps was one of the more enlightened members of that committee. I might add that he is an experienced trial lawyer and defence counsel and that he has also done some prosecution work in the city of Sault Ste. Marie. This is what he said:
I am in complete agreement with your submissions in so far as they pertain to the admissibility of the fruits of an illegal tap. I do not think the fruits should be made available or made admissible in evidence at all if the tap itself was illegal.
That is the point on which the majority voted 11 to 5 in the committee on September 16 last, and I suggest is the position that should be taken by all members of this House. In committee the Minister of Justice, not content to leave the bill in a form where illegally obtained direct evidence would be inadmissible, went even one step further and wanted to have not only the indirect evidence admitted but the direct evidence also.
It is significant that the minister moved an amendment in the committee to allow the direct evidence to be admitted and that that amendment was resoundingly defeated. The minister based his rationale on the fact that the Law Reform Commission of Canada would be looking into the whole question. Of course, that is an excuse that is known to many politicians interested in the field of justice to be really an excuse for inaction, and is not acceptable and certainly was not acceptable to the members of the committee at that time.
The Minister of Justice has made reference to letters and telegrams received from provincial Attorneys General. He talked in terms of an unanimous verdict. I suggest that the minister went out and invited the sort of support he got. Indeed, I think it is clear from the record of the standing committee that the minister wrote a letter on October 30 to all the Attorneys General asking for their support. Indeed, I suggest he pleaded for their support. Let me quote from his letter. The minister said:
The amendment would introduce into the Canadian criminal law system the complete doctrine of the suppression of evidence obtained directly or indirectly as a result of illegal conduct.
I pointed out at the time, as I point out again tonight, that this is a misstatement of the nature of the amendment which was passed by 11 to 5 in the committee. This was not the introduction of the complete doctrine of the suppression of evidence obtained directly or indirectly as a result of illegal conduct. It relates only to illegal wiretapping. Indeed, I would have reservations regarding any thought of introducing the complete doctrine of the suppression of evidence at this time. In his letter the minister went on to say this:
It would be contrary to the interests of the administration of justice to introduce the suppression doctrine into Canadian law-


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

November 27, 1973
Protection of Privacy


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) is rising on a point of order.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I sat here with some patience while the hon. member, no doubt rather innocently but nevertheless erroneously, suggested I moved an amendment in the committee, which I did not do; but I really must object to his repeating, as he did in the committee, these words as though it were a statement that I was making to the Attorneys General. In the committee I pointed out his error to him when he made the very same statement. What he is reading from is a quotation that I was referring to from the Uniformity Commissioners' report of a year ago. Perhaps it is unnecessary to quote this point again at this time.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to refer to the Uniformity Commissioners' report, but perhaps I should first point out that the amendment in committee was not moved in the minister's name but was moved on his instructions as outlined in a memorandum sent out on his approval. Let me point out that in a letter directed to the Attorneys General the Minister of Justice suggested-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the honourable member but I must inform him that his time has expired.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to suggest that I wish to move a subamendment to the amendment proposed by the minister in motion No. 13. Perhaps I might be permitted to continue for about five minutes in order to give the rationale for this subamendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. In view of the fact that the honourable member's time has expired, I must remind him that he can continue only with the unanimous consent of the House. Does the House give the honourable member unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ronald George Atkey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To indicate the spirit of compromise that we on this side of the House have attempted to adopt in respect of this very difficult question, I should like to indicate our concern with some of the matters raised by the minister. These concerns are felt on all sides of the House and the minister has referred to them frequently. I intend to move a subamendment to motion No. 13. Before doing so I should like to refer to the rationale behind this proposed subamendment. I do not move it in any way to detract from the present form of the bill which proposes to render inadmissible evidence procured solely from an illegal wiretap.
It is recognized that in the administration of justice and the enforcement of the law it may happen under our complex procedures that an Attorney General or his agent, a Solicitor General or his agent, may accidentally make a mistake and inadvertently fail to comply with one of the many complex provisions involved in applying for an authorization. I think it would be quite acceptable to permit indirect evidence obtained as a result of such a situation.

