1973-05-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the House that Thursday and Friday of this week are designated as opposition days.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of the utmost urgency and gravity. It is the ever-accelerating rise in prices, particularly in the vital fields of food and housing, and the ever-present failure of the federal government, which has paramount responsibility in this area, to take steps to abate the current inflationary spiral and to deal adequately with the continuing rise in the cost of living. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That this House urges the government to impose a temporary 90-day freeze on incomes, prices, rents and dividends, during which time it is instructed to meet with industrial, labour, provincial and consumer group leaders to formulate measures providing for medium and long term control of inflation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the motion proposed by the hon. member be put?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimity in respect of the motion proposed by the hon. member. Therefore the motion cannot be put under the provisions of Standing Order 43.


FORT ALEXANDER RESERVE-NON-ATTENDANCE OF CHILDREN AT SCHOOL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The matter concerns the fact that 600 students from nursery school to grade 8 inclusive have not attended school since Friday, May 4, on the Fort Alexander Indian reservation in Manitoba. Because of the deplorable conditions of existing educational facilities resulting in health hazards and illness, children at Fort Alexander are not able to receive the educational help which they so desperately need.
In view of the fact that this condition needs immediate attention, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development immediately take steps which will provide adequate educational facilities on the Fort Alexander Indian reservation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and therefore requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. Therefore the motion cannot be put under the terms of Standing Order 43.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 THE CANADIAN ECONOMY INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 26 to propose a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing an important matter requiring urgent consideration. I refer to the sharp rise in the cost of living, 6.6 per cent in the last year, the highest increase since 1951, which is particularly evident in the vital areas of shelter costs, up 6.9 per cent, and food at home, up 13.3 per cent, causing hardship to hundreds of thousands of Canadians, especially those on low and fixed incomes, and the complete failure of the government to alleviate this national crisis.

May 8, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East has filed with the Chair the required notice under the provisions of Standing Order 26 in which he seeks to move the adjournment of the House to discuss the question to which he has alluded. [DOT]
As has been frequently stated in considering proposed motions to adjourn the House, the question to be determined by the Chair does not necessarily concern itself with the importance of the topic but rather with the requirement that the matter should be one that should be given urgent consideration under the Standing Order. Obviously the subject is one of great concern to the House and to all hon. members, but in my view it is not acceptable at this time under the provisions of Standing Order 26. I would draw the attention of hon. members to paragraph 5 of Standing Order 26 which states in part:
In determining whether a matter should have urgent consideration, Mr. Speaker shall have regard ... to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means.
In passing, it should be stated that the question of the rising cost of living was covered in amendments in both the address and budget debates in this session. Additionally, as hon. members will recognize, the estimates of the departments concerned are still before committees. The question of rising food costs is now being considered by a special committee of the House. I might also refer to Bill C-133 dealing with the National Housing Act which is now before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
I am always reluctant to suggest that hon. members make use of the allotted days available to them under Standing Order 58 as I do not think it is the function of the Chair to direct the utilization of those days. On the other hand, I think I should remind hon. members that there are some 13 days available between now and June 30, and it does seem to me that some consideration might be given by hon. members to that aspect of our proceedings.
For these and other reasons, perhaps the form of the motion proposed by the hon. member which in some respects at least is more of a substantive motion or a censure motion, I would hesitate very much to suggest to the House that there should be a debate under the provisions of Standing Order 26. I regret I cannot put the motion at this time under the terms of Standing Order 26.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, in the absence particularly of the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister will have

observed the very disturbing increase in the cost of living reported by Statistics Canada this morning. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is now prepared to implement its contingency plan that we have heard about from time to time? We have suggested a 90-day freeze on wages, incomes and prices but, whatever the government's contingency plan is, is the Prime Minister now prepared to implement it?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says that they propose a 90-day freeze. It is not clear to the government whether the freeze would include prices on the farm, at the farm gate, all prices, or just-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: Just answer the question. You know where those wisecracks got you on October 30, Pierre.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be of any assistance I can to the government in formulating policies-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -but I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the figures released today, following previously disturbing figures on the cost of living, the government is now prepared to implement the contingency plan it has talked about in the past, although it has never divulged what it is? Is the Prime Minister prepared to move at the present time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think I have previously explained the government's position on this subject. It is that if the plan is to be implemented it will be announced and implemented at the moment of its announcement. We would not signal it in advance as this would permit everyone across the country to make increases before the plan was actually implemented. I am interested to see that the Leader of the Opposition has not really answered with respect to the explanation I asked of him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: You are
not allowed to ask questions now.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would be very happy to meet with the Prime Minister and answer any questions that he may have to put to me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, this is my final supplementary. In the light of the failure and the intentional refusal of the Prime Minister to be in any way responsive, I simply ask him whether the government will indicate what level of price increase it is prepared to accept in this country for 1973? Can the Prime Minister give the House and the country any information at all, hopefully precise information, as to what the government is prepared to accept before taking some more drastic action?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that we would not want to signal in advance any steps we wanted to take in

this direction. I think we will be judged by the opposition and by the country on whether we take steps at the right time. But I fail to understand, and perhaps I need guidance from you, Mr. Speaker, why the Leader of the Opposition wants to do this in a private meeting between ourselves. Surely the Leader of the Opposition receives emoluments under the Crown, and this is under his jurisdiction and he should be able to answer questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have expended a good deal of energy trying to get into a position in this House where my right hon. friend could ask me questions like this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for York South rising for the purpose of a supplementary?


Mr. Lewis:: I am, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.


FOOD PRICE INCREASES-POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION TO ENABLE ACTION ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF REVIEW BOARD-SUGGESTED FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister and suggest that the situation with regard to the increase in prices, particularly food prices, is perhaps more serious than some of the hilarity and noise suggests.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: In view of the fact that the announcement with regard to the Food Prices Review Board gives that board very wide powers of inquiry and the opportunity for staff necessary to make that inquiry, which we of course support, may I ask whether the government is now considering necessary legislation to enable the board or the Governor in Council or a minister to take action following such an inquiry and the recommendations of the board?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it would be the intention of the government to take action on any reasonable proposition put forward by the board. I cannot say at this time whether that would entail legislation or not. If legislation is needed in order to act as recommended and as the government desires, then of course we will present it to the House.


David Lewis: I appreciate that there are obviously some constitutional problems with respect to any system of price control or rolling back prices. May I therefore ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to call a special federal-provincial conference for the purpose of having all 11 governments or all 11 legislatures take action in order to halt the rising cost of living in all areas?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to that is already written into history. When I was Prime Minister
Oral Questions
in 1969 or early 1970 this government did call such a conference to obtain the support of the provinces in our fight against inflation. If that were a necessary course I certainly would do it again. I would hope, though, that if we agree this time amongst the provinces and the federal government to do our best to fight inflation, many of the provinces would not head for the hills as soon as the fight got a bit tough.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are many members seeking supplementaries on this subject and they will be recognized. I will allow the hon. member for York South another supplementary for the moment, but then I think we should recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue and pursue supplementaries from there.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if any of the provincial governments run to the hills the people of Canada will deal with them just as the people of Canada dealt with this government last October 30.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: In view of the very substantial increase in all areas of the cost of living and in view of the forecasts of economists that these increases will continue in the future, I am asking the Prime Minister whether he would consider calling a meeting of the federal government and all the provincial governments immediately for the purpose of taking joint action to halt the spiralling rise in the cost of living?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is the same question as the one I just answered, with the possible addition of the word "immediately", and the answer is no, not immediately. We are having a meeting of first ministers on the 24th of this month, and if there is a desire on the part of all participants to put this subject on the agenda the federal government will be very happy to deal with it.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question of the right hon. Prime Minister.
Everybody deplores the continual rise in prices, but since the Leader of the Official Opposition is promising price increases to fishermen in the east and in the west, to the western farmers, to the workers of central Canada while he is asking for a price freeze in the House, something which is not easily understandable,-my question is serious, I do not want to set anybody laughing-is the Prime Minister prepared to take efficient measures to have the Leader of the Official Opposition examined first thing tomorrow morning?


COST OF LIVING INCREASE-GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPECTING INTEREST RATES
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
3510

May 8, 1973
Oral Questions


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, if I can get the attention of the Prime Minister, I should like to ask him a question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You have my attention.


George Harris Hees: In view of the fact that the cost of living is going up-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member. There is quite a bit of noise at the moment and it is difficult for the Chair to hear the question being asked by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


George Harris Hees: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for demanding quiet for this very important question. I would ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the cost of living, as the Prime Minister knows, is rising at an annual rate of 3.2 per cent a year, is it the intention of the government to intensify and carry on the policy of rising interest rates and tight money initiated by the Bank of Canada on the instructions of the government about a month ago, which of course will bring about higher unemployment? Is that the intention of the government, as it was three years ago?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is an element of debate in the question, but if I could comment on the premise of it, that the rise on an annual basis is 3.2 per cent-


George Harris Hees: It was 13.2 per cent.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -I would be prepared to concede that.


George Harris Hees: I said 3.2 per cent but I meant 13.2.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I should like to tell the hon. member that in some countries which have applied price and wage controls the consumer price index has been increasing. It has been increasing in the United States at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 9.8 per cent in the past three months. On a year-over-year basis the increase in the consumer price index in Japan was 8.4 per cent, in Germany, 6.9 per cent, in France, 7.0 per cent, in the United Kingdom, 8.2 per cent, and in Italy, 9.7 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings is recognized on a supplementary.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, naturally I meant 13.2 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Does the Prime Minister think, because the cost of living is rising at an abnormally high rate in a few other countries in the world, that this justifies this government, when at the present time our cost of living is going up at an annual rate of 13.2 per cent, in sitting back and refusing to bring in the contingency plan that on other occasions it said it would bring in?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. That is not a question; of course; that is argument. A number of hon. members are seeking the floor for supple-mentaries. They will be reocgnized. Is the right hon. gentleman rising for a supplementary?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I will come to him in a moment after the supplementaries.


FOOD AND SHELTER PRICE INCREASES-STEPS TO CONTROL PENDING ESTABLISHMENT OF PRICES REVIEW BOARD
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in view of the urgency of this matter and the fact that it does not seem to be of any great concern to the government, which is regrettable-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter to the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact the proposed Prices Review Board, with all its shortcomings, has not yet been set up and will not report for at least another three months, I ask the Prime Minister what specific interim steps the government is prepared to take to hold the line on rising food costs and rising shelter costs which are causing such extreme hardship to people on lower incomes in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, apart from saying that the year-over-year based increase in the all-item consumer price index in April was 6.6 per cent, thereby hoping to correct the figure of the hon. member who was not sure whether it was 3 per cent or 13 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: I was sure it was 13 per cent and not three.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -I must say I have nothing to add to what I said in answer to the Leader of the Opposition.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, the Prime Minnister has deliberately avoided answering my question. With Your Honour's indulgence, I will repeat my question because it is urgent and very important. In view of the fact that the Prices Review Board proposed by the government, with all its limitations, and there are many, has not yet been set up and will not in fact report for at least another three months, I ask the Prime Minister what specific interim measures the government is prepared to take to hold the line on rising food prices and rising shelter prices to alleviate the suffering of those on low and fixed incomes in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will do me the favour of reading Hansard tomorrow, he will see
May 8, 1973

that I answered this question in reply to the Leader of the Opposition.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister is deliberately refusing to answer my question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: He shows the bankruptcy of this government in meeting this national crisis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps Your Honour will allow me to redirect my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who has a great deal of statutory responsibility in this regard. What specific proposals does the government propose to bring in to help hold the line on rising food costs during the next three months before the minister's lame duck Prices Review Board has a chance to get into operation?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to answer the hon. member's lame duck question by reminding him of the proposals in the recent budget to remit sales taxes and remove customs duties as well as to increase the old age pension and family allowances to help the lower income people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might allow the Chair to recognize other members on supplementaries. At this moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplementary. I will return to the hon. member and others in due course.


INCREASE IN FOOD PRICES-POSSIBLE PROGRAM TO PROVIDE PROPER FOOD FOR PEOPLE WITH LOW INCOMES
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the lengthy battle to get the Prices Review Board started and in view of the fact that people are suffering in the meantime from malnutrition, will the Prime Minister inform the House when the government proposes to implement the recommendation in the report of the Special Committee on Trends In Food Prices, which was accepted by the House, that the government consider the feasibility of co-sponsored programs with the provinces to put proper food on the tables of people with low incomes? I do not want to hear about the Canada Assistance Plan because this recommendation was in addition to any Canada Assistance Plan program.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if I may answer on behalf of the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -I feel I must refer to the Canada Assistance Plan because it does provide an opportunity for the federal government to pay half the cost of certain programs if the provinces would request them which would enable more food to be placed on the tables of lower income groups. Also, as I said in the House recently, the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that he would be going into this matter with his provincial counterparts in tne course of the review of social welfare policy he is undertaking.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Instead of leaving this to some other minister or taking it away from the Prime Minister, will the minister, under his responsibility as Minister of Consumer Affairs, try to get these programs going immediately in order to put proper food on the tables of those who need it?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[ Transla tion]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Can he say if new elements have come out concerning the reopening of the CIP plant at Temiscaming and is there any hope of that reopening taking place in the near future?
[ English]


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I checked on this matter just before coming into the House this afternoon. The position is that we have completed our federal talks with the various parties concerned. The government of Quebec is now meeting, I understand, with the unions and with the promoters, and all three parties agree that once their round of negotiations is completed they will return to us with a proposal. As things stand at the moment, we have gone as far as it is possible for us to go until the remaining three parties reach agreement on the substantive issues involved.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary.
Has the department made an offer to the persons involved regarding resumption of operations in these plants?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Not a specific offer in terms of dollars and cents, because that is impossible for us to do until the outcome of the discussions to which I have referred is known to us, but we have said that once given a proposal by the other parties we shall respond and make the necessary grants available.
3512

May 8, 1973
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary relating to previous questions. Perhaps the cabinet meeting could break up over there for a moment. It is directed to the Prime Minister. Over and above the statements he has made with respect to tax changes and various measures introduced in the spring budget, does the right hon. gentleman have any other plans in mind, not necessarily relating to price controls but in the area of tax adjustments or moneys which could be directed to people with low incomes and people on fixed incomes to help offset immediately the impact of the increases in the cost of living?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the
area of taxation, what we have in mind is also on the order paper or will be on the order paper soon. In the area of price and wage controls it is in the form of a contingency plan, and here I refer the hon. member to my answer to his leader a few moments ago.


James Aloysius McGrath: You have no contingency plan.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, we do.


George Harris Hees: They don't know where to find it.


James Aloysius McGrath: Ask the Minister of Agriculture. He knows.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. I suggest that the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate be given an opportunity to ask his supplementary, and I will then recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


John Howard Lundrigan: Many of the people I represent are finding inflation rather difficult and I should like the Prime Minister, if he could get serious for a moment, to answer the question. The incomes of many people on the east coast of this country average $2,000 a year and I presume this is the case in central Canada and western Canada as well. Has the Prime Minister anything to tell these people who are doing everything in their power to alert Members of Parliament and the government to the impact that the rising cost of living is having on them? Has he any encouragement at all to give these people? Has he anything to say which would promise an easing of the burden of inflation on people with low or fixed incomes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the answer given by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was a form of encouragement.


PENITENTIARIES
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the urbane Solicitor

General. I know I shall get an answer, which is something nobody has been able to get today from the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I have already brought this matter to the minister's attention. In view of the deep unsettlement in the penitentiaries of our country and, indeed, falling morale among the custodial officers, finding, as they do, that it is easier for inmates to get out of penitentiaries these days than it is to get in-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: -will he give consideration to setting up a royal commission composed of representatives of his department and of the Department of Justice and also of the various provincial Attorneys General to look into this matter in order to offset falling morale in all of the institutions I have visited or with which I have been in communication, and to report within 60 days because the situation demands not only immediate attention but action?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I will give consideration to that proposal. I might say that at the present time there are a number of administrative inquiries under way, one with respect to Cowansville and another with respect to Dorchester penitentiary. I shall await the reports of those two inquiries, which I expect very soon, and then we will make a decision whether or not we need a broader inquiry such as is suggested by the right hon. member. I might point out that in recent years several important inquiries have taken place. There was the Ouimet report of 1969, and the Swackhamer and the Trainor commissions last year. However, I do not want to turn down the possibility of implementing this recommendation. It may be necessary.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister for that answer. I know how sincere he is about this matter. But am I not right when I suggest that the degradation, as it were, in morale in the penitentiaries has greatly accelerated since the present head of the penitentiaries was appointed some two years ago?


William Warren Allmand: It is true there are morale problems, especially in some of our maximum security institutions, but I do not think I could relate this to the fact that the present director was appointed two years ago. In general, our problem in the maximum security institutions has been the tremendous increase in the inmate population. As we all know, the maximum security inmate is the most difficult type of prisoner to deal with. There are certain morale problems and we are seeking ways now to solve them. An inquiry might be necessary.
May 8, 1973


COWANSVILLE-MEASURES TO PREVENT ESCAPES
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary of the Solicitor General.
Does he intend to wait for the report's findings before starting to seek a way of locking up the Cowansville penitentiary?	'


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker. We have already taken steps to correct the security situation at Cowansville penitentiary. As I pointed out recently, we have increased the number of guards. We are placing special barbed wire on the top of the 18-foot fence. We are clearing the bush farther away from the fence. We are putting special grating on the windows-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might wish to return to motions to make a statement.


George Harris Hees: How many of the inmates are going to tonight's game?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the minister had time to consider the proposal I advanced some weeks ago to reduce the cost of lumber in Canada by using the federal power to place an embargo on the export of lumber?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: We have reviewed the situation with respect to lumber. We have held discussions with industry representatives. My impression is that the tight situation as far as lumber is concerned should ease in the second half of this year.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Since the Prime Minister is unable to announce a contingency plan to meet the very serious problem of rising costs, and since the cost of shelter has increased considerably, would the right hon. gentleman start by eliminating the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is a representation which is made frequently in the House-


An hon. Member:: And ignored.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and which the government considers from time to time in preparing a budget.


INCREASE IN PRICE OF CRUDE OIL-SUGGESTED LIMITATION OF EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources relating to the fact that both Gulf Oil and Shell Oil have now followed in the footsteps of Imperial Oil by raising the price of crude. Since these price increases, of which there have been several in recent months, are related not to increased costs but to the fact that demand in the United States is increasing, and since this in turn will result in increased prices for gasoline and domestic fuel oil, would the minister and/or the National Energy Board limit exports of oil to the United States?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may not have been following this but exports were limited by decision of the government in the earlier part of this year. The hon. member says that the increases have not been due to costs, but I would remind him that the cost of offshore oil, which represents between 800,000 and 900,000 barrels a day in eastern Canada, has been increasing steadily because of the pressures applied by the OPEC countries.
With regard to the other question which may be implicit in a comment just made, whether or not the price in the western part of this country should be divorced from the international price, this is something that we are taking under consideration but no decision along those lines has yet been made.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, in view of the concern that is being expressed on both sides of the House in regard to the rising cost of living, and without quibbling as to the precise reasons for the increase but recognizing that price increases as a result of this action are probably inevitable, would the minister and/or the National Energy Board consider decreasing the amount of allowable exports to the United States?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might reflect on this. It is not so much a question of the absolute level of exports but whether or not we should have a two-price system. As I have said, we have not yet reached any conclusion in this regard.
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
May 8, 1973

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question relating to matters which have been discussed. Is the government prepared to consult the House in connection with the terms of reference and powers of the proposed Prices Review Board?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I believe that this question was asked yesterday of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs simply said that the government was going to invoke the Inquiries Act to establish the board. I know this and so does every member of the House. I am asking the Prime Minister, knowing that to be the fact, whether the government is prepared to consult the House as to the width of the powers and terms of reference this board will have in its dealings with this very difficult subject?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I really have nothing to add to what the minister said yesterday.


FOOD AND SHELTER COST INCREASES-REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the NDP now supports our proposal for an immediate federal-provincial conference on rising food and shelter costs, thereby constituting a majority of the House in favour of such a proposal, and in light of the figures released today by Statistics Canada on food and shelter costs, would the Prime Minister now give the government's consent to convening immediately such a federal-provincial conference to deal with this very serious crisis on an emergency basis?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is, as you will realize, the same question. As I told the leader of the NDP, a federal-provincial conference will be taking place two weeks from now and the agenda can always be expanded to include the subject the hon. member referred to if such is the desire of the provincial governments across the country.


James Aloysius McGrath: Can the Prime Minister assure the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized for a further supplementary, but a number of members are seeking to ask supplementaries on the same subject and we will soon be running short of time.


James Aloysius McGrath: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I merely want to ask the Prime Minister whether he will assure the House that the agenda of that conference will contain an item dealing with the rising cost of living.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance. This government operates in co-operation with the provinces and we do not impose agenda items or force them on the provinces.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Is the criticism made by the President of the Treasury Board against the Official Languages Commissioner, Mr. Spicer, about some of his statements, endorsed by the right hon. Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I apologize to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, but I did not catch the question mark in his question.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to ask the Prime Minister if he endorsed the criticism made by the President of the Treasury Board against the Official Languages Commissioner, Mr. Spicer, about some of his statements.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to note this question because I do not know what statement of the President of the Treasury Board the hon. member is referring to.


Jean-Marie Boisvert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Has the right hon. Prime Minister any criticism to make against the Official Languages Commissioner, Mr. Spicer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no criticism against Mr. Spicer.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. It relates to the fact that the cost of living in areas above the 60th parallel is approximately 25 to 30 per cent higher than in southern Canada. Can the Prime Minister say whether consideration is being given to increasing the isolated post allowances so as to assist government employees to cope with the higher cost of living in the north, and are any other measures being considered to assist other members of the population in the north to cope with higher costs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot.
May 8, 1973


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the proposed increases in family allowances will not be implemented until January, 1974, and in view of the significant rise in the cost of food, clothing and shelter which is affecting many hundreds of thousands of children of families on low income, would the minister cause to be tabled an order in council to tie present family allowance payments to the cost of living index, using January, 1973, as the base month, to ensure that families receive some improvement in benefits starting immediately instead of their having to wait until next year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can only remind the Conservative party that family allowances paid to needy persons, to children of needy families, to families with needy children, would have been in effect since January 1 of this year had the members sitting on the Conservative benches not voted against it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is well aware of the fact that the opposition was going to vote for the family allowance bill of the last session. He need only ask the minister of the day, who is now Minister of Labour, about the agreement between the two parties in regard to voting on that bill. Certainly he should clarify the position.


FAMILY ALLOWANCE INCREASES-SUGGESTED ADVANCING OF EFFECTIVE DATE TO JULY 1, 1973
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government would consider advancing the effective date of the new plan for family allowances to July 1, 1973?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the government to have them implemented as soon as possible. I believe the reason for setting the date of January 1 is the complexity of implementing the plan after parliament has voted upon it.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the minister's earlier reply to the hon. member for St. John's East to the effect that he was
Oral Questions
relying on the February 19 budget proposals partially to meet the increase in consumer prices, would the minister be prepared to table the government's analysis of the consequences of the budget changes on consumer prices? If not, is the government satisfied that the tariff and tax changes contained in the budget have been passed on to the consumer and provide adequate relief?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the work that the hon. member refers to has not yet been completed but I shall be happy to discuss his suggestion with my colleagues.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister on the subject of aboriginal rights which arises from certain recent statements he has made outside the House. Was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development stating government policy when he told the Indian Affairs Committee on April 12 last that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 has continuing validity of application in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt as to the correctness of the question asked by the hon. member from a procedural standpoint. The hon. member is making reference at this time, I gather, to evidence in a committee. I doubt whether the question can be asked in those terms. Perhaps the hon. member might like to ask the question directly without reference to a statement made in a committee of the House.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I think I might place myself in order if I were to ask the Prime Minister directly whether the government recognizes the continuing validity of application in Canada of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 in respect of Indian rights, native rights?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must advise the hon. member that this is a very difficult legal question which I am not able to settle in any final way by any answer or, indeed, by a statement of policy. I believe the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at that time was commenting on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in relation to a British Columbia case and was probably referring to the fact that a suggestion had been made by some of the judges that the Royal Proclamation still had effect. As the hon. member knows, this is a question of law and not a question of policy.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Central Nova. Order, please. May I be allowed to recognize the hon. member for Comox-Alberni for a supplementary and then go to the hon. member for Central Nova.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. Perhaps I might preface it by

May 8, 1973
Oral Questions
saying that while the minister did refer to a certain decision by the Supreme Court he was not answering the question in relation to that decision, initially at least. In view of the answer the Prime Minister has given to my question, may I ask him why it would appear that he is refusing to recognize section 91.24 of the British North America Act in respect of Indians and land reserved to Indians and appears in public statements across the country to be trying to slough off this responsibility to the provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That appears to be argument.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and is on the topic of the rising cost of living. Has the minister initiated any study to determine the particular impact of the rising cost of living on the disadvantaged regions of Canada and how counterproductive these increases have been in terms of DREE's efforts to overcome regional disparities, since it appears that prices seem to be rising faster in the poorer regions of the country?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker. No specific studies of the type outlined by the hon. member have been undertaken. He knows, however, that we have a broader economic analysis under way of these regions of disparity and this would be one of the elements in it. I will be very glad to make what information we have available to him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of members are seeking to ask supplementaries, but we have reached the end of the question period. If the hon. member for Central Nova has a supplementary he will be recognized and then the Chair will recognize the hon. member for York-Simcoe.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: In view of the alarming statistics dealt with today, does the minister intend to initiate any particular action to see what can be done to take into account this alarming rise in the cost of living and how it affects the poorer regions of the country?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to do that in consultation with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and other members of the government.


HOUSING
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's recent visit to the Toronto area and in view of the average cost of housing in the Toronto area having risen by 19 per cent in the last year from $32,000 to over $39,000 on average, has the Prime Minister any suggestion as to what his government will do to relieve the soaring cost of housing in the Toronto area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this subject and the government's position on it is in committee now and the government will have further occasion to state its policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I could not raise it until this moment because I did not know what was going to happen. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a great and accomplished parliamentarian, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), and call to the attention of the Chair and the House that it is one year today, May 8, since the minister introduced his budget containing certain measures which he has successfully evaded the necessity of having to introduce in the House up to the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course that is not a question of privilege. I doubt that it would be in order to have any kind of debate at this point. I am sure the hon. member for Peace River will be the first to appreciate that that is not a question of privilege.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, roughly two months ago, I believe, I participated in a move, not initiated by myself, to try to get some changes in respect of the question period. I believe that the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker) is the member on the government side responsible for chairing the particular committee considering changes. Today we have had another example of what happens in the House of Commons in respect of the 40-minute question period. I think it is redundant for me to remind Your Honour that this is the only way in which, to my knowledge at least, the Canadian people through their representatives can hold the government responsible for its behaviour.


Mr. Sharp:: Nonsense.


John Howard Lundrigan: It is the only way I am aware of. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), although an expert in external matters, may not be aware of it.
Notice was given the government this morning at eight o'clock of the importance of the issue to be raised today. Every member of the Privy Council was alerted by Statis-
May 8, 1973

tics Canada to the fact that there had been a dramatic increase in the cost of living.
We come here today as members and try to pursue our responsibility not for ourselves but on behalf of the Canadian people, particularly in respect of the areas of very low income and areas that have been very adversely affected by the increase in the cost of living. Members attempted to pursue with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in particular the manner in which the government intends to try to react to the increases in the cost of living. The Prime Minister evaded the questions. He did not answer any of the questions and refused to respond to the representations made. I think I would be unfair if I said that he treated the matter as a joke but some members might be able to accuse him of that.
We have the situation today of a 40-minute question period in which we spent today roughly 30 of the 40 minutes on this most important matter, but I doubt that there has been one single word that we as Members of Parliament and the various communications media can report to the Canadian people by way of encouragement as a result of the representations we made. This is mainly because the government has elected, for one reason or another, having achieved the rule changes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that the House would want the Chair to allow the hon. member to pursue the matter. He rose on a question of privilege. He should state what the question of privilege is and indicate whether he intends to propose a motion. The Chair will make a ruling on whether there is a prima facie case of privilege in that event.
The hon. member is bringing to the attention of the Chair a point which he has raised before. The point is his dissatisfaction with the question period. By agreement between the parties the matter was referred to a committee of the House. I gather that some time or other it will be considered by that committee. However, I am wondering what purpose will be served while the grievance is under consideration by the committee, and what will be gained by pursuing the matter under the guise of a question of privilege. I would hope that if the hon. member indeed has a question of privilege, which I have not perceived until now, he would indicate what it is.


John Howard Lundrigan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say in very quick summary that perhaps the matter should be dealt with by the experts on procedure rather than by a backbencher from the east coast of Canada. The central fact is that by several moves, the restriction on the question period and numerous other restrictions placed on us, our privileges in the House of Commons have been taken away from us by the new rules and by the fact that the government has elected not to respond to the questions raised by hon. members. The result is that effectively our role of holding the government accountable for its behaviour has been eliminated.
I say to Your Honour that it is not good enough for the committee to get around one of these days to dealing with this important matter. This is the most important thing before the House of Commons.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: There must be some way in which we as representatives of the Canadian people, can hold this government responsible for its behaviour. The government has to accept its responsibility to answer to the Canadian people. Today it has been dramatically demonstrated that the government is unwilling to do so. If motions are necessary to bring this matter to a head, then I serve notice that motions will be coming forward of such a magnitude as to hamstring the House until we get some action. I am not blaming the chairman of the organization committee, but certainly that committee has a responsibility and it must tackle the fact that the government has elected not to co-operate with the people of Canada and with members of the House of Commons. We have to hold the government responsible for wilfully rejecting that responsibility. I will be moving motions, and unless Your Honour wants to make a statement to remind the chairman and members of the committee of their responsibilities there will be some delays before we get question periods off the ground in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Mr. Walker:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. I should like to advise the hon. member in a totally noncontroversial way that this very important question, along with many others dealing with the business and organization of the House, has already been referred to the committee.


John Howard Lundrigan: We know that. It has been there for months.


David James Walker: I listened very carefully to the hon. member. May I now continue? There are many channels of communication that the hon. member has to members of the committee. If he would care to see members of the committee from his own party they would be his spokesmen. May I say that at the meeting on Thursday the subcommittee will be reporting and asking the full committee to adopt a priority of subjects. The question period is the number one priority subject for the Thursday meeting. Prior to now we have been dealing with the Speaker's estimates.
I must say that I hope no member of the House will fail to give that very important committee an opportunity to go into these matters fully so that not just one member who has a grievance will bring it before the House but will give the committee an opportunity to try to make this whole operation more satisfactory to hon. members such as the one who has just spoken.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. Members on this side of the House have been questioned from time to time about the use of Standing Order 43. I moved my first motion under Standing Order 43 today because I felt I had a problem in my riding which is of pressing necessity and needs a solution now. On the same basis, I question whether or not that motion was considered at all by members of the government party who out of hand gave a negative answer. However, I realize that, as a backbencher, trying to get the government to act or at
3518

May 8, 1973
Oral Questions
least to listen to the problems that we want to present is very difficult. I suggest that the committee review the whole matter of the question period and at the same time, question very seriously the whole position with regard to Standing Order 43. If there have been misuses, changes should be made, but surely this is a Standing Order which allows a member of the House to rise on a legitimate constituency matter. These attempts to raise such matters are simply being discarded out of hand, so I believe that a change should be made now.


Mr. Cafik:: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that the point of order was motivated primarily by the feeling of some hon. members that the government has not adequately responded to the increases in the cost of living in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Norman Augustine Cafik: You can cheer after I have finished, if you like. May I continue, Mr. Speaker? It seems to me that the House should bear in mind that in recent days a working paper on social security was brought forward which proposed an increase in family allowances from $7.21-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we are going beyond the point of order which was raised a moment ago. My understanding of the point raised by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate was that there are difficulties in asking questions during the question period. The hon. member for Provencher referred also to Standing Order 43. I am sure it is the feeling of all hon. members that our rules in relation to that Standing Order could easily be improved, and it is hoped that it will be considered by the committee. If hon. members feel we should continue to have a discussion on the point of order, we should, as much as possible, limit ourselves to considerations of a strictly procedural nature. I invite the hon. member to bear this in mind as he proceeds with his point of order.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, but it did seem to me appropriate to indicate that what gave rise to the point of order was, in my view, not a valid point and that we have been adequate in this regard. So far as the general point of order is concerned in respect of the question period, it would seem to me that a great deal could be achieved if this matter were discussed. I would certainly encourage a serious discussion of it as soon as possible and particularly of the abuses of the rules whereby points of a political nature are brought forward which I do not think are, in fact, valid points at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Muir:: Politics in the House of Commons!


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with keen interest to your remarks as well as those of previous speakers. The Social Credit group continues to deplore the oral question period, partly for reasons which
[Mr. Epp.)
we share with the Progressive Conservatives. We blame them for taking such undue advantage of the supplementary question system that hon. members of other parties are unable to take an active part in the oral question period.
Mr. Speaker, we deplore the extreme slowness of this House in dealing with problems, specifically at the level of the committee involved. We hope Conservative participation in the committee as well as that of our colleagues from other parties will be serious and positive; that the oral question period may be truly meaningful and, at the same time, offering an opportunity for each and every hon. member to truly carry out his duty, which consists in controlling government action, and also to convey an image of efficiency to the public sitting in the galleries.
It is a sad image that we project of the slowness of the House and the clowning of the Progressive Conservatives. If they would only agree to cease abuse of supplementaries which, when you reach the tenth, have absolutely no relation to the initial question, and were willing to cooperate with the Chair and other hon. members, such an understanding of our proper functions as Members of Parliament, which is not to force our opinions through, but to co-operate for the purpose of healthy legislation, would make the task of the Chair much easier and more interesting and we would be giving an intelligent image of parliament to the people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank all hon. members for their interesting comments. I noticed that the chairman of the committee in question was listening closely to the advice and counsel he has received from his colleagues in the House, and I hope, as do hon. members, that the matter can be considered expeditiously by this committee.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, May 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-176, to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I am very much concerned that we should legalize a procedure which I do not think should be tolerated by the ordinary individual citizen. In the society in which we live we should seek to protect and ensure the right of the individual to free communication with other individuals, without the threat or risk of someone listening in on the conversations, and so far as I am concerned this includes law enforcement officers.
May 8, 1973

I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), when introducing this kind of legislation, should have fully protected the right of the individual to privacy within his or her home, or anywhere else for that matter. I believe that this bill should end at the proposed new section 178.11 which reads:
Every one who, by means of an electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, wilfully intercepts a private communication is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for five years.
But I do not know whether the penalty should be that stiff. Along with my insistence on the right to privacy goes a dislike of putting people in jail for long periods of time. I do not believe that it does a person much good to be put in jail. I doubt that it improves his disposition, his attitude to society. The type of education that people get in jail is not to be recommended.
During the time which I have served in this House I have noticed that there is a great predilection on the part of ministers of justice, and I suppose on the part of those who advise them, to attach rather lengthy jail terms to the provisions of the various pieces of legislation which they introduce from time to time. I do not wonder that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has so much trouble with people escaping from jails, in effect walking out and leaving them. Surely, this should convince the Department of Justice that people do not like jails. If one could get this through the rather thick skulls of the people concerned, perhaps they would not put so many other people in jail.
As I say, I do not think we should introduce this type of legislation granting privileges or rights to police forces to use what are loosely called bugging devices, electromagnetic devices and so on, as super-snoops on the public generally. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), if these devices were really effective in the areas where they have already been used, crime would have decreased, but it did not decrease. If crime did not decrease under those circumstances, then what argument is there for using these devices? Undoubtedly, within the bureaucracy and among the perfectionists throughout our land there are significant numbers of people who would like to bring about a perfectly oriented society in which no one does any wrong. But such a thing hardly every comes into being. And when I look at some of the actions that have currently come to my notice I am not at all convinced of the infallibility of those who say they would protect us from malfeasance through the use of snooping devices.
Let me mention the matter of unemployment insurance benefits. I get many letters from people who have applied for these benefits. Now we have what are called benefit control officers. That description tells us something about our society and about the attitudes of government. They are not called inspectors or investigators, which would be good descriptive terms for the job they do. No, they are called benefit control officers. They are the men who work on benefits. I ask, for whose benefit? I get some letters about them. I could produce those letters but they are private. I have one here from a lady who says she did not really mean what apparently she said. She did not really want to incriminate herself to such an extent. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, she is in no danger of prosecution. The danger she faces is that she will be denied benefits to
Protection of Privacy
which she thought she was entitled, for otherwise she would not have applied for them.
Not too long ago I raised a question in this House about a labour dispute at a potash mine in my area, to which a member of the police force was sent in plain clothes. I asked the Solicitor General to investigate the matter. He did, and later he replied, in essence, that this sort of practice would not be continued. He did not give me a firm commitment that nothing like this would ever be done again, because I suppose he had to leave his officers the leeway they need. But there was a clear implication that in this case action had been taken which was not necessary. How do we know that people, officers of the Crown or police officers, who have these bugging devices in their hands and under their control, will not abuse them? It is my clear understanding that one party to a conversation can give permission for his end of it to be tapped. But what about the other party? Is he subject to the same procedure, even though he does not give permission? I would have thought the lawyers in this House would have been more critical of this legislation.
The Minister of Justice should examine his conscience pretty thoroughly when he brings this kind of legislation before us. This is the kind of legislation that can be used to suppress the rights of the individual; it is the kind of legislation that can be used to threaten people and it is the kind of legislation which has been used by dictators and authoritarian governments to enforce their will.
I recall at the time of the FLQ crisis in Quebec that the then minister of justice brought in follow-up legislation which made members of the FLQ subject to certain penalties under certain conditions. At that time I asked him how he defined a member of the FLQ but I did not get an answer then nor since, yet identification was crucial to the total approach. To my mind this was an infringement of the potential rights of the individual just as the legislation before us now will permit an infringement of the rights of the individual.
The pertinent clause of the bill, 178.15(1) reads:
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.
That is a wide open provision, Mr. Speaker. What is the urgency? At the very least this type of procedure should be hedged with the greatest possible protection for the rights of the individual, not left loose and open.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I am surprised that the Minister of Justice would bring such legislation into this House. It has been said that the ineffective parts or the worst parts of this legislation can be dealt with in committee. If Bill C-176 of
26314-6J