I think it would be quite acceptable to the opposition that when an honest attempt had been made to obtain authorization from a judge, and somehow or other there was a defect in form or an irregularity in procedure-not being a substantive defect or irregularity-in that case it would be justifiable to allow indirect or direct evidence providing it satisfied the requirements contained in the minister's motion No. 13 as to relevancy and justice. This would be acceptable provided the result did not mean that injustice was done.
In the hope that some of the concerns expressed by the minister and by honourable members of the committee in respect of a situation where the police had honestly attempted to comply with the procedures of this law will be met. I am proposing a subamendment. It will not cover situations where the police have deliberatly flouted these procedures or have ignored them; in those situations the price must be paid and the fruits of their efforts should be inadmissible whether it is direct or indirect evidence. I should therefore like to move an amendment to the minister's proposed amendment. I think this will cover some of the concerns expressed by a number of members of this House. I think we must look at wiretapping, which is illegal, as something not only illegal but immoral. I do not think we on this side of the House can sanction or reward efforts which are clearly illegal and which flout the law, or allow the fruits of such efforts to be introduced during a prosecution of an individual no matter how heinous the alleged crime that individual has committed. If the police of this country follow the procedures in the law in respect of wiretap evidence, there will be no problem.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) -


Stanley Howard Knowles: How can it be
seconded by an hon. member who is not here?


Ronald George Atkey: I am sorry. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That motion No. 13 be amended by deleting therefrom the words "is relevant and that to exclude it as evidence may result in justice not being done in the matter to which the proceedings relate," and substituting therefor the following:
"(a) is relevant,
(b)	is inadmissible by reason only of a defect of form or an irregularity in procedure, not being a substantive defect or irregularity, in the application for or the giving of the authorization under which such private communication was intercepted or by means of which such evidence was obtained, and
(c)	that to exclude it as evidence may result in justice not being done,"


Mr. MacGuigan:: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak specifically on the amendment proposed by the hon. member as I have an amendment I intend to move.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Unless the hon. member intends to speak on the acceptability of the proposed amendment, I shall put the amendment to the House at this time. I will then recognize the hon. member. The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) has proposed the amendment which the House has just heard. I will now recognize the hon. member for Windsor-Walk-erville (Mr. MacGuigan).
November 27, 1973


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to this proposed amendment. However, I see that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) has indicated an intention to rise on a point of order.


John Gilbert: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The motion was moved by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). The spokesman for the Conservative Party then spoke and introduced a subamendment. Surely the spokesman for the New Democratic Party should now have a turn to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please, I am sure the hon. member will have an opportunity to speak, but it is for the Chair to recognize hon. members. Whoever the Chair sees first is recognized. The hon. member sought the floor. It is up to hon. members to stand and indicate their intention to speak, and they will be recognized in turn. Two hon. members cannot be recognized at the same time.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to defer to the hon. member opposite, if this is agreeable to the House, provided I may rise after him.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to thank the hon. member for his gracious deferral. I think he is a very fairminded and broadminded member. He may very well change his views on this matter after he hears what I have to say. For some time I had wished to congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) when he brought forward the original bill because I thought for a while that we had a liberal and progressive Minister of Justice. This was my opinion at the time I first looked at Bill C-176 as originally printed and debated on second reading, because at that time the minister had the courage to bring forward what could have been one of the most important additions to Canadian jurisprudence, that is, to at least sneak in this principle of excluding from court evidence illegally obtained. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line his resolve crumbled as we came to the committee stage: he at least sponsored and supported a motion that would bring about the withdrawal of a very good provision that any indirect evidence obtained would be inadmissible.
I think it is significant that the English bar has had this particular principle under study for some time. It is my understanding that it will be given favourable consideration in that House in the not too distant future. It is an important principle in a special way. It says to the inhabitants of any country that the law is there for all persons and not just for the government so that it might be applied against them. The law must be equal for all of us. The amendment presented successfully by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) said that we want the law applicable to all.
In his remarks the minister suggested that this is not a case of rewarding the police for obtaining illegal evidence; but surely the minister must admit, and everyone in this House must admit, that you encourage the police to participate in illegal activity when you admit the fruits of that activity. There is no answer to that proposition. Therefore, when we talk about the rule of law and order
Protection of Privacy
and respect for the law, the way to have respect for the law is to have laws which are capable of respect. We must not have rules of evidence which would allow illegally obtained evidence to be brought in through the back door.
This is really not such a significant departure from the general rule, in any event. The minister seemed to indicate that somehow we are making a massive departure from principle. For a long time the courts of the British empire refused to admit confessions. Surely confessions are relevant. Surely we could have had a principle whereby we would let in the confession and allow the jury to decide whether they believed it. But a long time ago a very wise judge decided that where a confession was obtained by threat or promise, it should be excluded. If we apply the principle always used in respect of confessions, I do not see how anyone in this House with a legal background can fail to support the principle behind the hon. member's successful amendment that would exclude illegal and circumstantial evidence. There is no reason we cannot apply the same principle in this case.
Another point the Minister of Justice made was, what would happen if criminals deliberately engaged in some kind of conspiracy to use a wiretap and some smart defence lawyer came into court and said there was some kind of illegal evidence? There is an old principle of equity that one cannot come to court without clean hands. Anyone who engages in the activity of excluding evidence is obviously using subterfuge. I am surprised the minister would raise that kind of a red herring, because clearly it is a red herring. I am not surprised that at the urging of the minister the various Attorneys General of the country have decided to go along with his view on this suggestion to allow illegally obtained evidence into court.
I am not surprised, because they have a slightly different responsibility than we have in this House. They have a responsibility for the prosecution of those brought to trial. I do not blame them, I suppose, in this instance for trying to make life a little easier for themselves. They have that particular responsibility. We have a special responsibility to all of society to make sure that the laws we pass in this House are laws which are respected and not laws that lessen the respect of society for the rules that govern it. If we decided to accept the logic of the minister and to encourage the police to use illegal activities in order to obtain evidence, then we would be doing nothing to support the rule of law. If we think in terms of liberty and the rights of the individual and wish to have that kind of society, then we do not need laws which would allow illegal activity to be introduced into court. We do not need to encourage the police to conduct themselves in that way.
I should like to say a few words about the subamendment. I have had a few brief moments in which to look at it. I will have to be a little equivocal about it at this stage, but I am concerned about what is and what is not technical. What the hon. member for St. Paul's has introduced is an attempt to allow legally obtained evidence, which was rendered illegal because of some technicality, to be evidentiary. I am not sure, for example, when a defence attorney is successful in throwing out a charge because it is not a charge known to the law, basically, whether he is making a very technical argument: it is very obvious that it should be thrown out. Remember that the resources

November 27, 1973
Protection of Privacy
available to the Crown are immense. It is surrounded with support staff. The police are in a position to conduct in-depth research. However, most often in our courts the defendant is at a severe disadvantage.
The view of a trial which people see portrayed, of a highly paid defence lawyer using every trick in the book to get his client off, is certainly not typical at all in respect of trials in this country. It is nonsense. In the typical trial someone is brought before the bar of justice who may or not be represented by a lawyer. He is very insecure. He does not understand the procedure. The Crown has enough going for it, without giving it more.
I am not so sure that we need to support this subamendment, because there are many other things that one might call technicalities but which are really matters of substance. It has always been a general rule of our law that the Crown should dot its "i's" and cross its "t's" to ensure that the liberty of the subject is protected. I must say that I have no hesitation in opposing the amendment put forward by the minister. The amendment is clearly a device to overcome the lack of success that he had in the committee. In fact, I am surprised that he bothered proposing this kind of amendment. He could just as easily have proposed an amendment which would wipe out the clause completely, something which he attempted to do in the committee.
I cannot look into the minister's mind to understand why he used this procedure. In any event, the meaning would be that illegally obtained evidence would be admitted in almost every case, because if you look at the amendment proposed by the minister you will see that no objective standard is to be applied by a judge. Anything that a judge found relevant would clearly be admitted in spite of its being obtained in an illegal manner. We have to come back to the basic principle in which the hon. member for St. Paul's, myself and others in our party believe, namely, that wiretapping is immoral, wrong and something that should be severely restricted in this country. It is clear from the minister's remarks that he does not share this view. I am sorry that he does not, but that is the only thing we can read into his remarks. On that basis, I have no hesitation in opposing the minister's amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understood the hon. member for Wind-sor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) was going to speak. If he is not, I am prepared to speak and give him an opportunity to speak later.