May 8, 1973
Protection of Privacy
last year, which dealt with the marketing of hogs or cattle was before the house then I would be prepared to go into committee and fight the points in question. However, I am not prepared to sit in a committee to debate provisions such as these and decide whether the committee should change them. These provisions should never go to committee; they are too dangerous. I feel it is necessary to put this point forward this afternoon. I think I have made my point and I thank the House for listening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay a vote on this or the passage of this bill but there are one or two matters to which I intend to make reference. In my view, there is one section that is most dangerous.
Before going on to that, Mr. Speaker, I do not often congratulate the minister of justice but I do think that in this case the minister deserves congratulations for having brought this matter before the House in the form in which it has been presented. After almost three years of gestation, it comes before us now for consideration. Of course, in the interval it has been before the House. I repeat what I have said outside the House regarding the minister. In the administration of his department, following a course taken by his predecessor, he has been making appointments to the bench that have generally been most worthy. I think it is only fair and proper that when a minister does a good job in the administration of justice he deserves a reference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: A minister does not receive too many plaudits or too many words of approbation. However, one subject that in this chamber must always be above reproach is the administration of justice. Without good judges, even though there are good lawyers before them, the citizen is not assured of justice at all times. Sir John A. Macdonald was asked on one occasion what he regarded as qualification for the bench. "Well", he said, "number one, that the individual be courteous and considerate and number two, if he knows some law I would not hold that against him". There is a great deal in that philosophy, because if you have a courteous judge who treats the young members of the bar with consideration it brings about an administration of justice that is respected. Of the appointments that have been made by the minister, it can be said that one of the qualifications has been the maintenance and preservation of that decorum on the part of judges that is characterized by courtesy.
I had no intention of speaking until this afternoon, but I was impressed this morning by an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail, which reads:
The wiretap bill to which the House of Commons addressed itself yesterday will not prevent a Watergate in Canada; but its swift passage would be an earnest that Canadian politicians set their faces against the moral corruption out of which a Watergate could grow.
I do not entirely agree with that. Under the parliamentary system, if we follow British traditions which, after

all, are the essence of parliament, I do not think there can ever be a Watergate in Canada. In the United States, and I am not in any way prejudging or saying anything that might be an unworthy observation, the division between the executive and the legislative makes possible what has taken place to the extent already revealed.
As a former prime minister, knowing something of the problems that arise in connection with security and also of producing, as it were, that political atmosphere that is necessary if one is to remain in office, I say without hesitation that nothing bordering remotely on what has been so far revealed in Watergate could happen under our system.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat dealt with this bill in a thoughtful way, but I do not agree with his thesis. I take exception to one section in this bill which I regard as dangerous to liberty and freedom within our country. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) has endeavoured to bring about a bill that will assure that degree of liberty that is necessary for free men, without permitting licence, too often mistaken for freedom, on the part of the individual. By and large I think it has been well done, with the exception of the section to which I will refer.
Before I come to that, I want to mention in general to the speeches which have been delivered in this House. I was not privileged to hear them yesterday, but I have read them. I have always made it a point to read Hansard thoroughly. I do not want to say that the other members did not make their contribution, but I am speaking particularly of the new members. The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) in his speech revealed a tremendous amount of research coupled with political acumen. I thought his speech was a pertinent and material speech. As I say, I did not hear it delivered, but from reading it I regard it as a very fine effort. The same applies to the hon. member for Halton (Mr. O'Connor) and to the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn). I read those speeches. Each, in turn, expressed a viewpoint. Each, in turn, has revealed, above everything, that there has been the fullest study given to the subject. I shall not deal with senior members who are present and have been members of other parliaments. I am restricting myself entirely to the new members, whose contribution did honour to them and to this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Having said that, I am concerned about a matter that affects all of us. No one who has not been prime minister has any idea of the responsibility that rests on the Prime Minister in the preservation and assurance of security, both within and without the nation. That is something that is with a prime minister at all times, even on vacation. That is something that he must constantly keep before him as he receives from day to day the secret and top secret ideas of those who are engaged in the administration of security.
Danger to the security of the state has been greatly multiplied in the last few years as a result of technological advances. Indeed, the United Nations' report dealing with this matter a few days ago said that some of the wiretapping devices are so small that they could be inserted into
May 8, 1973

teeth, hidden in flower pots and picture frames and even disguised as dogs' droppings. The report says that this kind of espionage erodes mankind's right to be left alone. An hon. member of senior distinction thought that this subject ought to be included in the Bill of Rights. However, speaking as one who had something to do, after years of advocacy, with the bringing in of that bill, I would not want to see the Bill of Rights have any such term within it.
The security of the state must at all times take priority over the rights of the individual, but at the same time the security of the state shall not be used as an excuse to unnecessarily erode and interfere with human rights. Espionage goes on. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made that clear in one of his rare appearances in the last few days before radio and television, and Canadian Press reported what he said. Yesterday, when he was asked about this by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell), he said that he made no charge. There is no suggestion that there was a charge in what he said. Let me read what Canadian Press reported. The reports reads:
Prime Minister Trudeau said Saturday he is certain Americans are spying on Canada but gave no hint that he believes illegal tactics are involved or that he is worried by the practice.
Probably, if we had the wherewithal, we'd be spying on them,' he said ...
What an amazing statement. I am sure the Americans have a lot of political intelligence on Canada. They cannot help but be disturbed since the Prime Minister's visit to the Soviet Union, when he told Kosygin and Brezhnev that we are afraid of the Americans, that we fear them culturally, economically and even militarily. That statement was understandable in so far as the first two items were concerned. The third part is something that no prime minister should ever have said regarding the one country in the world that today stands to preserve our freedom all over the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister said, "If we had more political intelligence about them perhaps it would be useful in negotiations on the auto pact and energy and so on." I do not understand that statement. I continue:
Mr. Trudeau said spying is considered a dirty word but it need not imply sinister overtones if it means gathering information through legal means.
Then, he was asked what he thought of the Watergate wiretapping and bugging scandal, and he said:
I'd be talking as prime minister and I wouldn't want the president to comment on our politics.
I am glad of that restraint, developed since the Moscow visit. Next, I wish to read a report of the Prime Minister's statement in the Toronto Star, as follows:
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau refused direct comment during the weekend on the Watergate bugging scandal in the United States but noted that intelligence-gathering is a world-wide phenomenon.
"I think we'd be very naive to think that only the United States are engaged in bugging or spying on other countries," ...
Protection of Privacy
"I'm sure the Americans have a lot of political intelligence on Canada," he continued. "Probably, if we had the wherewithal, we'd be spying on them."
What kind of statements are those concerning a friendly country? Is it any wonder that a report in the press states that the United States Embassy has asked for a copy of what was said during this interview over CFTO?
I decided to get a copy of this interview. It took me several hours this morning. I will not go into the detail unless somebody wants to know what happened. My representative was told that a copy would be available to my office in approximately half an hour. An hour went by and we did not hear anything. Time went by and we phoned again. We were told "We are looking into it. We have no typed transcript." At that stage I took a hand in the matter. At about 11:15 we were advised by the Prime Minister's office that Mr. Donnelly would be sending us a copy of what was said. How did Mr. Donnelly in the Prime Minister's office know that I had been in touch with CFTO and had asked for the record? How did he have in his possession, in the Prime Minister's office, the actual report of what had been said? I leave it there, but I have known revisions and changes to have taken place on other occasions. Finally, we got the words actually used. It is a sorry picture. Mr. Fraser Kelly said:
I wonder if what is happening will affect how we look at the United States. Could we assume that the United States is not spying on us?
I know these questions arise during the progress of these appearances over television and radio. You appear so often and try to answer so glibly that you sometimes trip over yourself. In many cases, that is the objective of the questioner. The Prime Minister said:
I don't think we can assume that and probably if we had the wherewithal we might be spying on the Americans. "Spying" is a dirty word but you can express it otherwise.
The Prime Minister went on to say, as I quoted from the record of the interview:
I am sure the Americans have a lot of political intelligence about Canada. If we had more about them it might be very useful in negotiations on the Auto Pact and Energy and so on, so accumulating intelligence is really another word for spying, whether you do it deviously or above board I suppose makes the difference.
Fraser Kelly then asked this question:
I would hope they are not bugging offices of the other countries.
The Prime Minister replied:
Well, I would hope they are not, but we would be very naive to think that only the United States is engaged in bugging or in spying on other countries.
There is the record, unrevised, unrepented and undenied because it cannot be denied. That type of statement is dangerous to Canada's relationship with friendly countries and ought not to have been made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I said a moment ago you can talk so much that you trip over yourself, but Prime Ministers cannot trip over themselves, have an alibi and deny the undeniable whenever it proves to be embarrassing. A record was kept, even though it took me hours to get it.

May 8, 1973
Protection of Privacy
What is the situation with regard to espionage? I recall that some years ago Canada received a gift of a magnificent clock from the U.S.S.R.. It was the finest piece of antique artistry that the U.S.S.R. could give us. It was set up in the offices of the Canadian Embassy in Moscow. It was not until two years later that it was found it had a bug in it and that everything that was ever said in that room was available to the U.S.S.R.. That was bugging of an advanced character.
We shall have no right to go around and beat our breasts about what is happening in Washington on this subject of bugging if we practice it at all in our own country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot believe we do. Of course, that is a hope. There is nothing more awful than the fear of having yourself examined carefully and everything that you say revealed. I do not personally mind them getting me because they learn some fancy words, but there are others who naturally do not want anyone to interfere with their privacy. Every Canadian has that right, except where the security of the state makes it necessary that something be done to prevent the probability of an offence being committed or the real possibility of that being done. This bill goes a long way toward removing that danger.
When I was Prime Minister and found out there was a suggestion that bugging was going on, I said, "it ends here," period. It ended there. There are some in the administrative process of government who find it a lot easier to be listening in when carrying out their responsibilities than not to have that opportunity. I do not say I was able to eradicate it completely, but if anyone had dared to do bugging, he would have been out. I will say no more as to whether there was, in fact, the use of that authority which must rest on the Prime Minister.
Some parts of this bill, as I said, are very laudable. I think the minister has tried as far as possible to assure that no bugging shall take place, except where an order has been received from a judge. That, of itself, will not always protect civil rights. I seem to remember a Royal Commission headed by a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Dispense.


John George Diefenbaker: I don't want to dispense. Every solitary rule of elementary justice was swept aside.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: If a justice of the peace had done it he would have been reversed by the first court which had an opportunity to do so. He made available to the press numerous statements of hearsay knowing that in doing so he was breaking every principle, because he saw dangling before him, as I said in the House, the Chief Justiceship of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: All the judges of the Supreme Court had agreed not to sit on a commission, but he accepted,

finally. I asked a question in the House at that time within hours after he had accepted, and made the suggestion I made a few moments ago.


Mr. Bell:: Senator Martin got in on it.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, my hon. friend from Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) has an unusual capacity for not only reading another's mind but also for always having the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I am not sure whether an individual will be protected, because we have these unusual extrajudicial powers available-writs of assistance are an example of what I have in mind-


Erik Nielsen: A horrible example.


John George Diefenbaker: -by which, on the ipse dixit of a judge a person can be searched and have no recourse. I should like the minister to look into this question in his desire for reform, because this is a field which would enable him to make a monumental change as well. But we have lots of judges. I don't know how many judges there are across this country; there must be 400. If we are to have a judge grant, on an ex parte application, the right to bug, why bug it all up by this section 178.15? In my view, that clause ought not to be there. I shall try to explain why. In order to do so I shall have to read a portion of it.
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-
Do you just give him carte blanche and say: You are the boy; when there is an emergency, all you have to do is issue a writ for the interception of private communications?
-is satisfied that circumstances exist which 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 .. .
I ask the minister to tell us specifically why this clause has been included. Have we not enough judges across Canada to whom an application could be made by day, or even by night? Why give to an agent, designated for the purpose, the right to do injustice if he chooses by granting such an order? I go on:
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 . . .
Well, Mr. Speaker, this agent is above the Attorney General and above the Solicitor General because he can act on his own. He does not need authorization. He does not need any suggestions from them under the wording of this clause. I continue to read from the bill:
A permit for the interception of private communications given under subsection (1) remains valid, unless sooner revoked either by the person giving it or pursuant to subsection (2),

(a) for thirty-six hours from the time when it is given
Thirty-six hours! What an opportunity for snoopers to snoop. There is no need to go to a judge, though there are multitudes of judges available, but through an agent, and he can do the most terrifying things. I do not fear they would be done under the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) or under the present Solicitor General (Mr. AU-mand). I am not so sure about some predecessors of the Solicitor General. But this provision gives the power to destroy by snooping, the power to interrupt communications. And all that results is this: if he gets what he wants, well and good. If he does not, then nobody knows anything about it. In 36 hours you can raise a lot of hell under a clause like that, and I say to the minister in all seriousness: you have started out along the road to do something to preserve under law the rights of individuals. For goodness' sake do not, while on one hand preserving rights, undo all that is being attempted. In 36 hours you can do much to destroy an individual, and with all the force at my command I say to the minister: take this section out. It places the power in the hands of an individual to be designated, an unknown, an inconnu, giving him the right to do that which only a judge can do.
Why include this section? Have we run out of judges? The words are "when an emergency arises". Well, we have telephones today. It would not be very difficult to get hold of a judge. In this clause you destroy your whole objective and purpose. I am asking the minister to look into this because to my mind it is one of the most dangerous powers ever given by parliament, though at the same time in all the other clauses we are endeavouring to ensure that the kind of Watergating which went on in the United States shall be denied here by parliament.
Now, the bill goes on to say that the information cannot be used. You can snoop, you can listen, because you are an agent. You can listen and contemplate for 36 hours. But you can then forget about it. You cannot use the private communication unless the interception was lawfully made, and so on. But information obtained directly or indirectly as a result of information secured by interception of a private communication is not inadmissible. I do not particularly disagree with that clause. It is much the same as the provision that if a search is made under a search warrant, even if the search warrant is illegal, the evidence secured as a result becomes admissible in court. So, there is really nothing in that.
May I sum up, since I do not want to take more time than is necessary. As I say, that section worries me. It looks to me very much as though the person who drafted it thought to himself: "They will be blinded in parliament by what we are doing to make wiretapping legal, and they will give us power under the section to act as we will for 36 hours". I do not want my rights interfered with for 36 hours by an individual unknown and not responsible to parliament.
Hon. members know what has happened recently in the United States. Even making observations about it causes me very deep pain. The President has been a friend of mine for years. I wonder how many people in Canada who were going to abolish the monarchy are having second
Protection of Privacy
thoughts now about asking for a president. The president occupies two positions. He is the head of state. He must have honour, otherwise he loses not only his national but his international prestige. Secondly, he is the head of a political party. He surrounded himself with a Praetorian guard that knew everything but honour. Certainly, I cannot believe he had any knowledge of recent events.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, where I began: what happened in the United States could not happen in Canada under our system where the executive is responsible directly to the legislature. How different it would be were the president not in the dual position under the circumstances that now exist in the United States.
I have nothing further to add. With all the sincerity that I can place before the minister I would ask him to withdraw section 178.15. It will be no retreat, no evacuation under fire, but rather a realization that this parliament must not be asked to place in the hands of an unknown the right to break for 36 hours every rule of the sacredness of the individual. Delete that section and we will have a bill that will, I think, become a model.
On the other hand, I also warn at this point that the United States has laws against wiretapping, which laws have now been proven to be ineffectual. Although not all of the dangers will be cleared up, we will at least show there is determination in this parliament to let Canada, the United States and other nations know that we shall not permit ourselves to take any steps toward a unified state and toward a superior bureaucracy that will determine the rights of individuals.


Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, one of the disadvantages in rising to take part in a debate that has reached the end is that much of your thunder has been stolen. Of course, when you have to follow one of the great thunderers of all times, then there is very little left for you to talk about. I listened with interest to the address of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), as I have listened to several addresses in the House on this bill, and I found I agreed with many of the points that have been made in terms of suggestions for amending the bill.
Thee is no doubt at all that as we look through the bill we are bound to find problems with it, but I am not going back over the ground already covered by my colleagues and other members who have asked for certain specific changes. Let me simply make one or two points about matters that I should like to see cleared up in the bill.
For example, section 178.11(2) provides:
Subsection (1) does not apply to
(a) a person who has the consent to intercept, express or
implied, of the originator of the private communication or of the
person intended by the originator thereof to receive it;-
The right hon. member for Prince Albert pointed out what he thought was a very dangerous section, and may I, in my own way, point out this other very dangerous section. For one thing, what is "consent implied"? I understand what "consent express" is, but I do not know what "consent implied" means. I have some knowledge of the English language and I have some knowledge of logic, but I cannot sort out just what that expression means. I concluded it must be a legal term, so I asked two lawyers

May 8, 1973
Protection of Privacy
today what it meant and they said they did not know what it meant either. There is an enormous difference in meaning between "implied" and "inferred". Is the inference of an acceptance going to be considered to be the same as the implication of an acceptance? Certainly, that is language that ought to be cleared up or perhaps simply removed.
Then a little further down in the sentence there is the little word "or" which is even more worrisome. The section provides that any party to a communication can give acceptance to the interception of that communication. In other words, I could phone up Mr. X and ask a person with bugging or wiretapping equipment to listen in on my conversation with Mr. X since I have, after all, given him permission. It is quite clear in this provision that I, as one of the participants in the communication, can give approval, and therefore what is done is totally and completely legal and not contrary to the act.
Again, it may be a matter of legal language which I fail to understand, but in so far as it is English I think I do understand it and I find it totally unacceptable. As a matter of fact, this confusion and difficulty is expanded in the same provision, where in subsection (3) it is provided:
Where a private communication is originated by more than one person or is intended by the originator thereof to be received by more than one person, a consent to the interception thereof by any one of such persons is sufficient for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), subsection 178.16(1) and subsection 178.2(1).
So, Mr. Speaker, you can see the problem compounding itself. Any one person who is party to a multiple communication can give authority to tap the communication and to use the information thus derived for whatever purposes are legal, right and fitting. Surely that cannot be acceptable since at its worst it certainly could lead to framing, perhaps not a legal term but a term that most of us understand, at any rate. I could say to somebody else: "Look, I want to get Mr. Smith. I will call him, up, you listen in and he is bound to trip." After all, even Prime Ministers trip, as the right hon. member for Prince Albert said a while ago, so surely ordinary persons can trip. I could say: "Mr. Smith is bound to give us the kind of information we need to frame him". Surely, this part of the bill is not acceptable.
There are other sections of the bill which worry me. For example, in reference to something mentioned by the previous speaker, there is the question of agents of the attor-neys-general of the provinces or the Solicitor General of Canada. Section 178.15(1) reads:
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 ...
How many agents will there be in all? Do we have any control? There are several attoneys general in Canada- ten I am sure-and there is at least one solicitor general. That is 11 persons who have the right without condition, without restraint and without control, to appoint agents. How many will there be? We have no idea. There is nothing in this bill to tell us how many there will be. There is nothing in this bill to tell us that there will be some control.

I shall not take up the point again at length that was made so effectively by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) yesterday concerning the definition of subversive activities. How in heaven's name do we define, with safety for the rights of the individual and his selfexpression, his liberty, his liberty of speech and action, what subversive activity is? We have never been able to do it. However, under this legislation the wording is there-if the attorney-general or the solicitor general feels there is subversive activity. There could, of course, be a cell of the Progressive Conservative party operating in my riding- which to me would be subversive-trying to subvert me as a Member of Parliament. How do we define it? The problem, I think, has been laid before the House and I am sure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) will take this particular aspect into consideration.
My real point is this: The more I look at this bill the more I am concerned because there are so many parts of it which are questionable. The more I look at the whole question of wiretapping and the legalization for certain purposes of wiretapping, the more repugnant I am to give any support at all to this bill for the series of particular reasons to which I referred just now and the many reasons which have been adduced by other members of the House, but more important than that for the reason that I do not think the state should deliberately sanction this kind of activity within its borders. The state should not be involved in wiretapping.
It was a good number of years ago that the British Parliament threw out forever what was then known as "general search". We now have under our system the provision for search warrants, but search warrants are specific. A search warrant is issued to search the property of a certain specific person for a certain specific purpose at a specific time and with a specific end in view, all of which must be stated before the warrant is issued. Back in the bad old days there was a provision for general search. What the provision in respect of wiretapping on the part of the state, either for reasons of investigating criminal activities or investigating subversive activities, allows or, I should say, recreates, is the general search.
I shall quote here from a very worthwhile, extremely well written article by Stanley M. Beck entitled "Electronic Surveillance and the Administration of Criminal Justice".
These facts raise the vital issue in police use of electronic eavesdropping. It is that such listening is a return to the practice of the general search, a practice condemned and prohibited by the English courts in the eighteenth century.
It is not proper under our law to have general search, and so if we do not believe that a man's property or his belongings or his private household can be submitted to a general search then we cannot accept that his private life should be submitted to a general and continuing search under wiretapping. But, Mr. Speaker, in the case of general search, as bad as it was, it was usually one man's property, one man's household that was searched, not the households of many. When it comes to wiretapping you are searching continuously and generally everyone who communicates with the person that you are interested in searching specifically.
May 8, 1973

In order to give an idea of the application, I shall quote from a judgment of the United States Supreme Court because this judgment conveys some idea of how many other intrusions are involved, inadvertently usually, when a wire is tapped through electronic eavesdropping:
While tapping one telephone, police recorded conversations involving, at the other end, the Julliard School of Music, Broock -lyn Law School, Consolidated Radio Artists, Western Union, Mercantile Commercial Bank, several restaurants, a real estate company, a drug store, many attorneys, an importer, a dry cleaning establishment, a number of taverns, a garage, and the Prudential Insurance Company.
Of course, that is bound to happen. If you tap a telephone line and listen in on the conversations of people you will hear all kinds of conversations with people on subjects not at all related to the case in question because what you have done is re-institute the practice of the general search, a practice which was followed under the Star Chamber and which was thrown out two centuries ago. You have re-instituted it in a way and in a manner that the extremely authoritarian Star Chamber could not even have envisioned.
A while ago the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) stole some of my thunder by referring to a recent report of the United Nations on electronic eavesdropping. The report is not all that difficult to obtain. It was published in fairly large part in some of Canada's newspapers yesterday. What is described in this report is a mad and absurd world. It refers to listening devices the size of a pin, listening devices which can be inserted by a dentist in your cavity so that you can become a permanent transmitter of everything you say. It refers to listening devices that can pick up conversations miles away. There is a device which uses a laser beam. It can be focussed on your house and from a great number of miles away pick up everything that it is said. There are even madder projects. I shall refer to one which is humourous in a way, absurd in another and horrifying in another way.
A particularly ingenious device being used by various U.S. intelligence departments is an eavesdropping microphone which quite literally resembles a dog's droppings.
The device, intended for use in the jungles of Viet Nam, is also being used in the United States to gather domestic intelligence on extremist organizations.
The listening device is practically identical to the real thing, including the odour.
If I may interject, Mr. Speaker, what mind can conceive of such devices! Matthew Arnold once said that our most besetting danger is faith in machinery. This is faith in a certain kind of machinery gone absolutely wild. The article goes on to read:
It can be placed on a lawn near the house of whoever is being investigated, and its powerful transistorized transmitter relays conversations to a nearby monitoring station.
The gadget can transmit to a range of three miles and will remain operable for up to three months. It is weather-proof and flame-proof.
Here is where complete madness and the kind of mentality that would produce and use such devices begins to emerge. We were often told in the past that madness is logic carried to its absurd limit. Here it comes:
Protection of Privacy
The bug will often go undetected because of its unique form and the deliberate choice of this particular design is based in the natural reluctance to pick up such an object.
It is a mad world that produces these things, and I am not sure that we want to help in any way to create this mad world. It seems to me that the best way to make sure that no bugging is being done by private persons or organizations is to make as sure as possible that none of this equipment is around, and the best way to do that is to prohibit it completely because if you produce it for the police, for the armed services or for the state, it will be contrabanded and will find its way into the hands of individuals, criminals and spies.
So the only safe approach is a total prohibitionist one, and as the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) said so well, he would much prefer this act if it came to an end in its first clause which says very simply that it shall be a criminal offence to wiretap in this country, a criminal offence for everybody. I am sure that not too many people will agree with the absolutist position that I am taking. I know what the counter arguments will be. You need this type of thing if you are to protect yourself against organized crime.
Let us stop and look at that argument to see how much sense it makes. First of all, we are obviously not going to use bugging, are we, even if this bill is passed to trace down teenage marijuana smokers. By the way, there is no restriction in the bill-and I will come to that later- and no definition of the kind of crime for which the issuance of a permit would be justified. Let us stay for a moment with organized crime. There is much talk about it and relatively little definition. I return to Professor Beck. He says:
Organized crime is simply the application of corporate principles to the business of crime. It is sound economics and politics to aggregate human and physical resources into large organizations that provide central management and control, a division of labour, and prudent allocation of profits. In the United States, the Mafia or Cosa Nostra, is the monopolistic crime corporation. Its illegal activities are primarily supplying gambling, narcotics, women, money and liquor to willing customers.
It is important to realize that the basic business of organized crime is the provision of goods and services to customers who want them. We may not approve of their wanting them, but they want them. Professor Beck continues:
It is now said to be ploughing its huge profits into legitimate businesses.
It is just a different kind of business, more profitable and safer. Actually, it is a little bit more private because if you are in the Mafia you are being bugged all the time. Professor Beck continues:
All these crimes are, as noted above, crimes without victims, and for that reason are almost impossible to combat. All these crimes involve imposing someone's idea of morality on somebody who has a different idea. It is "coercion to virtue" through the law. If the criminal sanction is of little utility in these areas is it not time we stopped to ask exactly what functions the criminal sanction can perform, and which ones we really want it to perform?
In other words, if you are going to approach organized crime you have to review your entire thinking about crime and the kind of crime that organized crime is involved in performing. Professor Beck continues:

May 8, 1973
Protection of Privacy
Is it not particularly urgent that we ask this question if in the attempt to legislate morality we have spawned an infinitely worse evil-organized crime?
Even admitting quite clearly that we are not going to go through this deep philosophical review, we should at least be aware of one thing. If we are out to fight organized crime we have to be aware that organized crime cannot exist except where justice agencies dealing with criminals are not at least neutralized and probably corrupted to some degree. That is obvious. According to Professor Beck, organized crime is a large, well organized, well managed criminal business. You cannot operate this kind of large business without detection, and you are going to have detection if justice agencies are not neutralized, if they are active and not corrupted. Everywhere organized crime exists there is at least a strong suspicion, certainly the allegation and very often the fact, that the justice agencies are corrupted.
It seems to me that if you were out to fight organized crime, what you would do would be to restructure and reform the justice agencies that you have working for you. It has been proven time and time again that for all of its ingeniousness electronic eavesdropping is almost totally ineffective as an instrument of prosecution. There have been very few cases in which the direct evidence received through wiretapping has been used successfully in courts. I am not going to take the time of hon. members to cite the many reports that have been produced on this matter, particularly in the U.S., which has had a lot of experience with this type of activity. It is not a terribly effective way of obtaining information. Very often the evidence that is produced is not admissible in courts, so you cannot prosecute anyhow. All you have done has been to scare the rabbit, but you have not caught it. I do not know how many people here have spent part of their youth trying to catch rabbits, but I did and I know you only try once each time. It does not stick around for the second try.
So, what is the point of using all this marvellous gadge-try if it will not bring the effect you want, if it will not result in the effective prosecution of the criminal? All you have done has been to give him a warning. These devices are devilish and ingenious, but there are counter devices. You can bug a bug. It is hard to tell who is the bugee and who is the bugor. You can have a little instrument, Mr. Speaker, which can spoil the bugging. It is only a $10 job. Any high school kid can build an oscillator which will spoil any bugging gimick. So, it is not a terribly effective way of pursuing justice. But what it does is that it creates in this country, in this society, a state of affairs which is totally repugnant, a state of affairs where privacy for the indivdual no longer exists in any meaningful way.
I am sure that I am going to be told that certainly for the security of the state-as the right hon. member for Prince Albert said a while ago, and his was quite a statement- the security of the state overrides all the rights of all individuals. I might just like to add not all of the time and not in all cases, because there is a very large matter of interpretation involved here. However, for the security of the state, we can justify wiretapping. The situation is somewhat parallel to the attack on organized crime. Who are you going to tap? Of course, ideally you wiretap spies

to listen in on them. Well, if you are going to be very good at wiretapping spies no one will know about it, particularly the spies you are wiretapping as an act of counter espionage, and in the world of spies and counter spies legality does not obtain. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggested, although he does not seem to be very well aware of the meaning of the word spy in French or in English, this goes on all the time. But one thing he is not aware of is that no spying is legal. Spying, by definition, is illegal. So here you are into an illegal realm anyhow, and if you are going to try to track down spies surely you will try to do it as cleverly and intelligently as you can.
But to.allow into the law the kind of provision proposed in this bill, to look into and listen into people's private lives on the grounds that they might be involved in subversive activities, goes a little too far. What we do, if we allow this, is that in this attempt to preserve what is called the security of the state we throw away what is valuable in our society. Let us ask ourselves are we willing, really willing, to bear this cost?
Let me see if I can make one more distinction which I think is very important, Mr. Speaker. People will say that in this matter I am a prohibitionist, and may say, "But look, what if the use of such a device could at one time save a life?" All right; fine. If you use such a device to save a life and prove to me afterwards that you saved a life by using it, I will say it was an extraordinary thing. I am not going to buy it as a general rule, but congratulations. You did the wrong thing, but you did it for a right and good cause.
But of course if you legislate this fact, then it is not simply a matter of saving a life. It almost becomes a matter of using the device to apprehend criminals. There is quite a difference between using a device to stop a killing and using it to apprehend a killer after the fact. Now, I am not going to go back over all the arguments to show that first of all it is not terribly effective, and secondly that it vitiates an extremely important principle of law, and therefore when we allow ourselves to use this kind of device it interferes with people's privacy. If at any time the government of this country was told by its agents that it had to permit a wiretap for the sake of the security of the country, then I would say that by specific act and specific decision, with full political responsibility, make that decision, and come back and explain to the country what it is you did, and why you did it. Mr. Speaker, we do this kind of thing in several other instances.
Many members in this chamber find the idea of telling a union that it members must return to work a repugnant idea. Certainly, my colleagues in this party find it repugnant in the extreme. Therefore, we will see no law which permits this on a continuing basis. If there is a strike going on which is causing so much harm to the people of Canada that it must be stopped, then we say let this parliament assemble and make that specific, extraordinary decision, because we want it to be just that, and have it known as an extraordinary decision. That is why we brought parliament back from summer recess in September, just to deal with that kind of situation. And when that happens we stand up, perhaps some of us with delight, but I know many of us with distaste and repugnance, and say to the workers, "You shall go back to
May 8, 1973

work." But what we have done on such occasions is that we have not only created a better situation by putting people back to work and removing distress from the country, but we have also underlined and sanctified the principle that there shall be no continuing legislation, no continuing law permitting people to be sent back to work against their will. I think the same kind of reasoning ought to be applied to this case.
I will end with one more point. It is a very general one, and it may be considered philosophical by members of the House. But surely it is not beyond some of us to be somewhat philosophical. Over the past few months we have been debating the matter of capital punishment. I have not yet had a chance to state my case in this House for the abolition of capital punishment, but I would simply want to say, when my time comes to state my case, that I respect the people who are opposed to my views, and I do not think for a moment that they support the restoration of capital punishment for vengence. Further, many of them will agree with me that the case for deterrence is not proven one way or another. There are facts on one side indicating that capital punishment deters, and facts on the other side indicating that it does not. The most powerful argument of those who favour capital punishment is that society chooses to indicate its abhorrence of certain crimes by inflicting the final, ultimate and absolute penalty. That is the only argument in favour of capital punishment that is worthwhile considering. And there is a counter argument. It is the one which I choose.
Admitting the value of the other argument I go on to say that society will not, by deliberate action of its own, behave in the same way as the criminal did. Society shall underline the value of human life by never taking it. And I add to this fundamental principle this utilitarian and practical point that if the state, within its society, creates an attitude of respect for life, then indeed this action on its part may reduce the level of violence in society, so there will be fewer crimes, fewer violent crimes, fewer killings and fewer murders, which is of course the objective of all those who participate in the debate on capital punishment, for or against.
Mr. Speaker, there is a parallel. If we in this parliament decide in full deliberation that we will permit wiretapping for certain utilitarian needs, for certain specific purposes, then we condone it. We would condone it but we would be much better to condemn it absolutely and have none of it, not for individuals, not for corporations, not for the police, not for the army-for none of us.


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


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us has been introduced as a result of the state's duty to protect its secrets, information, institutions and policies against spying, carelessness, subversion and secret intervention. On the other hand, we are free to question the efficiency of the organizations and structures that the state has set up to carry out its responsibilities in an area in which the fundamental freedom of the individual may be at stake.
Protection of Privacy
In all countries, security practice involves a whole set of measures. There is an established procedure for classification, safe-keeping, handling and communicating documents and material that must be protected. This involves certain technical devices, and it is in this connection that some anxiousness has been expressed about encroachment by the state, and by individuals and organizations, upon what is commonly called "the right to privacy". This is a vast problem involving, for example, wire-tapping and the use of bugging devices, telephoto lenses, and certain other highly sophisticated devices used by the police and other bodies for detecting crime or for gathering information.
One related practice which seems to give rise to some anxiety is the use of certain technical procedures of investigation to obtain information. Of course, security measures applied, for example, to a staff of employees are an essential part of any efficient system. However, just as ordinary legal procedures can sometimes lead to injustices, so can security practices. Therefore, whatever provisions we draw up for the protection of individual rights, in the last resort, the individual's most important right, which consists in careful and fair treatment, will depend on the existence of a policy. Through that bill we now want to define that policy.
Mr. Speaker, the Official Secrets Act was a rigid piece of legislation written in broad and ambiguous terms. Legal cases which have already come up have indeed shown the haziness of that act and that it was rather lacking in precision and difficult to interpret. As stated in the report of the Royal Commission on Security in 1969 the revised act should protect unclassified information against any attempt at disclosing and gathering data which would be prejudiciable to the interests of the state or would be made with the intent to help a foreign power.
In recent years, people have been questioning the attitude of governments which maintained that administration activities and papers at their disposal should be kept confidential unless and until responsible authorities decide to make them public. However, this situation is much more complex and there are many exceptions, for example, papers dealing with national defense and foreign policy, personal departmental papers dealing with questions relating to social services as well as informal memoranda and drafts. In Canada, since there is no statutory provision other than the Official Secrets Act either forbidding or permitting access to government records, departments have had to treat individual applications on their merits.
Although the Royal Commission on Security recommends legislation in the area, it could not help adding, and I quote:
We would view suggestions for increased publicity with some alarm.
We think the knowledge that memoranda might be made public would have seriously inhibiting effect on the transaction of public business.
We believe that the process of policy-making implies a need for wide-ranging and tentative consideration of options, many of which it would be silly or undesirable to expose to the public gaze.
To insist that all such communications must be made public would appear to us likely to impede the discussive deliberation that is necessary for wise administration.

May 8, 1973
Protection of Privacy
In Canada, the bureaucracy is not vast, and the number of serious inquirers quite small.
It seems to us that there is no reason why controlled access to specific administrative files or documents cannot be permitted and arranged on an ad hoc basis when a genuine requirement can be established.
The bill now before us was prepared in the light of these wise recommandations, because the royal commission warned us of some dangers as regards technical security and security of communications; the commission used the following words, and I quote:
One aspect of physical security is generally referred to as technical security, and is concerned with protection against electronic eavesdropping and telephone interception, and with a variety of other technical subjects.
With regard to the security of governmental information transmitted by telegraphic means, we do not believe that there is sufficient awareness, even in senior governmental positions where it is most important, that the telephone is a basically insecure instrument, and that therefore classified matters should not be discussed on the telephone.
Therefore, we have prepared a relatively flexible legislation but also strict enough to meet the requirements of the security of the state while respecting as much as possible the individual rights to privacy.
To those who would be inclined to consider this new legislation still too severe as regards individual freedom against the security of the state, I shall answer the following: the high liberality of American legislation as regards the secrecy of state as often been praised but too much freedom in this area inevitably leads to abuses. And we can see today that the United States have to face the effects of such abuses, so that we do not know at present whether it is the president of the presidency itself that will be eliminated as a result of such a sharp problem.
Therefore, I suggest that we must be careful and forecast such abuses, by introducing an enlightened legislation.
This is why the bill now before us seems essential to me and I support it unreservedly under its present form.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-176 is entitled "Protection of Privacy Act". When I read the first paragraphs of the bill, I agreed fully with their content, but on reading the following paragraphs I agreed less and less to the extent that I for one shall surely be unable to vote for the bill unless it is amended.
The object of the bill, it would seem, is to protect the privacy of the citizens, or so its title claims. But study of the bill reveals-and I shall come back to its study clause by clause in a moment-that it will do exactly the opposite by allowing the state to do the contrary, that is to intrude legally upon the privacy of all citizens.
Before going on to the clause by clause study of the bill, let me refer to the statement the right hon. Prime Minister made in Toronto over the weekend to the effect that spying, through legal means, is allowed. Now it appears that what is illegal will be legalized: spying. To my mind, the state must not be authorized to spy-which is illegal- or to use legal means to do so.
Mr. Speaker, there is a social credit principle which we always put forward to the effect that we are in favour of freedom and the right of every citizen to freedom. Unfor-
tunately, this bill trespasses on the freedom of the individual, even when he is innocent, even if he did not commit any offences against the state or against anyone. I will come back in a while to the clauses which would lead to abuses, because as the bill is indefinite, we do not know where it will all end. We do not know where this bill will end. It is unfortunate that the present sad events which have been headlined for the last few days in the United States are being used, that the publicity psychosis is being used to move a bill which at first glance appears good, but which in practice is extremely bad for the freedom of the individual.
Mr. Speaker, this bill concerns me very much, and I only have to read the recommendation on page 2 which reads:
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act respecting the protection of privacy: and to provide that the Crown shall, in certain circumstances, be liable for punitive damages in an amount not exceeding $5,000 .. .
Yet, Mr. Speaker, here we have the Department of Justice, which wants to establish justice in Canada, telling us that if this bill infringes on privacy, or that damages have to be paid by an individual because of the use of an electronic device or other under the present bill, then the state will not be liable for more than $5,000 regardless of the damages which could have been caused.
Therefore, in my opinion, this recommendation contains a clear and definite indication that this bill will be discriminatory against the people who will receive damages of $5,000, when in fact they will have suffered real damages of over $5,000.
That is the first reason, Mr. Speaker, why I cannot support this bill. Indeed, if the state causes damages estimated at $100,000 to an individual, and if we are to talk about justice here in this House, I do not see why the state should not pay for its own mistakes and misguided actions. It seems to me that an individual ought to be compensated for losses caused to him.
In committee, we will again consider the bill, clause by clause. Clause 178.12, as I read it, is in direct contradiction with the purpose of the bill. This clause gives complete freedom to the state or any of its agents. We do not yet know who these agents will be, but we may suppose that once again they will be officials who have never been elected by the people, and who will have the power to interfere as they see fit in the private lives of citizens.
Clause 178.12 states:
An application for an authorization shall be made ex parte
This means that when it is desired to search, bug, or wire-tap a private home, the application for leave to do so will be made ex parte, which means that the person concerned will not be present and cannot be represented. Authorization will be granted against him ex parte and in writing, without his permission, without the help of his lawyer, and even without his knowing about it. The application for an authorization must be made, and I again quote:
.. . to a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction, or a

May 8, 1973_________________COMMONS DEBATES________________________3529
judge as defined in section 482 . t. or an agent specially designated in writing for the purposes of this section . . .
But who is the agent? Who is to appoint him? And how long will his term of office last?
And once the authorization has been obtained, and I quote again:
. . . proceedings, if any, may be instituted at the instance of the government of Canada and conducted by. . . the Attorney general. . .
| English ]



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is five o'clock. 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 Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Social Security-Old age recipients in nursing homes-Suggested protection of portion of pensions against rising rates; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Veterans Affairs-Inquiry as to legislation to increase basic rate of disability pension; the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) - Health-Status of negotiations with provinces on provision of chronic care in nursing homes.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills.


Mr. Reid:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think there would be agreement to consider item No. 4 standing in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the House will now proceed to the consideration of item No. 4, standing in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Thomas Speakman Barnett: that Bill C-23, to amend the Fisheries Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Fishing Licences
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that legislation respecting fisheries comes before the House for consideration. This has been a rather busy day from the standpoint of our interest in fisheries. I have come, from a meeting of the Fisheries Committee on the Pacific Coast Fishery in order to proceed with the discussion of my bill to amend the Fisheries Act.
When the then minister of fisheries and forestry on April 20, 1970, introduced for second reading Bill C-204, an act to amend the Fisheries Act, he had this to say about the Fisheries Act:
It is an act which is as old as confederation itself. Our Fisheries Act was passed during Canada's first session of Parliament. It was passed more than 100 years ago.
He went on to say that the Fisheries Act has, of course, been revised and updated with the passage of time. The announced purpose of Bill C-204, the first major amending bill to the Fisheries Act which had been brought forward by the government for quite a period of time, was to make the Fisheries Act a more flexible and realistic instrument of law in relation to present day fishing methods in Canada and the proper conservation of the fishing resource.
An announced ancillary purpose of that bill was to tidy up some of the more archaic features of the act which had been left sitting over the years since confederation, since the first meeting of the parliament of Canada when the original act was passed. Certain changes along those lines were proposed by the government's amending bill. Incidentally, I may say that after very detailed examination by the committee, that bill was referred back to the House with very considerable changes from the original government draft bill. In my view, and I think in the view of members who were on the committee at that time, the bill was considerably improved.
On the matter of tidying up the bill and bringing it into line with twentieth century thinking, I proposed an amendment in the committee which would have involved deleting the present Section 7 of the act. After some discussion in the committee, my amendment was ruled out of order because it was beyond the scope of the amending bill inasmuch as Section 7 of the act was not opened up. As a consequence of that, and because I thought the matter I had tried to deal with was of some importance, I immediately introduced a private member's public bill which in substance sought to accomplish what I failed to accomplish in the committee. That bill appeared on the order paper in a position where it did not come up for debate. I have reintroduced it at each subsequent session since 1970. This is the first occasion when, through good fortune, it has reached a position on the order paper which gives me an opportunity to actually discuss it on second reading.
What does my bill propose to do? It deals with the matter of the licensing of fishermen in the commercial fishing industry. It seeks to eliminate what I consider to be a very archaic piece of wording in the present Fisheries Act. I am going to quote Section 7 of the act which I seek to delete. It reads:
The Minister may, in his absolute discretion,. . . issue . . . leases and licences for ... fishing,-

May 8, 1973
Fishing Licences
I do not know of any other piece of legislation which has that phrase in respect of conferring powers on a minister. To say that a minister in his absolute discretion may do something, in my view puts him beyond the normal reach of the control of the governor in council. It puts him beyond the normal reach of parliament and sets up a situation which is ideal for a dictatorial type of administration. That was my reasoning in 1970 when I tried to move this amendment in committee and it remains my reasoning to this day. Indeed, I feel that the events which have taken place since 1970 in the field of the administration of fisheries, with particular reference to this matter of fishing licences for commercial fishermen, have borne out the correctness of my argument at that time. The minister and his agents should not have complete discretionary power which is not spelled out by regulation. People should know where they stand. They should know what the rules are and they should at least know those rules cannot be changed without proper action by at least the governor in council. It is a field where regulatory authority is quite necessary and proper.
In the standing committee, I had this to say when I was arguing for my amendment. I quote:
Mr. Chairman, I think it should be obvious that the purport of my amendment is to create a situation where changes to licensing of fishermen or the issuance of leases can only be made under the authority of regulations passed by the Governor in Council. It does seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that an act which says that the Minister may, in his absolute discretion do something is really out of line with our understanding of our modern concept of the rule of law. Indeed, it strikes me that it is somewhat related to the concept of the divine right of kings and one would say shades of James I. I am sure the Minister is quite aware that this arises out of a situation that has developed in the last year or so on the Pacific Coast of Canada. The Minister has been changing the regulations as they affect salmon fishermen on the Pacific Coast by press releases. Quite apart from the merits or demerits of what the Minister has been doing, it has created a state of confusion. One day we have a proposal that such and such is going to happen under a certain phase of the Minister's program for changing the system of licensing and the next minute we have another press release issued from his office which says, "We are not going to do it quite this way but we are going to do it in this way".
I went on to argue a bit further for consideration of my amendment in the committee. The events that have taken place since that time in relation to the licensing of salmon fishermen on the west coast, the situation which has subsequently developed on the Atlantic coast in relation to the position of the salmon fishermen there and the kind of statements that have been made to me and many others by fishermen, indicate there is a growing disenchantment with the situation. The minister is allowed to exercise this completely dictatorial authority without any guidelines laid down so that a person can see in black and white under what terms and conditions he is or is not entitled to a licence to fish.
I am in agreement with many of the thrusts that the development of policy has taken under the present minister. With regard to some of the emphasis which has been placed on moves toward a new realm of a law of the sea, I give the minister some credit for the fact that Canada appears to be taking a much more vigorous stance than in the early sixties. It may be true that some improvement has taken place in the management of our fisheries and in the husbanding of our marine resources, but it seems to

me there is still lack of recognition of the fact that commercial fishermen are human beings and that they have a right to know where they stand in relation to the industry from which they make their livelihood; they ought not to have their livelihood taken away from them at the whim of the minister or of one of his agents in the field who might not be properly knowledgeable of the extent and purpose of certain aspects of fishery management.
The section of the act to which I have referred provides the minister with that kind of authority. It is an authority which, to the best of my knowledge, no other member of the government possesses. If anyone can cite another statute which contains the phrase that a minister may at his absolute discretion do this or that, I should like to know about it, because I have not been able to find it. That is why I welcome this opportunity to raise the matter formally by way of introducing a bill for second reading, and I hope hon. members will give it the kind of consideration I feel it deserves.
I might say in passing that clause two in my bill is somewhat redundant at the moment, though it was relevant when I originally introduced it. There was an oversight on my part inasmuch as the change I proposed has in fact been made in the Fisheries Act. This is a slight modification of the provision in the act which provides for the making of regulations. I believe that all the questions surrounding the issuing of such licenses should be laid out in black and white by way of regulations, changeable only by the formal action of the Governor in Council, and that the authority contained in this bill provides an adequate basis for rational arrangements to be developed in respect to the issuance of licenses or leases. In effect, the archaic section 7 of the act is redundant, unnecessary and unwarranted in the context of our present-day concept of democracy.


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the Fisheries Act seems, in my opinion, to be a retrograde step in the light of present-day requirements for living resource management and development both of inshore and off-shore fisheries. The issuing of licences still remains one of the most effective instruments available to provide for the development of sound management practices. It is becoming increasingly necessary in the light of the position we are taking at the Law of the Sea Conference and at various international agency meetings. Canada is presently taking the position that we should have control over the whole of the continental shelf surrounding our shores, 200 or 400 miles out, wherever it ends. As a matter of fact we are claiming control over the continental shelf to the end of the continental slope. If we are to retain credibility, not only among the nations of the world but with all sections of the industry within our own nation, we must display an adequate and reasonable measure of control and management of our fish stocks. We are looking ahead toward the management of these living resources on the continental shelves and this will require the introduction of new concepts in licence control.
Our renewable resources are among the most valuable we possess. Non-renewable resources have been disappear-
May 8, 1973

ing, but our renewable resources constitute a wealth upon which we can rely for many years to come and it thus behooves us to bring in measures for sound management control. We can only do this properly if fish stocks are wisely managed and protected. It is true to say that research into the fishery is more difficult than research into certain other aspects of our natural resources. For example, it is easy to see what is above the ground. It is easier to conduct research involving forestry or mining, as I think most scientists will agree, than it is to determine exactly what is happening beneath the surface of the sea. This is a further reason why more emphasis is placed on licensing.
Legislative jurisdiction over the fisheries of Canada is a federal responsibility under the terms of the British North America Act. This jurisdiction goes back from the Canadian parliament to the British parliament, because the resources of the sea are used not only by the host nation but by other nations of the world. Let me stress that the host nation, or the nation which possesses the resource off its shores must have control over the stocks and must have a preferential right in the fishery. It is for this reason we must ensure that licensing procedures are satisfactory. At the present time, under constitutional law, the federal parliament has exclusive legislative authority over the fisheries. This authority is exercised by the government in co-operation with the provinces, and in many provinces the regulations set out by the federal government are administered locally.
I indicated earlier the benefits which could result from sound management programs and I referred to licensing in this context, but such beneficial results, financial and otherwise, cannot be achieved unless the methodology of sound management is complete. Let me give hon. members an example. Our fishery stocks, because of the possibility of over-exploitation, demand very close monitoring in order to meet national and international commitments. Because of the tremendous strides made in fishing technology, it is quite possible for entire year classes of herring or salmon to be completely annihilated by a few non-conservation-minded fishermen who decide to disregard previously established quotas or fishing times. Most fishermen, I might add, respect the quotas and respect the regulations.
In my own province, most of the fishermen do not need to be told what the law is, or what the regulations are. Like others who live close to the sea, or to the soil, they are naturally conservationists; they do not really need to be regulated. On the other hand, there are some who do, and the threat of a rapid decline of stocks is so great that unless there is a control we can exercise at a moment's notice it may be too late. It might be said we should go through the process of appeal to the courts, or take action through committees. It may be too late to wait for that. We must have control that we can exercise quite speedily in order to ensure that stocks are not rapidly depleted.
If we were obliged to resort to long drawn out procedures we would, in effect, be doing nothing more than practising management on a retroactive basis. As I said before, we must ensure that we have that protection, that policing and licensing capability, the capability of taking
Fishing Licences
away a licence if something goes wrong in order to retain our credibility both with other fishing nations of the world as well as with the industry in this country. We are becoming more and more concerned with scientific management principles for many species, and the authority to issue leases and licences should not be restricted in any way. It is possible for a species to be decimated to the point of no return; therefore, the retention of section 7 is important.
The authority to issue licences provides a readily available and relatively simple control measure to regulate the size of the fishing fleet by regulating unit effort. It gives us the ability to control the entry of vessels and to control quotas and seasons. Licensing has also improved our awareness of the condition of the fishing fleet and the statistical information which forms a basic part for a sound management policy.
In addition to having and exercising control over our stocks, through licensing we can obtain additional information which helps us to employ sound management procedures. I have alluded to the other important aspects of licensing policy-that is, to regulate and control the entry of vessels, quotas and seasons, and to gather statistics so that we may be better informed and may modify our policies in light of the statistics we gather.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, there are now a number of restricted fisheries and, of necessity, there may be more in the future. The control of licensing is basic to the control of a restricted fishery. It is a simple, effective and readily adoptable method of regulating. No one wants to bring in these restrictions, but everyone will agree that you can only fish a resource to a certain point. There is a point of no return. There is a point where you deplete your resource so that it is no longer renewable. This is why we must have quotas.
From talking to people in my riding, people who have thought this thing out-and most of them do-I know they agree that there have to be quotas; they understand the reasons for them. Nobody likes them, particularly the people in my province, since for years they have become used to the freedom of access they have had to a number of renewable resources. For example, men might fish during the summertime a number of different species, as many of them still do, and then go into the woods in the wintertime to do some hunting or even to become loggers. They engage in a number of aspects of the exploitation of renewable resources, but I think all of them realize quotas have to be set and that licensing must be retained for this purpose.
The use of various types of gear is controllable by licensing. We issue licences for mesh size, for types of net, for total length of nets, for seasons, for seines, for trawls, for species, for areas and for many other reasons. The importance of licensing cannot be stressed too much, and it will be used increasingly in coming years as a control measure.
The conditions under which leases and licences are granted are continually changing. In this connection the fishing public demand immediate action. I made the point briefly previously that we should get to the stage where, if the law is broken, action must be taken right away. Or if we come across a similar situation to that which existed in

May 8, 1973
Fishing Licences
Placentia Bay, Newfoundland, a while ago, where we had high mercury or phosphorous content in the water, action must be taken right away to make sure the resource is protected from pollution of the environment. In this regard, it is very important that we have the proper licensing procedures to put a stop to serious situations such as these.
Let me for a moment visualize a situation where the Minister of Fisheries does not have the absolute authority to grant licences. I think that such a situation would place the minister in a very difficult position whenever occasion arose to cancel licences for flagrant infractions. I have previously discussed many such cases. The minister must be able to face a situation head on.
I am confident of the desirability of these policies in view of over-harvesting and the need to place the fishery in the hands of the real and genuine fishermen who depend on the fishery as a main source of livelihood. These measures have been effective and on the whole have been well received by the people whose main source of income is derived from fishing. Without the exclusive authority provided in section 7 of the Fisheries Act, these restrictive programs would not be sufficiently effective.
This amendment would raise doubt as to who exactly had the authority to grant licences. For example, if the minister is not to have authority, where would the authority lie? The bill proposes it revert to the Governor in Council. Does this mean, in effect, that cabinet would deal with licensing? Or does it mean the House of Commons would? Does it mean that a section of the department would issue licences? I think it is important that we know who does have authority, and that we know that this person can exercise the authority at a moment's notice if a serious situation requiring action were to develop.
With regard to revoking the authority to issue licences as provided in section 7, the proposed new paragraph (g) does not make it clear that anyone can issue licences. It seems to presuppose that someone can issue them, and indicates that the Governor in Council is empowered to deal in a general way with the terms and conditions under which licences and leases may be issued, without enabling the Governor in Council either to issue licences or to prescribe their actual terms and conditions. I do not think that ministerial discretion can be equated with arbitrary or unreasonable action, and the present paragraphs (f) and (g) appear adequate. A function as basic and general as the issuing of licences should not be left to regulation; its proper place is in the statute.
I agree that there should be some appeal procedures. I think people must have the right to appeal, and appeal committees have been set up already for certain species. Possibly they should be set up for other species as well. If a person loses his licence, he should have the right to appeal that loss and to justify his case. But we must be sure where authority lies and ensure that speedy action is taken if that is necessary.
There are a number of examples of where to illustrate the necessity for that authority in the past. I do not want to go into them at this time but I do think that if the authority were taken away from the minister this would be a restrictive step rather than a forward step. We have also seen that licensing has enabled us adequately to set
[Mr. Rompkey.j
regulations relating to vessels that are used to catch various species of fish. Nowadays, with the development of a multipurpose vessel, with men moving from lobsters to scallops to groundfish, there is still a large percentage following the historical and traditional way of life. It therefore became apparent that a restrictive-type policy would be a step forward towards harmonious development. A licensing program based on the authority invested by section 7 of the Fisheries Act was therefore introduced whereby vessels which had fished in excess of 100 traps became category "A" and could fish up to the maximum of 400. Vessels which had fished 100 traps or fewer became category "B" and could not fish more traps than previously. If a vessel had fished only 75 traps, not more than that number could be fished.
It was necessary to select the trap criterion because catch statistics were not available in the required precision. The catches may be sold over the rail, buyers may move amongst the fleet. We are moving toward a more realistic criterion based on catch value, but for the time being the described classification will prevail. Only category "A" vessels can be replaced or sold. Category "B" vessel licences are non-transferrable. When the present owner ceases fishing, the licence is gone except in the most extenuating circumstances to be determined by a review committee. Based on a licence control program for conservation reasons, a freeze was placed in 1970 on all herring fishing units with the exception of gillnets on the Atlantic coast. The policy stipulated that only those units such as purse seiners, weirs, traps, bar seines and midwater trawlers which fished in 1968 or 1969 would be licensed. Replacements can be made on a ton for ton basis with more extensive restriction in the Bay of Fundy area where overfishing became evident. There is inherent in this licensing policy a provision for entry into the fishery of additional units in all areas except in the Bay of Fundy where it can be clearly proven that herring are being produced for food and not for reduction purposes. The policy also provides for taking into consideration the status of the stocks.
To sum up my key points, I think modern fisheries resource management is based on quotas, restrictions of unit effort, area closures and gear restrictions. Decisions very often have to be made quickly, even on a day to day basis. To restrict the authority to implement management decisions by deleting provisions for licence control that now exist would serve to reduce and seriously impair the effectiveness of our management policies.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make on this rather interesting bill that is before us. The question of licensing, of course, applies to any resource or privilege which is nationally owned and is not possessed as a matter of ownership by an individual. A farmer, for example, owns the land on which he carries on his operation. He is free, within limitations, to do whatever he likes because it is his property. However, in the realm of publicly owned benefits or assets which belong to the state in general, of course some system of licensing must be designed in order to determine how the resource or benefit shall be exploited. This is the reason it is
May 8, 1973

necessary to have licences allowing people to establish television and radio broadcasting stations. Only a limited number of people may exploit this resource or privilege which is owned by the state in general.
In the same way, the fisheries belong to the nation as a whole. Therefore, it is logical and indeed necessary in the present day that those who exploit this common resource should be licensed so that it may be determined to what extent and under what conditions certain individuals will have that privilege which in theory belongs to every citizen of the state. This, of course, is done through government.
If I understand the intent of the hon. member's bill, it has nothing to do with the abolition or the reduction of the necessity for licensing of the fisheries, because in this way and in this way only can exploitation of the fishery resource be carried on in a reasonable and beneficial way not only for the benefit of the people engaged in it but for the general benefit of the nation. Therefore, if my interpretation of the hon. member's purpose is correct, much of what the parliamentary secretary said is beside the point. I think what the hon. member who introduced the bill is attempting to do is not to reduce, restrict or abolish the issuance of licences or leases but, rather, to determine by regulation the conditions, the classes of people and the circumstances under which licences will be issued or cancelled. In other words, there would be a general framework in which the minister is required to operate when issuing licences. The explanatory note of the bill reads:
The purpose of this bill is to provide that leases and licences for a fishery or fishing shall be issued by the minister only on terms and conditions previously prescribed by regulations made by the governor in council and not in his absolute discretion as presently provided.
The section of the present act to which the hon. member takes exception is section 7. Section 9 of the act reads as follows:
The minister may cancel any lease or licence issued under the authority of this act, if he has ascertained that the operations under such licence were not conducted in conformity with its provisions.
This is a subsidiary authority given the minister to cancel licences which is almost as arbitrary as his authority to issue them, although he can cancel them only for cause. This brings me to a point which is of particular interest to lobster fishermen on the east coast where, I think due to the probably unnecessary arbitrary authority vested in the minister, the lobster fishermen have appealed to the minister and have asked him to cancel licences where regulations have been broken. This is a request which came from the fishermen. In those terms it is a very sensible and admirable request, because nobody should have the privilege of holding a licence unless he is prepared to live by the regulations. However, I think the application of the method of applying the subsidiary penalty for breaking a fisheries' regulation was not thought through sufficiently. I have reference to the breaking of a regulation, for which a fishermen is taken to court and fined under the standard system of justice which we all enjoy. This is fine.
However, we also have the additional penalty by which a fishermen forfeits his licence for a given period. I think this has been brought about because, due to economic
Fishing Licences
conditions, it was felt that the fines and penalties imposed by the courts were not adequate to deter the breaking of the law. I am all for clamping down on illegal fishing of any kind, so long as it is done justly and so long as the penalty fits the crime. But we have a situation involving a number of anomalies which I believe affects unjustly some individuals.
I might take the extreme case of a person who owns or acquires a few lobster traps but has no licence. He is an out-and-out poacher. He decides to catch lobsters. This also applies to skindivers who go out and catch lobsters while skindiving. If these people are caught, they are fined. They receive the usual penalty and that is the end of it because they have no licence to be cancelled. However, the situation is different in respect of the fisherman who tries to abide by the law, and most of them do. I might say there is a possibility of error if a person is out on a stormy day attempting to measure a lobster to see whether it is inside or outside the allowable size. Toward the end of the season it must be remembered-at least this is the case in my constituency-the majority of the lobsters are undersized and the fisherman has to throw them overboard. Sometimes he may make an error.
I should like to mention a case in my constituency. Last year a fishermen had a catch of 160 pounds. Fishermen are allowed 10 undersized lobsters for each 100 pounds of catch, but in this case the fishermen had a catch of 160 pounds which under the regulations would allow him to take a maximum of 16 undersized lobsters. It so happened that he had 19. He was taken into court and he pleaded guilty. This year he found that his licence was suspended for two weeks, which amounts to a quarter of the season. In my area this represents perhaps as much as 50 per cent of the catch and it means an economic penalty of around $3,000 on this individual for having three undersized lobsters too many.
It seems to me that the granting and suspension of licences is a very blunt instrument when used in that way. I agree with the parliamentary secretary that there should be some sort of local board which can give advice to the minister as to whether a licence should be suspended. When you have a lobster fisherman who is an unregenerate breaker of the regulations and who gets caught, you find that nobody has any sympathy for him. The feeling is that he had it coming to him. But when minor or borderline infractions of the law take place and it is a first offence, the suspension of a licence for an arbitrary two-week period is unjust.
I might add that in addition to his licence being suspended, the livelihood of his helper is taken away from him, a person who in all likelihood had no direct involvement in the infraction. I cite that case as a borderline case where I think the penalty was much too severe. It is over and above the ordinary penalty under the law, and one from which there is no effective appeal.
In this regard I have a great deal of sympathy for what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) has suggested, namely, the creation of a framework or some sort of terms of reference which should be adhered to in the granting, suspending or cancellation of licences of

May 8, 1973
Fishing Licences
fishermen. It seems to me that the granting of a licence to a fishermen is a privilege. It should be done in conformity with national interests in the broad sense and the protection of the resource; in fact, all the things to which the parliamentary secretary referred. Certainly the granting of licences must meet all these requirements in the public interest.
However, I think that what the hon. member is suggesting has merit. He is trying to ensure that situations where injustices are unintentionally perpetrated do not occur. I know that these things are done with the best intentions in the world, and I am not being critical of what the Department of Fisheries is trying to do. I am referring to unintended, but unreasonable punitive penalties imposed upon first offenders in borderline cases. Although the bill of the hon. member may be deficient and imperfect in many ways, I think that what he is trying to do has some merit.


Mr. G. A. Percy Smith (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) for bringing Bill C-23 before the House. I believe it has a lot to recommend it. My understanding of the bill is the same as that of the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), namely, that its intention is not in any way to decrease the necessity for careful management of this renewable resource or of conservation measures which we all agree must be strictly enforced, but to give more certainty to fishermen who prepare for the fishing season, probably at great expense, and who perhaps a few weeks before the season starts find that their licences are not issued for some reason.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni also objected to the minister having absolute discretion is this matter. He feels it would be better if regulations were made by order in council. The argument in the bill seems to boil down to allowing greater flexibility in the enforcement of regulations. If the decision were to be strictly up to the minister, this would be less cumbersome. However, I would point out that so far as I know, certain authority and discretion rests with the regional director of the Department of Fisheries to alter fishing season-to close the fishing season, in other words-when an emergency occurs such as the pollution of a river as a result of a spill, a flood or some other unexpected condition.
I know that this authority was exercised recently on the Miramichi River, in connection with the salmon fishing season, by the regional director of the Department of Fisheries in Halifax. In fact, it was exercised to the extent that he altered the season by two weeks. It had the effect of pretty well cutting the salmon fishing season in half. In spite of the fact that the regional office has used this authority, I contend that it was wrongly used in that case in 1971, and there is enough flexibility in the regulations under which regional offices operate in cases of sudden emergency.
Perhaps the question of seasons should have been included in this bill because it is closely related to the question of licensing. It is useless for a fisherman to obtain a licence, either from the Minister of Fisheries or through the authority of the governor in council, if some-

body else has the authority to cut the season or eliminate it altogether. Therefore the bill might have included some reference to seasons.
I think we all realize that in this very large country where there is an important fishery on the west coast, a very important fishery on the east coast, and the inland fisheries, there are too many details with respect to licensing and seasons for one minister to give them all his personal attention. If these matters were handled by order in council, other ministers of the Crown would be involved, possibly including ministers from the areas in question. In essence, I suppose this is an argument in favour of the bill.
If the minister undertakes licensing, as the present act says, at his "absolute discretion" he must rely on his own department; therefore he would rely on the regional office which has responsibility for the waters in question. I have had some experience with the Atlantic regional office in Halifax and I must say I would hate to leave the matter entirely in their hands. If the minister is unable personally to oversee these matters, then automatically it devolves upon him to look to his regional offices for advice on licensing and seasons.
I have given one example of where the regional office in Halifax cut the salmon season practically in half, apparently without any reference to the minister or to anyone else. I could give many more examples. Going back to the question of licensing, I can cite the present situation on the east coast where there is a commercial salmon fishing ban. About a year prior to the announcement of the ban, a policy statement was issued by the minister restricting licences and transfers of salmon fishing licences. It provided that to be a bona fide salmon fisherman or to obtain a salmon fishing licence you must not be engaged in any other industry, or not have a steady job in any other industry.
Many licences were cancelled as a result of this directive. However, in order to relieve hardship in certain cases the minister did agree that anyone, even though employed steadily, who was receiving a very small annual salary would not be considered to be steadily employed and therefore would be permitted to continue to hold a salmon licence. To deal with people who appealed on this basis he set up a licence review committee in the Atlantic provinces. It consisted of somebody from the Department of Fisheries, somebody representing fishermen and a third, independent citizen.
On the Miramichi, this committee set up by the minister to relieve hardship did in fact give relief in 13 cases. But the departmental officials from Halifax objected to the action of the licence review committee and, presumably, advised the minister. The result was that the minister upset the ruling of his own committee in nine out of the 13 cases. To me this is a matter of great regret. I only raise the matter to point out the insensitivity of regional offices, on the one hand, to the fishermen and apparently, on the other hand, to the wishes of the minister himself. So I would have to agree with and support the bill unless there is some way in which the minister can better control the actions of his regional directors and regional offices. I could give another example, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Miller Bell: Six o'clock.