Mr. Ouellet:: Yes, keep the debate going.


Gerald William Baldwin: The Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) should attend to his own business. He has enough problems trying to deal with that monstrosity. It was bad enough when he took it over but it is a lot worse since he has been dealing with it. He should spend more time looking after the Post Office and less making remarks about things he does not understand.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Get the Christmas mail out.


Gerald William Baldwin: If the Postmaster General could only keep quiet, we would not have these arguments. I was trying to go along peacefully, creating no difficulties at all. I want to oppose the amendment of the minister.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: I am glad to hear the hon. member. It is the first time I have had a chance to hear him. I am glad to know he can speak. Even he would know better in his heart than to really support the motion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) in his attempt to wipe out the good work that the standing committee did in this regard.
I am prepared to go along with the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey). I suppose I must support it, since I seconded it. In spite of what the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) said, I think there is a valid case to be made for the reason that sometimes the police-and I am speaking directly to the amendment of the hon. member for St. Paul's-in urgent cases may not have had an opportunity to have completed all of the technical requirements as conditions precedent to getting the judicial approval of a judge. I think that is the issue, and this is what we in this party rest our case on-that there must be judicial intervention.
If a judge does in fact give an order, even though it may be based on some technical error contained in the affidavit and which does not go to the substance of the application upon which the authorization is made, it would be most unfair and inequitable to deprive the authorities of their right to use the evidence. I am sure, as I said before, that a large body of jurisprudence will be built up in connection with this bill. I think that a judge charged with the responsibility, having cast upon himself the onus to which the hon. member for St. Paul's refers, will make quite certain-I am now talking about a judge at a trial at which there is an attempt to have evidence admitted which has been obtained following a private communication-not to allow that evidence until the Crown has sustained the burden which is suggested in the amendment of the hon. member for St. Paul's.
I would have thought that the very least the minister would have done-I might have given more thought to his proposal if he had done it-was to ensure that there be an onus cast upon the Crown, in introducing evidence which has been obtained as a result of an interception, to satisfy the court that there is no taint of illegality about it. If the minister had that in mind, he might have been entitled to a little more consideration of his proposal than otherwise would be the case. That is not much to ask for, that the Crown shall sustain the burden of proof that the evidence they are attempting to introduce with respect to matters following interception has been legally obtained. But it is obvious the minister is not interested in that. Therefore we have to oppose his amendment, and I hope there are hon. members on the other side of the House who will look at the matter in that light.
I heard the speech of the very attractive hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin). It was a good speech and I think she made as good a case as could be made. However, I think she made as good a case as could be made. How-
November 27, 1973

ever, I think there was a lot more emotion than fact in it. But this is the kind of subject in which emotion can be aroused.


Albanie Morin: Why are you afraid of emotion?


Gerald William Baldwin: I am not afraid of emotion, and I hope the hon. lady is not afraid of emotion either. I think the Minister of Justice would be a better minister if he showed more emotion once in a while. We will watch him when his amendment is defeated and see what emotion he shows then.