May 8, 1973
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the Chair, until eight o'clock. I hope you will enjoy your dinner.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-176, to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock, I was commenting Bill C-176, and particularly clause 178.12 which reads as follows:
An application for an authorization shall be made ex parte and in writing to a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction..or an agent specially designated in writing for the purposes of this section . ..
What puzzles me, Mr. Speaker, is that we are still on second reading, and I suppose it will be possible to make amendments or clarifications to this bill, which is certainly in a good cause at face value, that being the protection of the individual's privacy. However, when we take the bill clause by clause, we see that its definitions are too comprehensive and not specific enough. Clause 178.12 a) says:
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
And it says below that this can be done by a provincial Attorney General or by an agent.
The bill does not tell us who the agent will be,-and I should not like to draw any false conclusions-but I think it would be unfortunate to see some provinces appointing a political organizer of any sort.
Certain individuals will be authorized to install bugging and wire-tapping devices; if the agents are officials who, in some provinces, may be political organizers, this could lead to serious abuses and have even more dire consequences for individual privacy.
Mr. Speaker, clause 178.15 (1) also deserves our attention. This is another section that could lead to abuses. Clause 178.15 (3) says that it will be permitted to investigate for 36 hours before obtaining an authorization. It
Protection of Privacy
would be unfortunate to have people investigating, using electronic eavesdropping devices for 36 hours before obtaining authorization to install these devices. The legislation gives to anyone who has to use wiretapping 36 hours to get his permit or a writ from a judge, an attorney general, a substitute or an agent that we don't know yet; a citizen will be pestered for 36 hours before the person concerned may obtain a proper licence. I think that this is giving the legislation too much leeway and this might still result in most serious abuses.
On page 10, clause 178.18 (2), one may read about the exceptions:
(a) a police officer or police constable in possession of a device or component described in subsection (1) in the course of his employment;
Mr. Speaker, this bill is extremely serious; an authorization is given to all police officers in Canada. I would like to trust our police officers, but I think that the bill is too comprehensive and that we will unfortunately witness some breaches of confidence. Indeed, some individuals can enjoy pestering other persons in certain areas for all kinds of reasons. We see that police officers are ipso facto exempted under the legislation; they can, as they see fit, connect tapping devices on telephone lines or elsewhere. I think that this will give rise to much abuse.
The government is also empowered to use those devices or tapping apparatus as are police officers, authorized persons and officials.
I trust the members of the committee will amend this bill which, to my mind, is far too dangerous as it stands: limits must be set. If we do not want the bill to lend itself to abuse, we must amend it in several respects. At the present time, the bill could make spying legal, so to speak.
On the other hand, the bill limits to $5,000 only the punitive damages to be paid to the aggrieved person against whom wiretapping has been used abusively. As I said this afternoon, in every other field, when a person inflicts damages upon someone, in a car accident or otherwise, the law requires that individual to be penalized according to the damages he, in fact, inflicted; this is normal. This respects the spirit of justice. But in the case of wire-tapping, if an individual suffers damages worth $50,000 or $100,000, the legislation will prevent his obtaining damages exceeding $5,000.
In its present form, the bill was designed to protect privacy but actually, unless major amendments are made, it will place all Canadians at the mercy of government searches conducted by public servants. Each Canadian, Mr. Speaker, is entitled to privacy and the bill purports to protect privacy. However, it will allow government violation of privacy and pave the way to the creation of a police state in Canada.
It may be that the sponsors of this bill have no intention of creating a police state, but the bill will open doors and within a year there will be penetration of areas other than that of criminality and it is likely that in future the government, or National Revenue officials, taking advantage of new amendments, will use wire-tapping to achieve their ends.

May 8, 1973
Protection of Privacy
It is against such abuses that we do not want to see, and against the scope of this bill that we are protesting. I wish the government would propose amendments so that, in future, those who want to obtain search warrants or the authority to tap telephone lines would not be led to abuses. If this bill applied only to the field of organized crime and was only intended for the security of the state, we would be satisfied with it. Unfortunately, the people who will be called upon to enforce this act will be facing unlocked doors and we will see abuses such as the ones we deplore at present.
However, I have all confidence in the committee which will be considering this bill again. I hope it will be clarified further in the way suggested by the Police Chiefs Association, and by various other organizations which have at one time considered the previous bill, heard evidence in committee and made quite valuable recommendations. I will not say that the government has tried to bypass the recommendations of the various organizations in Canada, but I believe this is a new opportunity, when the bill comes before the committee, to propose the necessary amendments, in order to ensure maximum freedom to the individual, while allowing the government to use this instrument to control organized crime and to ensure the security of the state, rather than allowing them only to proceed with general searches and allowing officials and other persons exempted from the provisions of this bill, to make ill use of it.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in a debate that, to judge from the speeches of hon. members who have already participated, is of significant value to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). I believe this type of issue is not partisan and the government is not so committed to its position that it will not show a degree of latitude in listening to, I will not say criticisms but constructive suggestions from members of all parties, including the government party. This debate will allow the minister to take a second look at the legislation. This measure has been before parliament on a number of occasions over a number of years; therefore we can end up with a very good piece of legislation that will be of use and benefit to the government and country in the days ahead.
First let me say that merely because we shall pass this bill in whatever form it may finally take does not mean that the law will provide real protection to the people of this nation. It will not protect us unless the government sees that the law is carried out completely and in every sense in the form in which it is passed. Provisions which allow for latitude in the use of wiretapping equipment in certain circumstances, or in the use of equipment that can reproduce sound, must be at all times implemented in the strictest sense so that those authorized to give permission for the carrying out of any form of surveillance which intrudes upon the privacy of any individual will provide to the public the greatest degree of protection possible.
There are a number of general things I wish to say. At present, in North America and throughout the free world, as a result of the Watergate scandal in the United States

we find ourselves in an environment in which we can fully appreciate the terrible consequences of misuse of the type of technology that is available today for invading the privacy of the individual. As Canadians we ought to be aware that it really does not make much difference if there are laws preventing the use of complicated computerized methods of invading privacy. If people and governments are determined to use these devices to invade the privacy of individuals, then the privacy of individuals will be invaded.
It is therefore the great responsibility of the Minister of Justice, whoever he may be, and of the Solicitor General, because he has control over and responsibility for most of the sources of producing information that may be required by the state in certain circumstances, to see that the right to privacy of the individual is guarded just as jealously as is humanly possible. I think that is the first lesson that we as Canadians must learn. Merely because laws are passed does not mean that those laws will be obeyed.
The second thing we must consider, and here we must depend to a great degree on the Minister of Justice, whoever he may be at the pertinent time, is that although the security of the state may be more important than the freedom of the individual, the Minister of Justice will need to be very careful in making sure that the security of the state is really endangered; in other words, he must be certain that it is endangered before contemplating action which will allow invasion of the privacy of the individual to take place. We, as Members of Parliament, must be careful that we do not allow in this legislation any degree of latitude to the Minister of Justice under which he might use his powers against an individual or group of individuals under the guise that he is doing so to protect the security of the state.
Also, in a parliament such as this we must be very concerned about the fact that there can be complication in the mind of the party in office in a minority government where the security of the state is mixed up with the security of the party which happens to form the government of the day. I especially want to emphasize this fact. The government of this day, the government of this country since 1968 has been, and has a record of being, a very secretive government. It has been very concerned about retaining as much information as possible about itself and making available to the public as little as possible of such information.
The government's jealousy about its own actions was one of the main reasons for the proliferation of leaks that occurred during the past two or three years. These leaks gave all Members of Parliament a great deal of concern. If they had happened too often and at too great a rate, there would have been a breakdown in the system of government as we know it and in the system of secrecy that must be expected from public servants, especially those who hold the highest offices in this country and who at all times should be subservient to the elected members of the cabinet or the executive who run this country.
I believe that Members of Parliament have shown real appreciation of what this legislation means. They have indicated real appreciation of what we should do to pro-
May 8, 1973	________________COMMONS DEBATES________________________3537
tect the right to privacy of the individual as well as what the security of the state means. As the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) pointed out in his speech, by initiating the constructive suggestions our party has made with regard to this legislation the people of Canada would have a right to know that is every bit as important as the right of the government to protect the security of the state.
There have not been many occasions when the present government and its predecessors have been willing to take the people of this country into their confidence and tell them what is happening. All too often we wrap up anything that appears to be the least bit political, anything that appears to have the least bit of political implication associated with it, no matter whether the public should know about it or not. We wrap it up and stamp it as classified, secret or top secret so that it can be kept away from the public. If a government becomes too jealous about this sort of thing, public servants are put in the position where they become the conscience of the nation. We do not have any right to put public servants in that position. Unfortunately, when we reach that point there is demoralization within the public service that is bad for any government, as well as for the people of this country.
If by this legislation and the approach the government takes to it there is an indication that we wish to protect the security of the state, protect the freedom of individuals and let the people of this country know what they want to know and should know, there will be an elimination or shrinking of the leaks which occur. There will be a degree of confidence, in the minds of Canadians, about parliament that will be truly beneficial to parliament and the parliamentary system of government.
When the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoke today he said that the type of thing that has happened in the United States associated with the Watergate scandal could not happen in Canada. He should know a good deal more than I do because he was prime minister of this country for a long time. He had to deal with many top secret, security matters. He knows parliament better than anyone else in Canada and he knows what parliaments can do. He said that the Watergate scandal or something akin to it could not happen in Canada. I believe he must be right because I do not think there is a better man to make a judgment on that matter.
I say to the government that when we on this side of the House rise to ask questions which at times seem obnoxious to them, those who sit on the treasury benches should thank God that we have an opposition in this country. If it is an effective opposition, there is no way we will get into the kind of mess that today exists in the United States. That is very important. This is one of the reasons I have always been a strong proponent of a constitutional form of monarchy in this country.
We have a cabinet and an executive that is answerable in the House of Commons five days a week to the elected members who are here to ask questions. At times they may not like our questions. Maybe we ask some questions that get them into trouble. We hope so. However, we ask questions which we hope will show that the government of the day is honest in the efforts it is making on behalf of the Canadian people. That is really important. While we
Protection of Privacy
may be obnoxious, if we keep the government honest, if we eliminate the possibility of things like Watergate, then in the end we wind up with a much better system of government than any other which exists, even if it is not perfect or near perfect.
In recent days we have asked a great many questions of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) about the organization known as the security and research planning group. We have asked these questions, not because we are implying that some great, new spy network is being set up in Canada but in order to find out precisely what this organization is; and we are making these inquiries with a great deal of justification. When the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), who is sitting in the House now, was Solicitor General he enunciated certain aims and objectives for this organization which was known as the research planning group. The organization has now changed its name and has enlarged its scope. If we do not ask questions there is no way of finding out just what its area of responsibility might be. If we do not ask these questions we shall be failing in our duty as an opposition.
While the government appears to get uptight because we are asking these questions, all we are really saying to them is, "Tell the people of Canada what you are doing." As my hon. friend from Fundy-Royal said, Canadians have a right to know. I say that any police organization set up in this country which enlarges its responsibility over a two-year period, changes its name, adds people to its staff and says it will make judgments on classified information and train people for security positions in the organization or in government, is a legitimate target of inquiry.
I do not say there is anything wrong with this organization, but I do say that people have a right to know what it is all about. Yet every time a question is asked on this subject, government spokesmen give the opposition and the people a lot of double-talk, and the minute people hear double-talk they begin to be worried lest there is something going on that the government does not wish them to know about. It is the responsibility of any party in opposition, especially when it comes to the setting up of a new type of police force, to see that the people know everything about that police force, because such a police force might be invading the privacy of Canadians in one way or another.
If it is doing so, the people have a right to know why it is being done. We in the opposition intend to make sure they have all the information which can possibly be secured, regardless of how it is obtained, whether by placing questions on the order paper, through making speeches in the House or by asking questions orally during the question period. It is the right and the duty of all members of the opposition to see that the facts are placed before the people as clearly as possible. Certainly, as a member of the House I intend to see that those facts are made available.
I should like to return now to an aspect to which I referred earlier. It is one thing to pass a law and it is quite another to see that people respect it. If people are to respect the law, then the government has to set an example. The government has to see that for its part the law is

May 8, 1973
Protection of Privacy
carried out to the letter. From this point of view I should like to refer to the legislation which presently stands on the statute books with regard to the trial period for the abolition of capital punishment except in certain specific circumstances. I sat through the debate in the House when this legislation was passed. I had formerly been a reten-tionist, but I accepted what the government was saying and agreed to support the legislation for the five-year trial period which was proposed.
I was deceived, just as every other member of this chamber who supported that legislation in similar circumstances was deceived. The government did not live by the law. It lived by its own conscience. It paid no attention to parliament. It made a mockery of the law because it declined to carry out the terms of the legislation. Since that time there has been a rapid deterioration in all aspects of justice in this country. A question was answered in the House recently in relation to the number of escapes from penal institutions. Here are some statistics in that regard. In 1968 there were 108 escapes, in 1969 there were 174, in 1970 there were 293, in 1971 there were 485, and in 1972 there were 684.
Mr. Speaker, if this continues we shall have more prisoners outside the institutions than in them, and we shall be hiring more guards than there are inmates. As a matter of fact, that is almost the situation at the present time. This is just one example of the way in which all aspects of criminal law have deteriorated. This is because the government, for reasons best known to itself, would not live up to the law which was passed by parliament. Yet they have the outstanding nerve to come here and ask us to continue the five-year trial period in connection with a piece of legislation which was never put into effect in the first place. There are many examples of the deterioration to which I have referred. I believe the right hon. member for Prince Albert was right today when he said to the Solicitor General that we must have a royal commission, an over-all inquiry carried out as soon as possible.
I have in my hand information about an inmate in a penal institution who was sentenced to 18 months for trafficking in a controlled drug. This individual was a correctional officer at a penal institution and was trafficking in a controlled drug in the institution. In other words, he was trafficking in a drug in a most despicable way because he was selling the drug to inmates of a penal institution. He broke his trust as a correctional officer and endangered the lives of all his fellow correctional officers in the institution, as well as many of the inmates. He was sentenced to 18 months, and served only 27 days in jail before he was allowed out to work. We cannot have that kind of justice in this country. We must put justice back on the rails or there will be no justice in Canada.
I do not know whether I have used up all my time, Mr. Speaker, but may I just say this. I believe that the legislation proposed is very important. I believe the House of Commons has approached the legislation in a considered, non-partisan manner in the hope that we will arrive at the best possible legislation dealing with one of the most delicate matters that exists in this or any other nation. I believe the Minister of Justice is the kind of minister who will give every possible consideration to all criticisms that

have been made or that will be made during the committee stage. In the end I think we will have a good statute.
Nevertheless, it will only be as good as the government makes it by honouring the law that is passed. There are many dictatorships in the world with constitutions as fancy as words can produce and granting all kinds of freedoms, whereas in fact no freedom at all exists in the country. After we have put these words together and arrived at the best possible legislation, the Minister of Justice will have the grave responsibility of seeing that the legislation is honoured in every sense of that word.
If that is the case, then there will be protection for the individual in this country. There will be protection for the state and there will be a degree of justice in Canada of which we can be proud. We shall always be able to hold our heads high with legislation such as this under our system of government and we will not be concerned with the kind of international embarrassment which the United States is facing at the present time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) speaks now, he will close the debate.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin my short closing remarks by expressing my appreciation to hon. members of the House for their participation in this debate. If I may do so without presumption, may I also express my appreciation of their analysis of certain key areas of the bill before us which I know will receive further and serious consideration in the committee.
It is true, as the hon. member for Cumberland-Colches-ter North (Mr. Coates) has just said, that much of the approach has been in a non-partisan manner, since certainly members within the same party have not always necessarily agreed upon the exact approach that should be taken. I think this has been typical in the discussion of this matter initially in committee, in the House and in committee last year when the same subject matter, essentially the same bill, was before the House.
The main thrust, the key and central portion of this bill is an attempt to increase the protection of privacy in Canada by making illegal in a general way the use of a whole series of devices, particularly mechanical and electrical devices, that can intercept conversations of people who do not want them to be intercepted. As I see it, this key, central part of the bill has received general support.
I think it is worth noting that the placing in the hands of law enforcement officers, upon whom we depend for the effective operation of this legislation, the power to attempt to control the use of such devices strengthens their position; indeed, we are also making it illegal to have in one's possession or to sell, except in certain limited ways, such devices. This controlling of possession and of sale is one of the effective ways of limiting the availability of these devices in the country, except when those devices are used in an authorized manner.
It has been said by a number of hon. members that making wiretapping or interference with privacy illegal does not by any means completely put us out of the danger that it will continue in an unauthorized and illegal manner. Indeed, it is interesting to note that one or two
May 8, 1973

members commented that it is not the making illegal of such practices that will protect us as parliamentarians, as members of a democratic society, from the use of such devices in the democratic process. I am sure all hon. members would agree that none of us in this House would have tolerated the use of these devices by one of us upon the other, even during the period when there was no illegality. But this would be on the basis of our political ethic rather than on the basis of the law itself. It is that political ethic, that standard of conduct that we have come to expect from members participating in the democratic process which is by far our greatest protection.
A great protection also exists in our democratic process in the quality and the ability of our enforcement officers and in the way in which they go about the business of attempting, on our behalf, to protect us in a general way by maintaining law and order under the direction of the political authority which must take the responsibility for their actions in enforcing the law. I shall say a little more about that later.
My point is that making wiretapping illegal does not necessarily end it entirely. I think it would be a safe prediction to say that those elements engaged in the most serious crimes, the most organized elements of the criminal world, are still apt to make use of such devices even though use of those devices will be illegal. In other words when, in my hypothesis, these people are engaged in criminal activity, they will use these devices notwithstanding this change in the law. Thus, it will be important for our enforcement officers to attempt to come to grips with this problem, and here again we will rely on the quality of our enforcement officers, subject of course, as I say, to the responsibility of the political officers under whom they operate.
For this reason it is extremely important that in the committee we face up to the need to retain for our enforcement officers the ability themselves, in the course of their enforcement duties, to use devices which otherwise are illegal in this country, so that they may have such mechanical devices available to them as will assist them to the highest degree possible in the performance of their duty in the protection of law and order generally and, therefore, the protection of our democratic society. That this bill endeavours to do. It endeavours to do it in a way which retains the political responsibility which requires that applications for any such use by law enforcement officers be on the responsibility of an elected person, either the Solicitor General in the case of federal operations or, in by far the greater number of cases, the provincial attorneys general who have the general obligation of supervising police activity and the enforcement of the criminal law throughout this country.
I emphasize this, because it is not a matter of us as members of the government saying that you can rely in every way, in terms of political responsibility, upon us to do our job as individuals or persons. We are saying that we ought to be able, in this democratic process, in the provinces and in the federal government to rely on the political responsibility of the properly elected officials. I am indebted to the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester
Protection of Privacy
North for having said that that is the key to the proper operation of our system.
We are here saying we must rely upon the political responsibility of the provincial attorneys general for the greater part of the operation of this bill, that is, on the question of how many times and how frequently such applications or uses of these devices are in fact made. We do, of course, include reporting provisions so that we in advance attempt to put into the political process some ability such as may be reasonable and consistent with the use of the devices themselves with the power to control, supervise and see whether or not the devices are being used in a proper way. I will be eager in the committee to consider with members ways to improve and strengthen this ability to ensure that political control is really there in terms of the supervision by the Solicitor General, or by the provincial attorneys general, of the applications for these devices.
We make clear in the bill that these devices are not to be used as standard devices even by our law enforcement officers, but only when other techniques have been tried and failed or are unlikely to succeed. In other words, they are available as a fail-back position. That we do because we think they have obligations associated with them; they are evidence-gatherers which gather evidence beyond the matter that may be at hand in the law enforcement itself. In the bill we suggest a judge. We had initially said a judge of the superior court. The committee, when deliberating last year, added judges of the country court because of the concern that there should be access to judges by the police and by law enforcement agencies when they need quick action by a judge.
Some hon. members have suggested it would be better if we did not have a judge at all and relied totally on the political responsibility. I think it is better, in fact, to have it as we do, with the political responsibility in terms of the application proceeding and then, admittedly, a pro forma check-which may be all it can be in many cases because it is on an ex parte application-on the procedure by a judge. I think that could be helpful. I do not wish to go to any current or neighbouring cases to indicate when or how it could be helpful, but I think it could be and I shall be glad to pursue that matter further with the committee. Members of the opposition have suggested it would be better if a judge were not involved in that situation. Members opposite have suggested it.


Mr. Woolliams:: Not me.


Otto Emil Lang: I am happy to hear the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) say it was not him. Nor, indeed, I think, was it the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) whom I want to thank for his very kind intervention in the debate this afternoon. He attached great importance to the intervention of a judge in this process. He was very critical of the existence in the bill of the emergency permit which could be applied for by and on the responsibility of the Solicitor General or a provincial attorney general alone. So he is clearly on the side of wanting a judge to be involved. I am quite content to discuss that matter further and reach a conclusion in the committee as we try to come forward with the best possible bill.

May 8, 1973
Protection of Privacy
However, I would like to say, in answer to the remarks of the right hon. member for Prince Albert, that emergency permits may be necessary. I could say that generally about the need for the police authorities to use these devices in certain circumstances. There may be cases when it will come to the attention of an enforcement agency that there is apt to be soon some major criminal activity. Let us say, for instance, that it comes to their attention that there is a possibility that a significant shipment of heroin is about to be brought into this country. They may know by whom, but they may not know when. They may want to use a device like this, in such circumstances, quickly to determine the "when" in order to stop the import of the drug with all the terrible effects which can flow therefrom.
It may well be that in certain circumstances a judge is not available in time and that the emergency provisions in section 178.15 of the bill should be used. I draw to the attention of hon. members, again, that here too we have put in a political safeguard, not only that the application must be authorized by someone specifically authorized for the purpose by the Solicitor General, or by an attorney general, but there must also be reports upon the uses of such emergency permits so that they will be open to later examination and questioning about the extent to which they have been used.
What we cannot know at this stage is the extent of organized crime, whether it be related to drugs, kidnapping or hijacking, and whether it be national or international in scope, where our enforcement officers may need to have every mechanical device available to them in support of law and order in our society. It is there that I hope members of the committee will seriously consider the obligation to leave it open for our enforcement officers to have such devices as are ordinarily illegal in this country when it is necessary for them to have them in the course of apprehending or detecting serious criminal activity.
The same principle applies, of course, to the major crimes of sabotage and treason. There has been comment about the exact wording of the section referring to subversive activity. I will be very happy to consider that question with hon. members, and the nature of the words which should be in the section in order to provide adequate scope to deal with situations we cannot now foresee and at the same time properly to protect against the abuse of the use of these devices. There is, of course, still the political responsibility, and there too we can look at the question of whether we can strengthen the way in which political control is available if devices are used in that particular area.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members have generally agreed that the subject matter of this bill is important. It goes now to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I look forward to the resolution there, once again, by hon. members who compose this House of Commons of some of these key issues and the prompt return to the House and passage into law of this very important piece of legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment) moved: that Bill C-131, respecting wildlife in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-131 deals in relatively simple and straightforward terms with a very important subject, the protection and wise management of the wild living resources in this country. We have not had a wildlife act in Canada. We have had several pieces of legislation which have been used to manage our wild living resources reasonably well, but we need more comprehensive legislation to protect endangered species and to permit the federal government to purchase lands and manage the wildlife on those lands in a truly effective manner.
As most hon. members know, the management of most kinds of wildlife is a responsibility of the provincial government. The management of migratory birds is an exception. There is the Migratory Birds Convention Act, for example, which has been used very extensively by the Canada Wildlife Service in order to protect ducks, geese, seagulls, etc. Otherwise, the protection and wise management of wildlife in Canada has either been provincial in nature or as a result of co-operation between the federal government and the provinces, with the federal government frequently providing the research support, equipment, land and management techniques but with provincial law being used almost exclusively-that is, with the exception of the Migratory Birds Convention Act-for the safeguarding of wildlife in general.
Wild living things in many ways may be referred to as our first line of defence against pollution. There are many species of wild living things which are much more vulnerable to toxic substances, exceptional quantities of waste, and so on, than the human animal is, and when we see wildlife being destroyed we get our first inkling that we, as another living species on this planet, may be in trouble. But the protection of wild living things is important for another reason. It must be a determined objective of all levels of government, of all individuals and of all organizations in this country to preserve as much variety in nature as we possibly can. This is one of the several purposes, I would suggest-perhaps the most important purpose-which can be served by a Canada wildlife act such as is envisaged in Bill C-131.
I have mentioned legislation which has been used in the past, such as the Migratory Birds Convention Act. I could also have mentioned the Financial Administration Act. In fact, lands have been purchased, usually outright, by the federal government, or wildlife habitat sometimes have been gifted to the federal government, sometimes pur-
May 8, 1973

chased by the provinces or purchased co-operatively by the federal government and the provinces. But in the cases where the federal government has purchased these lands, under existing legislation it has not had the power, for example, to forbid private individuals entrance to those lands and obviously to protect certain species, particularly protect those which are now relatively scarce. It is essential, at least at times, to in effect insulate these lands from human activity or guard it from undue exploitation by curious visitors. This shortcoming, this inability under the federal law at least to properly manage lands will be overcome by the passage of this legislation.
There is another important aspect. It is important, I believe, from both the parliamentary point of view and the budgetary point of view. It is preferable to use legislation passed explicitly by this House, such as the Canada wildlife act, in order to defend the raising and spending of public moneys, rather than to use a more general piece of legislation such as the Financial Administration Act. In other words, parliament, should it pass Bill C-131, will give proper, full and explicit authority to the government of the day to spend moneys on, for example, research or demonstration projects, for the purchase of lands upon which wildlife can live and be protected, in which indeed it can be managed an 1 the populations expanded. In other words, the passage of this bill will give us a clear mandate from parliament to do a number of things which have been done under other legislation, and certain things which we have been unable to do under legislation passed previously.
I have mentioned the jurisdictional problem in many cases in respect of many species of wildlife, which is that the provincial power is paramount. However, provincial administrations usually rely on the Canadian Wildlife Service for advice and frequently look to the federal treasury for financial assistance. They often look to Ottawa for funds for the purchase of lands, not only for the management of bird life including migratory birds but animals and other kinds of wildlife as well.
The provinces are convinced that explicit support from parliament for legislation of this type, legislation which I hope will make additional funds available for the protection of wildlife, is highly desirable. There has been a history of not only co-operation, but in the last decade advocacy on the part of the provinces of a wildlife act at the federal level. Of course, many kinds of wildlife are interrelated in the normal ecological scheme of things. To manage one species in isolation is usually impossible, and of course for this reason a divided jurisdiction between Ottawa and the provinces has been awkward.
X10)
Beginning in 1961 at the Resources for Tomorrow Conference, a resolution was passed by the representatives of all levels of government recommending legislation of this kind. The Canadian Council of Resource Ministers in 1965 passed a resolution to the same effect. The bill now before hon. members has been discussed at length with all the provincial administrations responsible for recreation, conversation and protection of wildlife and is endorsed by all ten provincial administrations.
Protection of Wildlife
Essentially, this is a bill which, while it permits us to do certain things unilaterally in respect of migratory birds, generally envisages close co-operation with the provinces and in respect to other kinds of wildlife requires the federal government to consult closely with the provinces, and in many instances, unless there is a clear national involvement or concern, to obtain a positive recommendation from the provinces before, for example, buying land on which the management of wildlife can take place, land which is essential for the protection and preservation of a particular species.
There are four major aspects to the bill. The legislation will enable the federal government, (1) to acquire, control and manage lands for migratory bird conservation, interpretation and research. That is a federal responsibility. It will enable the federal government, (2) to acquire, control and manage lands for conservation and interpretation of and research on wildlife species other than migratory birds in co-operation with provincial and territorial governments.
It will enable the federal government, (3) to enter into co-operative arrangements with any province, territory, organization or person for matters of wildlife conservation, interpretation and research, and for the operation of lands and facilities related to wildlife resources, and (4) it will enable it to take any necessary action, in co-operation with provincial and territorial governments, required to protect endangered species of wildlife.
There are a number of species of wild living things in this great half continent of ours which are in serious difficulties. They have been wiped out over large parts of Canada. They include the cougar, the peregrine falcon and the bald eagle in the eastern half of the country, and the California big horn sheep, the whooping crane and the sea otter in the west. The latter which had been wiped out is now, hopefully, being re-established there. The survival of these species in this country is in many ways a matter of national concern and perhaps even a matter of continental and worldwide concern. That is one further reason for including a clause in this bill which relates to endangered species.
The Canadian Wildlife Service has performed many functions, has carried out a great deal of research and has done a great deal of work rehabilitating endangered species. For example, much of the pioneer work in respect of mercury was done by the Canadian Wildlife Service. It was picked up later by the federal fisheries service. The pioneer work done by the Canadian Wildlife Service had a lot to do with heading off a serious mercury problem, both in Canada and in the United States. Not only has the Canadian Wildlife Service carried out a great deal of research but it has published a great deal of informative material. Its personnel are well known. Many of them have international reputations. They have been responsible for a lot of the basic material which has been presented to the public through the media, television and otherwise. This is one of the reason why Canadians, relatively speaking, are well informed about wildlife in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer more specifically to the responsibilities of the Canadian Wildlife Service. With the passage of this legislation it will have control of all
3542

May 8, 1973
Protection of Wildlife
wildlife on public lands which have been purchased by or assigned to the government in general and the Department of the Environment in particular. At the request of other federal departments or agencies, the Canadian Wildlife Service will take charge of wildlife research, provide advice, establish facilities, and so on. The wildlife service will continue to act in an advisory capacity to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on the national parks, and more particularly will continue in its provincial-type responsibilities in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon.
Nothing in this legislation should be taken as restricting the rights of our Indian people except on those lands acquired by or assigned to the department by the governor in council. At the request of the Indian people, the Department of the Environment will continue to provide advice and assistance in developing and implementing measures for the wise use of wildlife resources on Indian lands.
Mr. Speaker, this is a short bill. It is a very important bill. I hope it will soon be referred to the standing committee. I know that hon. members will be very interested in many aspects of the Canadian Wildlife Service, in its plans for expansion and indeed in related plans of provincial departments and provincial administrations, plans which are often based on the findings and recommendations of the Canadian Wildlife Service. Our people in the department must be congratulated for the leadership they have shown in this very important field. I trust that this legislation will be passed promptly, because we at the federal level should be showing more leadership in this very important field.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Before the minister concludes his remarks, would he permit me to ask him one question? Could he say a word on the application of this legislation to lands under the administration of the national parks service in respect of the national wildlife resources within the national parks of Canada? So far as I could follow his remarks, he made no reference to that matter in dealing with the various ramifications of this bill with respect to provincial and other agencies.


John (Jack) Davis: As long as national parks remain under another department, as is the current arrangement under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the direct line of responsibility for management must rest with the parks branch and that department. The Canadian Wildlife Service of the Department of the Environment acts in a consultative or advisory role. The opinion of its experts is always sought in respect of scientific aspects of wildlife preservation and management.
In a sense, the territories and the Yukon administrations are in the same position as provincial governments, where the direct responsibility over species of wildlife and migratory birds rests with the provincial type of administration which we have in the Yukon and the territories.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members appreciate the thinking that has evolved over the years on the question of wildlife, its preservation and relationship to humanity and the web of life. Generally speaking, I believe the House welcomes Bill C-131

which gives a formal federal presence in this very important field of the preservation of endangered species and the control and management of our wildlife resources. I think it is exactly the same as Bill C-191 which was introduced last year and which died on the order paper, but we welcome its reappearance.
As the minister says, the main purpose of the bill is to enable the federal government to carry on what it has been doing under legislation, in a coherent manner with the co-operation of the provinces where that is essential. As the minister said, the care and preservation of wildlife lies primarily within provincial jurisdiction with the exception of migratory birds. In general, the bill is praiseworthy but it needs to be studied in the committee where suitable witnesses can be heard and where the purposes and the methods envisaged can be more carefully explained.
In the past there has been a lack of realization that humanity itself is part of the web of life. Throughout the world in general, even in Canada, we have been experiencing a population explosion of the human species. The balance of nature, if you like, has been upset and the detrimental effect of this imbalance on other species has been accentuated by the fact that the human species is by far the most destructive of the general environment of every species of life there is on this planet, earth.
The destruction of the environment by humans, of course, not only affects humanity's prospects in the future and the quality of life which will be available to it, but it affects other species as well. If any other species suffer extinction this, of course, is detrimental to the quality of life which is available to man. For example, in many areas of the country where certain species of wildlife formerly existed they are no longer found. I think we should not be satisfied with the objective of preventing the extinction in the whole country of the species, but where practical a habitat should be maintained for as many species as possible in as widespread an area of the country as possible.
In my little province of Prince Edward Island many species that were indigenous to the area have been extinct for perhaps a century, such as black bears, bobcats, etc. Unfortunately, in some cases they have been replaced by species introduced by man which are less desirable, such as skunks and racoons which were not native to Prince Edward Island to begin with.
It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to take much time on this bill because I think the House generally approves of it. I want to commend the minister on the concept of dealing with the provinces in the case of endangered species. As he said, some species that were unique to Canada have been exterminated-the type of walrus that existed in the Gulf of St. Lawrence at one time, for example, and various types of flightless birds which existed in Newfoundland, and there are endangered species such as the Ipswich sparrow whose only habitat is Sable Island.
It is important to preserve these species unique to Canada, but it is also important to preserve species which are endangered in Canada but which may exist in other places and to try to retain species in danger of becoming extinct in some parts of the country where their continuation might be practical. I must confess that I had a special
May 8, 1973

thrill four or five years ago, if I may use a personal incident, when I went for a walk in the woods in winter and found the track of an otter. This mammal was thought to be extinct in Prince Edward Island for many, many years but apparently there are a few survivors.
I think it is sad for Canada when we find that there are fewer whooping cranes, for example, in the whole country than there are Liberals in the House of Commons! I think that is unfortunate, if I may mix metaphors on both scores.


John (Jack) Davis: It sounds like an argument for more Liberals.


John Angus MacLean: No; for more whooping cranes. I want to say a few words about migratory birds. It has long been recognized that due to their habit, migratory birds are the special responsibility of the federal government and come under the international treaty on migratory birds. In the first instance, migratory birds were thought of chiefly as game birds. Then, of course, concern for birds which had little economic value, such as the whooping crane, came into the concept.
However, I think that as far as the future quality of life in many parts of the country is concerned, more consideration should be given to other types of migratory birds whose chief value is the pleasure they give to people living in a given environment. I do not mean just bird watchers, but people who live almost anywhere and enjoy migratory songbirds living in the same environment. In this regard I think there is perhaps a tendency for government, in trying to take action, to say, "We must acquire the habitat; we must have complete and full control over it". There is a place for that sort of approach, of course. However, I think there may also be a place for another concept under which the federal or provincial governments, acting singly or jointly, could procure easements on privately-owned property in cases where that property happens to be a remaining remnant of a suitable habitation for some type of migratory bird.
I know of woodlots in Prince Edward Island, which are small and are being decimated in many cases, which are the habitat of thrushes. I am sure that if those habitats were destroyed, the birds would be destroyed. In a few exceptional cases of this sort thought should be given to arrangements being entered into between owners of private property and governments so that the habitat of the wildlife concerned will not be destroyed. Some small rental might be paid, for instance, for preserving the habitat in its present form, or similar arrangements might be entered into.
Generally, I commend the minister for the bill. It is not a controversial one. I hope it lives up to the expectations that we all have for it. When the bill goes to committee it will be further studied and there will be a further determination of what can be expected of it.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-131, an act respecting wildlife in Canada, is legislation which is welcomed by our NDP group and will receive our support on second reading. This legislation is long overdue and will be acceptable to most conservation
Protection of Wildlife
groups in Canada. Many Canadians are surprised to find that although we have had a Canadian wildlife department for many years, there has never been a Canada wildlife act on our statute books.
Bill C-131 again outlines a major problem facing Canadians in the constitutional field. It clearly shows the trouble we are having in an area where there is mixed jurisdiction. This is probably the main reason for this legislation coming in at such a late date. Wildlife resources are primarily under provincial jurisdiction and, while the federal authorities have been co-operating for years in various undertakings, this legislation will tidy up federal operations and I trust will lead to increasing joint ventures with the provinces in wildlife research and conservation.
The section of the bill dealing with agreements between the federal and the provincial governments also includes possible agreements with municipal authorities, organizations and individuals on wildlife research, conservation and interpretation programs and measures. This is a most important feature of the legislation and could result in real benefit to our wildlife resource if carried out in an imaginative and co-operative manner. It could cover a host of projects both large and small, and be a real vehicle in the conservation fight going on throughout the country.
Another interesting aspect of the legislation is that which deals with public participation in wildlife conservation plans. I feel the success of any measures in the wildlife field will depend largely upon the understanding, co-operation and general knowledge of the Canadian public. The legislation indicates that the minister may undertake, promote or recommend measures for the encouragement of public co-operation in wildlife conservation and interpretation. This dissemination of information to the general public can be brought about by initiating conferences and meetings on the problems facing us in the wildlife field.
The legislation indicates that the minister may undertake programs for wildlife research and investigation and establish and maintain laboratories and other necessary facilities for that purpose. It also indicates that advisory committees may be appointed to advise the department on programs and policy. I feel this is a very important aspect of dealing successfully with wildlife conservation problems and trust that something meaningful will come out of this attempt to actively involve the general public in our over-all conservation plans. There is no doubt about the growing interest of Canadians generally in wildlife conservation, and I am pleased to see that an effort will be made to not only promote the need for wildlife conservation but also to utilize the vast amount of practical knowledge which can be contributed by many Canadians who are experts in this field.
May I again bring to the attention of the minister a suggestion which I have raised many times in the House of Commons. It deals with the setting up of an environmental council which is wholly independent of government. The council would report upon environmental problems throughout the country. It would report, without fear or favour, its findings in the environmental field. It would have adequate research facilities and should be in a position to examine government policies, or lack of them, and
3544

May 8, 1973
Protection of Wildlife
to indicate where changes should be made. It would be able to propose courses of action and outline areas where priority measures were required and where immediate action should be taken. It would, naturally, deal with many aspects of wildlife conservation and could give guidance to government and the general public alike as to the measures and the cost involved to meet the ever increasing challenge to our valuable wildlife resource.
There is another serious problem facing wildlife conservationists not only in Canada but in practically every country in the world. That is the need to protect endangered species. For too many years governments at all levels have neglected to adequately protect the environment until we have reached the stage where a very large number of animals and birds are on the verge of extinction as a result of our activities. The protection of endangered species is a very complex problem. It involves not only man's encroachment on wildlife habitat and his unwise cropping of certain species, but it involves primarily man's activity in the economic field. We have used the air, the land and the water as receptacles for effluents which come from our factories and industries. Massive amounts of pesticides have been used without adequate research being done to know if they could be safely used. As a result there is an increasing number of endangered wildlife species to be found everywhere, and Canada is no exception.
Some steps have been taken to rectify this situation, but far more money must be poured into research than ever before and more stringent measures must be used to enforce strict environmental controls if these endangered species are to survive. Time is of the essence and I suggest to the minister that this is one of the priorities in the wildlife field. Through man's economic activities we are endangering the very existence of a number of species. It must be obvious that man himself is in danger, for we depend upon similar food chains in our environment for continued existence.
Other members of our group, Mr. Speaker, will be dealing with specific aspects of the legislation currently being debated. Before closing I would like to speak briefly about the wildlife service which will be administering this legislation. There are a number of highly qualified individuals in the wildlife service. I trust the passage of this bill will indicate that the minister intends to increase the staff of this service so that it can adequately handle the many problems facing it in various parts of Canada.
I would first draw to the attention of the minister the lack of full and proper ecological studies being carried out in our Canadian Arctic. We are all aware that certains studies are being carried out by various government departments, chiefly in connection with the proposed oil and gas pipelines from the north. While some useful information will certainly come from these studies, most of them are crash programs designed to test the feasibility of pipelines down the Mackenzie valley. Competent biologists feel that we still have no adequate program of publicly-sponsored fundamental research. This type of research is essential as it will determine the baselines of an ecological system and would assist us in predicting what stresses can or cannot be placed upon it.