Albanie Morin: You should have lived in the province of Quebec for ten years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Does the hon. lady suggest that the province of Quebec is not a province like other provinces because of the quantity of illegal action which takes place there? She is wrong in this regard. My friend, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), suggests that she meant that the province of Quebec is not a province like other provinces because more emotion is displayed there. However, that is another argument for another time, another place and other circumstances.
But it is a danger, if anybody wants to pursue this issue, to see the extent to which the government, any government-I don't care whether it is a Conservative government, Liberal government, Social Credit or even an NDP government-having once taken authority which it did not possess previously, will take steps to see that that authority grows and expends until it grows out of all recognition.
Hon. members may not be aware of the fact that the Income Tax Act was originally passed during the First World War as a temporary war tax. Look at the monstrosity that is being created now. Does anybody imagine that this bill, as the minister seeks to amend it, will stay in its present form? Another minister of justice, another government will seek to widen the ground that has been gained and to secure more and more authority.
I have here a book entitled "Private Lives and Public Surveillance," by James B. Rule. I have only just received it and I have not had time to find out his qualifications. I see he is a law professor. At the end of the book there is a chapter on "The Future of Surveillance." Anybody reading it will find out that the author takes an objective view point. He says there is ground for surveillance in certain cases, but he assesses the virtues, the strengths, the failings and the weaknesses. In his conclusions he makes some very categorical statements which hon. members should take to heart. I quote the following from page 350:
I have taken pains to emphasize that the potential for repressive use of these systems is anything but identical with actual repression. On the contrary, discussion has made it plain that some surveillance systems are capable of putting up considerable resistance to "unauthorized" use of their facilities. Nevertheless, any over-all response to these systems must take into account not only their present impact, but also their future prospects. And this means accepting the possibility that, in the course of other politi-
Protection of Privacy
cal changes, the intent and political disposition of those who control these systems may change.
We have no assurance that another government ten years from now may not attempt to add to, to widen, to strengthen and to make more powerful these weapons which are now being placed at the disposition of the authorities, both federal and provincial, in this country. In my lifetime in the practice of law in the criminal courts, in some 30 to 35 years of practice defending some thousands of cases, I have seen that the court processes work very well indeed. In my opinion it was very seldom that guilty people were acquitted, and very seldom that innocent people were found guilty. This is due to the opportunities for cross-examination, to the demand that a person charged with a criminal offence shall face his accuser and shall have the right to give evidence.
It was not so many years ago that the right of an accused person to give evidence was first made available in the United Kingdom, and carried here. Now there is the right to have a trial held in the public purview, within sight of neighbours and friends, open to the people of the community, with the right of an accused to have a jury and with the onus of proof falling on the Crown. In such circumstances very seldom is there a miscarriage of justice. But with regard to this intrusion to obtain evidence as a result of an illegal wiretap, I ask, what kind of illegal wiretap? In what kind of case will it be used?
As I pointed out the other day, we are not just looking at criminal law. As I understand the interpretation section, this would be applicable to any civil action involving a federal statute. Just look at the possibilities with regard to criminal action. What is to prevent any police detachment in a major city from establishing an M squad, or whatever you want to call them, who are unknown to the remainder of the people on that police force, who are charged entirely with the responsibility of intercepting private communications, who are unknown to anybody but possibly one superior officer. Evidence they have obtained by any number of illegal interceptions could be passed to that superior officer who would then instruct that an investigation take place or that the character of an investigation presently taking place be altered by reason of this illegal evidence. And it need not be evidence intercepted just by a police officer or peace officer. Any private body or private agency could be engaged by a police detachment to obtain evidence and as a result of that evidence instructions could be given to an investigating officer, who in turn knows nothing about the antecedents of the evidence, about the way in which the interception was made, or in fact that there was any interception at all.
It is all very well for us to talk about these things and to say we are for law and order. Mr. Speaker, I am for law and order, but first I am for law. It seemed that the hon. member opposite who spoke this afternoon wanted order, not law. I point out to her that the two go together. We cannot have order unless there is proper and adequate law attached to make sure that the order that is to be preserved is preserved under the rule of law. That is a very important consideration. It would be wrong for this House, wrong for the government, wrong for this party, wrong for any hon. member to ignore that very salutary warning.
8212

November 27, 1973
Protection of Privacy
I go on to say that we are looking, then, at a set of circumstances which may arise where evidence gathered as the result of an illegal interception of a private communication may be used under circumstances for which it was never intended, not under circumstances in connection with the investigation as a result of which that information was made available but used in another case entirely. There is nothing in this bill to suggest that the interception made illegally in connection with one investigation, as a result of which evidence is obtained, must be taken to mean that that evidence can only be used in that same case. It could be used in any case at all, including a civil action involving an expropriation proceedings, or a quasi-civil action involving the Income Tax Act or the Competition Act, or any one of a thousand instances where a federal statute is involved.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Elections Act.


Gerald William Baldwin: I think that if I used the Elections Act as an example it would make some of my hon. friends opposite shudder. I shall continue to read from the book "Private Lives and Public Surveillance" at page 351 as follows:
Caution in this regard is hardly without precedent in other contexts. Many societies limit access to dangerous drugs, poisons and armaments on the principle that these things are potentially too destructive. Thus even people of unquestioned character and goodwill may be forbidden to possess automatic weapons. Similarly, most governments are at least theoretically restricted in the application of police powers, for example, in the arrests of private persons. The implicit assumption is simply that unlimited power of arrest, for example without warrant or accountability, places dangerously excessive power in the hands of the state. The same sort of argument, it seems to me, is applicable to the use of mass surveillance and control. The "bureaucratic weaponry" represented by these systems is simply so formidable as to require limitation, even in the absence of obvious repressive inclination on the part of any specific regime.
I repeat that, Mr. Speaker, because it is the basis upon which my hon. friend moved his motion in committee and the basis on which he is opposing the motion now brought forward by the Minister of Justice. The last sentence reads, again:
The "bureaucratic weaponry" represented by these systems is simply so formidable as to require limitation, even in the absence of obvious repressive inclination on the part of any specific regime.
Some of my hon. friends, like me, have sat in this House for many years. We have seen slowly, stealthily taken away from members of this House the opportunities and weapons which they should be able to employ, representing the people as they do, to make that representation adequate. It did not come overnight when hon. members came here in 1957 and 1958 and found a system which was working. An hon. member of this House could make his potentially significant contribution in saying to a government, "You must stop". That power has virtually disappeared in certain aspects, particularly with regard to the estimates and granting of supply to this government or any government.
I say to hon. members opposite and all hon. members of this House that what is being suggested tonight by the amendment of the Minister of Justice is another milestone along that road. It should be opposed; it should be stopped.

This government should be taught a lesson that it cannot and must not attempt, by amendments such as this offered by the minister, to further place restrictions upon the people of this country.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) has already read into the record so many of my views this evening that I am not sure it is necessary for me to say anything more. However, I should like to restate a few things as I see them at this time.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, justice is not to be so narrowly construed as to be confined to what takes place in the courtroom. Justice, rather, refers broadly to rectitude in the whole legal process, ranging from the time of apprehension and arrest, through trial and conviction to final release from parole. The general rectitude of the legal system includes the good faith of those who administer and enforce the law. Above all, the public must always be consciously assured of the good faith of those who enforce the law, especially of the police forces in our country. It is for this reason that I supported in committee the amended form of the bill, and that is still the direction in which I wish to see the final form of the law move.
However, as a result of the enlightenment which we have received from many quarters it is apparent, as indeed the amendment by the hon. member for St. Paul's recognizes, that there are some variant cases which ought to be taken care of. His amendment is an attempt to take care of one particular case where there has been some defect in the authorization which might subsequently prove embarrassing and there are cases of this kind where there ought to be some means of allowing evidence to be presented. I think the general disposition of the House will be to arrive at a more flexible form of prohibition than exists in the proposed bill as we presently have it before us.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, on November 13 last I directed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) with respect to the use of the drug Isoprenaline. This drug has long been regarded as a cause of death if not used properly. It has been demonstrated by competent medical authority that several deaths in Canada have resulted from heart irregularity and heart failure induced by the abuse of this drug which is used in treating asthmatic
November 27, 1973

cases. The minister was rather reluctant to reply to my question at the time, and he said rather facetiously:
-I suggest that people suffering from asthma should abstain from this drug for a day.
We were trying to get the question before the House as a life and death issue at that time. Later he revised his answer; he had thought better of the reply he had given, and he said:
On July 19, 1973, manufacturers of the product were advised of our intent to recommend that it be available only on prescription. Steps in this connection are under way and I expect that regulations to this effect will be passed very soon.
I have been presenting this issue since 1969, Mr. Speaker. At page 6386 of Hansard for March 10, 1969, there is a reply to a question I asked as follows:
The Poison Control Unit, Food and Drug Directorate, Department of National Health and Welfare has no record of sudden deaths among asthmatic patients in Canada attributable to the misuse of aerosol inhalers.
This goes back over a period of four years, but actually the medical authorities in Canada have been pressing the issue and have been urging the Department of National Health and Welfare to take some action for the past seven years. More recently the Calgary Medical Society has been pressing for tighter control. In the absence of government action on the matter and the failure of the government to respond to these overtures, the Pharmaceutical Association has been urging its members to keep the drug out of the reach of the casual customer and make it available only to people who ask for it specifically. I think this has demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that the drug Isoprenaline is now regarded by medical authorities, as well as pharmaceutical authorities, as a potentially dangerous drug. It has been available by prescription in Europe for only a few years. It was demonstrated, by close experiment in the U.K., for example, that the death of 3,500 asthmatics over a six-year period was attributable to abuse of this drug.
My reason for bringing forward the subject again tonight is that I want to inquire of the minister, or the parliamentary secretary who will be replying for the minister this evening, how soon it will be possible to have this drug placed under prescription. The minister's reply suggested that this was being studied and that regulations to this effect will be passed very soon. As the matter has been under review for some seven years, and as it has now been proved beyond question that deaths have been attributable to abuse of the drug, I trust that the parliamentary secretary tonight will be able to inform the House and the people of Canada that it has now been placed under regulation and that the danger to asthmatic patients is a thing of the past.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question raised by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) I should like to report that in the mid to late 1960s information appeared from other countries suggesting that the excessive use of aerosols containing sympathomimetic drugs may have accounted
Adjournment Debate
for an increased incidence in mortality in persons suffering from asthma.
A retrospective study in Great Britain covering the period 1961 to 1967, coupled with a decrease in the incidence of mortality following a change in that country of the prescription status of Isoproterenol, tended to offer a convincing explanation for the rise and fall of sudden deaths in asthma patients. The staff of the Department of National Health and Welfare examined this data, along with Canada's statistics. This country had not experienced a similar increase in asthma deaths.
However, since 1967 four deaths appear to have been associated with the excessive use of this product in Canada and we have received representations from physicians and professional groups who feel the problem may be greater in this country than the number of deaths would appear to indicate. Therefore, in an effort to ensure the proper use of Isoproterenol by asthma patients the department has recommended that this drug be added to schedule F of the food and drug regulations, which would make it available only on a doctor's prescription. Steps are being taken to have this legislation promulgated and it is anticipated that this will be completed within a few days. Until this occurs, the advice of the department to persons with asthma is to use the product within the limitations advised by their physicians.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-FAMINE IN ETHIOPIA-DIRECT ASSISTANCE BY CANADA
Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, November 16, I raised a question in the House concerning Canada's participation in supplying relief for the famine-stricken regions of Ethiopia. The matter was first drawn to my attention by a national television program and by letters and telegrams from constituents. Since then several other hon. members have indicated concern on the part of their constituents. The minister's reply seemed inadequate and I therefore asked for this opportunity to debate the question.
Briefly, my understanding of the situation is this. Between 50,000 and 100,000 people have died of famine and drought, mainly in Wallo province, Ethiopia. This province is inhabited mainly by Moslem or Pagan tribes. The Ethiopian Christian Church, which is one of the major sources of information for the government, does not have effective communication with the province of Wallo. Moreover, the local governor suppressed the true nature of the emergency and is now either dismissed or imprisoned; it is not clear which. Other factors are suggested, including indifference on the part of the central government and the fierce pride of the people of Wallo.
It is also reported that some 17 students who were demonstrating against the cover-up of the facts surrounding the famine were killed at Dessye, the capital of Wallo province, following refusal of the acting governor general to discuss the famine with them. I have very little knowledge of the politics of that country, but have been told that there exists a situation in which a handful of absentee native nobility exact an exorbitant tribute from the population. However, I have no details. In any event, we do not ask about the politics of starving people.
26695-8J

November 27, 1973
Adjournment Debate
This is a very brief background. No doubt the parliamentary secretary to the minister will have more accurate information in his possession. What concerns me is a report that the shocking extent of the famine became known to the central government of Ethiopia on March 26 of this year, at which time it met in emergency session and sent out urgent appeals to international donors. Yet in his reply to me the minister said it was only in comparatively recent days that the government of Ethiopia admitted the extent of the famine. If my information is correct, knowledge of the situation was available seven months ago.
Was the Department of External Affairs aware of the need in March or June of last year? Was an appeal for assistance received by Canada at that time or, more specifically, when was an appeal received? Further reports indicate that a request for the diversion to the area of two grain ships from the United States was denied by the U.S. government on the ground that justification for such diversion must first be shown. I am curious whether any provisos were attached to the Canadian reply. I should like to know, too, why Canadian aid earmarked for Ethiopia via the United Nations was not received.
In his reply to me, the minister indicated that limited direct assistance had recently been sent through the Red Cross. I should like to know the nature of that assistance and how limited it was. Is it possible that relief shipments can be landed at the port of Asab on the Red Sea for distribution in the capital city of Dessye and places en route? Is it possible for relief to be brought by air to otherwise inaccessible parts of the province, and is such an operation being considered or carried out by any agency or any member of the international community, including Canada? Finally, I should like to know what the minister means when he says that other measures are being considered. What are those other measures?
I have no wish to embarrass the minister since I recognize this is an emergency which concerns many other nations besides Canada. Nevertheless, I am concerned, as all Canadians must be, about the plight of those who are stricken by famine in any area and I ask for an accounting of what this country has done and what it intends to do and, particularly, why it has taken so long to provide adequate relief.
[ Transla tfon]


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first I
wish to congratulate the hon. member for having dealt with this issue. In my opinion, Canadians at large are not sufficiently concerned with those hunger and drought trials experienced in certain parts of the world and I feel that we should speak about them. This is why I congratulate the hon. member for having broached the question.
Canada has undertaken several years ago to contribute to the development of Ethiopia. At the present time, we are completing a geological survey of the Omo basin, in the southwestern part of the country. Moreover, we have just sent a team of veterinarians responsible for the control of the plague decimating the Ethiopian cattle.
The effect of the World Food Program is more directly related to the drought problem. Thus we have just shipped
10,000	tons of grain to Ethiopia. Canada has provided $34 million for 1973 and 1974 under this assistance programme.
Finally, our country has recently given $50,000 to the Red Cross for the relief program in Ethiopia. The Canadian International Development Agency has sent these funds through the Canadian Red Cross.
CIDA officials are now trying to determine the most appropriate means to contribute effectively, in the long and the short term, to the drought relief program in that country. We are also meeting with representatives from UN agencies already dealing with programs of this type in order to determine what kind of food is needed and how it can be delivered as soon as possible.
I should point out that the seriousness of the drought in Ethiopia was brought to our attention later than in the case of the western Sahara countries, to which Canada has already provided assistance amounting to $10 million.
Finally, Canada has included Ethiopia in its list of countries requiring emergency help and has suggested to other donating countries that they do likewise. In fact, I believe that we were among the first donating countries to realize the serious situation of the Ethiopian people as a result of this natural disaster.
Since governments speak in terms of their budget, I think that the annual 17 per cent increase voted by Parliament during the last four years for the CIDA budget, which amounts this year to about $560 million, shows how this government assumes its responsibilities towards developing countries and those hit by natural disasters.
Again I thank the hon. member for having raised this extremely important question.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.16 p.m.

Wednesday, November 28, 1973