I would point out to the minister that most of the current research is going on in the Mackenzie River valley. There are other areas in the north which have never been touched and where there is great need of environmental research of all types. All Canadians know the increasing economic activity being carried on in the north, and I suggest there should be no further delay by any department of government in getting the basic research started for the whole of our valuable northern territories. It will take many years to complete, but it will assist us to avoid the many mistakes which have already been made in several parts of our Arctic territory.
In the report released just over a year ago by the Environmental Protection Board, a so-called independent body of experts, it was stated that Canada's level of ecological research in the Arctic was abysmally low. Their work was carried on primarily in the Mackenzie River valley where, as I previously stated, a number of environmental surveys have been made or are currently going on. If the environmental and ecological research in that area is classed as abysmally low, then it is obvious that the rest of the north continues to be virtually ignored.
I understand that under the department there is the Canadian Wildlife Service's Arctic ecology unit. It was established primarily to monitor how northern activity affects wildlife and to isolate wildlife areas needing special protection. This Arctic ecology unit was set up in 1970 but up until a year ago at least it was a one-man affair. According to a report made by Pollution Probe, in Toronto, in April of last year the scientist in this unit has been so busy keeping an eye on oil companies and their seismic and drilling operations that he has not had much chance to do any short-term let alone long-range ecological studies.
I remind the minister that the complete unit was originally intended to comprise 12 men, which would be the minimum number required to start a proper research program. These individuals must be highly specialized in order to set up and carry out the type of research which is urgently required by Canada in our Arctic areas. I would ask the minister if any additional staff has been added to the Arctic ecology unit this year, and why he has been so slow in staffing this extremely important research unit. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, this bill will help to provide the necessary funds for this type of research which is especially required. May I again urge that priority attention be given to this matter.
This research in the Arctic is closely tied in with this wildlife bill. I am fully aware of the conflicting jurisdiction in the north in so far as both the territorial councils and other federal departments are concerned. On a number of occasions I have pointed out and protested the real lack of authority which the Department of the Environment has over environmental affairs as far as the north is concerned. The chief federal administrative body in the north is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and there is no doubt that the Department of the Environment plays a very secondary role even where matters of conservation are concerned. I consider this a major weakness in our federal environmental administrative structure. It should be corrected.
May 8, 1973

The need for additional skilled staff in our Arctic ecology unit might be best illustrated by the greatly increased oil and gas mineral exploration which is going on in our Arctic areas. The program is accelerating and there is increasing urgency for basic ecological research to be carried out and evaluated before immense damage is done to our Arctic ecology.
I believe the following quotation from a paper delivered at the Twentieth Alaska Science Conference in 1969 by R. A. Hemstock, the Arctic co-ordinator for Imperial Oil Ltd., clearly outlines the needs of the oil industry in our Arctic areas as of that date. He said:
In summary, the 470,000 square miles of potential oil lands in the Canadian Arctic will require for development: (a) Extensive geological reconnaissance; (b) reconnaissance and detailed geophysical surveys for a total of 150,000 miles; (c) drilling of 700-1400 exploratory and 6,000-12,000 development wells for petroleum; (d) construction of 4,000 miles of access roads and 4,000 miles of trunk roads based on northern Canada experience of 1 mile of road per well; (e) construction of 8,000 miles of gathering pipelines and many miles of large trunk lines to market or to marine terminals; (f) construction of camp, town, airfields and sport facilities for an additional population of 10,000 oil workers.
This is only part of the program of northern economic development and I have dealt with it in a very general manner. I trust, however, that the Canada wildlife act will be the instrument by which a federal government can initiate research, not only in Arctic areas but in every part of our country, to ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy the wonderful wildlife resource which nature has given to Canadians in abundance and which it is our duty as legislators to try to protect for future generations. In closing, I intend to support the bill on second reading, as will other members of the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my party has been accused on a number of occasions of not being constructive in respect of legislation. I do not accept that charge. On this occasion I take great pleasure in supporting this bill. I take a personal interest in this bill because in many respects I feel it is the culmination of the life of a member of my family. The chief migratory birds officer for western Canada during the twenties and thirties devoted his life to the objective that this bill is outlining. I spent many summers in his home, where I saw gathering together that collection of species and other variances which on his death James Alexander Munro gave, and which now reposes in the National Museum of Canada at the foot of Metcalfe Street here in Ottawa. Tribute was paid to him in the form of a plaque. I am very pleased to be able to pay tribute in this House to his memory.
There are other features of the bill with which I should like to deal. I have two comments to make, and I shall be brief. I feel that at last, through clauses 3(b) and 3(e) taken together, the federal authority will have the power to eliminate what is sometimes described as an inhumane trap. I do not know quite what the correct word would be; "inhumane" is not exactly the right word unless we go into anthropomorphology. Perhaps "inanimal" would be a more appropriate adjective. I refer to the claw trap which was used during part of our development.
Protection of Wildlife
Now, happily, a new type of trap has been developed in connection with the economic management of the wildlife of our country. It is known as the conibear trap and it permits the taking of animals for their fur in a manner which does not injure the animal to the same extent. The old claw trap which we sometimes used when we were younger, when we lived on the prairies, and which we used to trap gophers and other small animals caused excruciating pain and lingering death to these helpless creatures. Man is able to fend for himself, and he does so, but wildlife is not so fortunate in an environment inhabited or frequented by humans. Therefore, as a mark of civilization I feel we should take certain responsibilities upon ourselves.
In many respects the legislation now brought forward will enable the authorities of this country to protect and manage our resources upon the basis of which, let us not forget it, this country developed. Canada developed through the fur trade and we still profit by the fur trade. But let us accept modern developments in the management of that trade. I believe clauses 3(b) and 3(e) will enable federal and provincial authorities to insist that these resources are carefully controlled not only for economic reasons, the value in dollars produced, but because of their environmental impact.
We hear so much these days about the quality of life. Those of us who have time at this time of the year and a little later in the year might be happy to go out in some of the parks around here and see a phenomenon on which our country stands and has stood from its very beginning-the beavers building their dams. This is one of the delights which those of us who have become overurbanized often forget. Let us not destroy such pleasures. Let us remember that they can be preserved.
My other comment concerns clause 9. I suppose this particular clause was aimed at preserving those migratory animals which spend part of the year in Canada, and I am delighted to see that with shrewd judgment it can be used to do even more. I asked a question in the House on April 16 which hon. members will find reported at page 3328 of Hansard. It concerned the importation into Canada of the pelts of endangered species from Mexico, Brazil and other exotic lands. It was my understanding that some of these pelts were imported into Canada because of the ease with which they could enter this country due to the nature of our tariff policies and our customs regulations. The minister indicated in his reply that Environment Canada had taken a leading role in international discussions on this subject.
Clause 9 will enable those discussions to be even more fruitful and will help prevent this sort of thing happening. I have seen some of the statistics published in the papers concerning the numbers of pelts brought into this country for reshipment to other countries where they can be made into fancy jackets and fancy long coats. This involves the pelts of species which are endangered in the exotic lands. They are noble creatures whose preservation we must seek, and I am happy to see that facilities to ensure such preservation exist in the legislation before us.


Mr. Knight;: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?

May 8, 1973
Adjournment Debate


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether there is someone in authority on the government side who can say that in the event of this bill passing reasonably early tomorrow, as I expect it will, we shall still be dealing with the fisheries bill and afterward with the CNR bill as recently announced.


Otto Emil Lang: That is right, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, on January 29 I addressed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) concerning the increase in rent imposed upon senior citizens subsequent to, or indeed in some cases prior to the increase in old age security pension payments. The question as it appears in Hansard makes reference to a recent proposal from a number of very prestigious deliberative bodies. This is actually an error. What I referred to was a member of a very prestigious body, namely, the Senate of Canada, referred to frequently in this chamber as the other place. This is an expression whose procedural antecedents are difficult to trace.
Since the question was raised by myself and other members of the House we have heard a statement from the Minister of State responsible for housing (Mr. Basford) to the effect that he had disseminated his views to the proprietors of institutions under federal responsibility-I presume directly or indirectly.
There are many institutions across the land, operated by provincial governments, which have in fact received considerable assistance, as far as their construction is concerned, from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It would seem to me that the concern for the kind of practices to which this question refers may properly be expressed by the Government of Canada because of its practical and helpful involvement through CMHC.
I hope the parliamentary secretary or whoever will reply to me tonight will be able to indicate what has been the outcome of representations made by the minister directly responsible for reporting for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and what his own minister has been able to do in the field of moral suasion.
The plight of our senior citizens is a most serious one, Mr. Speaker. Today's shocking statistics on the rapidly accelerating cost of living, particularly in the field of food

at home and housing, should cause grave anxiety to anyone who has concern for the welfare and well-being of the senior citizens of Canada. Indeed, the past decade has constituted a painful assault upon the security of the aged, on those on fixed income and certainly on those in the low and middle-income range.
As I pointed out when I spoke at the time of the introduction of the amendment to the Old Age Security Act, we have been literally taking it out on the older people because they have borne, without adequate relief, the debilitating burden of runaway inflation. As I pointed out, had the actual cost of living been added to the old age security pensions from 1963 on, the figure would be slightly less than $107. Therefore, the increase to $100, while certainly better than the addition of 42 cents a month which was considered adequate before October 30, is in fact something a good deal less than a burst of generosity or a real solution to the struggle of our senior citizens to cope with the reality of today's inflated living costs.
I have reason to believe, from correspondence which I have received from all across the country, that they are again being subjected to new hikes in their rent so great as to leave them really no better off than they were before the passage of the amendment to the Old Age Security Act. I had a letter not long ago from a lady living in a provincially-operated senior citizens' home, or unit, who told me that her rent was to be increased, effective in June, from $46 per month to $102. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what this sort of increase will do to the life pattern, the life style of a Canadian who has contributed to this our country for decades and who now seeks to live out her closing years with some degree of security and some relief from the anxiety of financial burdens!
It is a sad commentary on our present-day government that while its spokesman in this field, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, can talk of programs of a long-range nature-three, four and five years-the same minister can have such difficulty in grappling with the immediate needs of our senior citizens. The same, indeed, could be said about those who are not senior citizens. What a help it would be if the new family allowance legislation proposal could be put into legislation immediately and a contribution thereby given to many of our people with families who just cannot provide the basic needs of food and shelter for their children. But the earliest on this from the government seems to be January 1, 1974.
The latest figures of the cost of living index have already eroded the increase which the senior citizens received in their April cheques. Something must be done about this. We cannot continue to allow these people to be victimized. A way must be found to protect the senior citizens of this country from further threats to their economic and financial security.
We now use the expression "old age security". Once it was called an old age pension. The newer expression is more euphoneous and perhaps more pleasing. But there is not much security involved if, when the present government provides even a meagre increase-and the most recent pension increase was a meagre one-somebody else immediately takes away the benefit of that increase which the Parliament of Canada voted. This is a shameful, dis-
May 8, 1973

turbing, distressing, unpleasant and unnecessary situation. I would suggest that careful thought be given to this matter and that in this day of gnawing, nagging, terrible increases in the cost of living a way be found to translate the concern of this House-I trust the House is concerned-into meaningful action to protect such security as our older citizens have the right to expect.


Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and the members of this House share the hon. member's concern for the pensioner in this situation, though the rising cost of living presents problems to persons on limited incomes whether or not they are in nursing homes. The federal government has actively encouraged the provinces and has provided financial support under the Canada Assistance Plan to supplement the incomes of pensioners and others who are unable to maintain themselves in relation to their needs.
Under CAP agreements, all provinces provide financial assistance to residents of nursing homes and other types of homes for special care as required to meet their individual costs of maintenance. Federal contributions for this purpose exceed $150 million annually. Other provisions of the agreement concern the shared-cost comforts allowance which the resident may spend as he wishes, as it need not be applied to the regular cost of care.
We must remember that prior to federal cost-sharing many welfare institutions had no comforts allowances. It is encouraging to find more of them now. An approach used by two provinces to date is to cover specified health care costs in nursing homes under provincial health insurance. The resident then pays only a fixed portion of the cost toward the residential cost. Such costs are within the capability of most OAS pensioners and do not fluctuate automatically each time the pension is increased.
The hon. member should know that Ontario has just raised the basic rate from $3.50 per day to $4.00 per day in spite of the federal government's expressed wish that the rate not be increased at the time the pension was increased to $100. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) instructed the authorities in homes under the jurisdiction of CMHC that no such raises would be approved. Finally, it does not appear to be a situation where federal legislation is appropriate, as the matter is clearly under provincial jurisdiction.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION TO INCREASE BASIC RATE OF DISABILITY PENSION
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) in the few months he has been in his portfolio has established a good record and has won the confidence of all of us in this House who are interested in the welfare of our veterans. He has to his credit the piloting through this House of a bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act. He also has to his credit the fact that he has made clear to the members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs that he supports the report of the joint study group on the basic rate of the war disability pension.
Adjournment Debate
However, Sir, I confess I am beginning to feel a bit of concern over the time it is taking for the minister to bring to this House a bill to amend the Pension Act to implement the report of that joint study group. I therefore use this "late show" period tonight to raise the matter, not to heap criticism on the minister's head but to let him know that he has the support of this entire House with regard to this matter and also to let him know that we want him to persuade his cabinet colleagues to let him bring in that bill without further delay.
The fact is that on Tuesday, January 9, as recorded in Hansard at pages 88 and 89, the minister said that the report of the joint study group would soon be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. He kept his word. This was done on Thursday, February 15, as recorded at page 1322 of Hansard.
On Friday, February 23, as reported in Hansard at page 1585, the standing committee reported back to the House indicating its endorsation of the recommendation in the report of the joint study group. In the meantime, on Monday, February 19, as recorded in Hansard at page 1432, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) had indicated that the government was simply waiting, so far as war disability pensions were concerned, for the report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
On Friday, March 16, as recorded in Hansard at page 2298, the minister assured me that the legislation would be forthcoming soon. When Wednesday, April 4, came along and it still had not appeared I asked him again, as recorded in Hansard at page 2968, whether we might expect it soon and in particular whether he would try to get it before us before Easter. The minister said that he would try to do so.
However, yesterday, with the Easter recess now over, I questioned the minister again and to my regret he was not able to make quite such a positive statement as to when this bill might come in. If the delay is because the minister is having trouble getting his cabinet colleagues to agree to a recommendation that calls for the basic rate to be tied to certain categories within the public service, I am prepared for him to take a little longer to win that principle. What we do not want is for him to bring in just a dollar figure that leaves unresolved the matter that veterans have been fighting for for 50 years.
This is an extremely important matter. I know the minister's heart and mind are in the right place, and if the trouble he is having is inside that cabinet I hope he can let his fellow ministers know that this House is on his side. Indeed, I ask him to draw the cabinet's attention to an editorial in the May issue of The Legion, the monthly magazine of the Royal Canadian Legion, entitled "Keeping the Faith". The first part of the editorial commends the minister, the government and the opposition on what was done with respect to improvements in the War Veterans Allowance Act. But then the editorial says this:
We hope the government will soon give evidence of its awareness of a similar responsibility to Canada's war disability pensioners by the establishment of a basic rate tied to an index of salary schedules for unskilled workers in the public service. The joint study group report recommending such a basic rate of pension has been given unanimous approval by the parliamentary committee

May 8, 1973
Adjournment Debate
on veterans affairs and now awaits action by the government in the form of a bill amending the Pension Act. In the past, increases in disability pension rates were nearly always announced simultaneously with increases in war veterans allowances. Consequently disability pensioners are getting concerned about the lack of any announcement of the government's intentions, particularly since their pensions are based on a very special relationship which exists where the individual has served his country and in return was given assurance that compensation would be paid.
I am sure that the sentiment of that paragraph reflects the thinking of the House. I am sure, also, it reflects the thinking of the minister. It is an excellent report that was produced by the joint study group. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs was behind it 100 per cent and so is this House. But I hope the minister will soon be able to say that he has won the battle of his life with the cabinet and that he will be able to bring in a bill that relates the basic rate of the war disability pension to selected salary schedules in the public service so that war disability pensioners in the future will not, as they have over the years, slid behind year after year. The minister has our full support and we hope he will give us the right answer soon.


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will, of course, not expect me to make any announcement of new policy at this time. I would, however, remind the House that the report on basic rates of pensions was prepared by a joint working group comprised of government officials and of representatives of veterans' organizations. The government has the whole subject under active consideration, and I have already indicated that I shall be happy to inform the House in further detail when I am in a position to do so. I expect this to be quite soon.
I should emphasize that the government has been keeping the Pensions Act, like other items of the veterans' charter, under regular review. Two years ago the government introduced and parliament enacted amendments which were the result of the most thorough review of the Pension Act in the past 50 years.
Just last year at about this time the government introduced budget measures which provided for the automatic increase of pensions in line with changes in the cost of living. Pursuant to this legislation, pensions were increased by 3.6 per cent effective January 1 of this year. A further automatic increase can be expected next January. It will therefore be clear that the government has continued to recognize and fulfil its responsibility under the veterans' charter and I assure the House that we will continue to do so.


HEALTH-STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROVINCES ON PROVISION OF CHRONIC CARE IN NURSING HOMES
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak of the need for chronic care nursing homes and on the necessity for people who have to go to those homes to be included under OHIP the same as if they went to acute treatment beds in hospital. A witch hunt is being made for someone to blame for rising health costs. There is negligence at both levels of government in not seeing that beds for the chronically ill are available. My sympathy has always gone out to the ill, many of them decrepit, mental-

ly depressed and unable to help themselves. It is for this reason that I am not impressed with the fencing of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and his provincial counterparts. It is surely the responsibility of the federal government to see that health care is universal across Canada.
That health care costs are getting out of control needs no comment; it is a fact. Citadels of medical teaching and training continue to accord a low priority to the dire need for education in this field. The increased care in and the mounting costs of general hospitals make it imperative for chronic disease hospitals to cope with many complex problems. There should be established fellowship training programs in geriatric medicine, all in the setting of a chronic disease hospital.
How do we reduce the length of stay in hospital? The first thing is to keep people out of hospital. This means that we must have proper facilities in chronic care nursing homes so that patients can be discharged from hospital. Bottlenecks are occurring in hospitals. In my own hospital, bottlenecks are occurring now where people have applied for chronic nursing home care but are still waiting.
Who is going to build the needed chronic care nursing homes? Surely it is the responsibility of the federal government and provincial governments to see that funds are available for private organizations to build them. This should be part of the medicare program and should be shared equally with the federal government.
We can reduce the length of hospital stay by practising preventive medicine and preventing long, disabling illness by treating it before it becomes firmly established. This means that we must have sufficient doctors to do general practice and enough to practice preventive medicine before the illness becomes either acute, or results in a hospital case.
Many people today who are going to the emergency departments of hospitals could in many cases be treated in doctor's offices. Probably only 25 per cent of those appearing in the emergency wards of hospitals today need that type of treatment. The rest could be equally well treated in doctors' offices. To do this it is necessary to obtain an adequate supply of doctors. Medical schools should be operated so that a doctor is graduated in four years instead of six years, which would reduce the overhead costs of graduating a doctor and have him earning money and paying income taxes approximately two years before he would with the horse and buggy course that most medical schools are following today and which are getting us into trouble.
McMaster University now graduates a doctor in three years and other schools in five years, but most in six years. The cost per doctor across Canada varies in many cases. Surely the grants from the federal government should be made specifically on a per capita basis in relation to the number of doctors graduated at the school. This would lead to far more efficiency. Reducing the time of the course would allow a doctor to be in practice two years earlier. It seems to me that a doctor could be given an interim certificate for a period of three to five years and
May 8, 1973

then sent to areas where a doctor is needed for general practice, which would cover a lot of regions in desperate need of doctors.
An incentive could be given to the doctor who goes into these areas by an income tax reduction or other means. You would then have a doctor with far more experience in general practice and of much more value if he became a specialist. He could make up his mind whether he would be a general practitioner and/or a specialist and, faced with these facts, would make a better choice.
Getting people out of hospital is simply one way in which extended care should be available to all patients capable of being discharged and the long wait by chronically ill patients for the necessary accommodation to become available would be reduced. This should be paid for on the same basis exactly as acute care. Both of these points are essential-to get people out of hospital and give them adequate care, and increase the availability of beds when they are ready to be discharged from active treatment hospital beds.
Mr. Speaker, the cost of chronic care or extended care is approximately one-quarter the cost of acute care in a hospital, of which one-quarter is paid by the old age pensions in a chronic care home. This will indicate the necessity of grappling with this problem and solving it in Canada. Surely it is not an insurmountable problem. It is very unfair for the minister and his provincial counterparts to be hunting all over for somebody to lay the blame on, when it is very simple: first you try to get them into hospital for adequate medical care; second, get them discharged as quickly as possible and have chronic care beds waiting. Hospitalization should cover both. Hospitalization and chronic care would cost roughly 25 per cent of
Adjournment Debate
what acute care costs. Surely there is a tremendous saving there and this parliament should see that it is done.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that a federal-provincial conference is being held today to arrive at such an agreement concerning health care costs and cost-sharing. He must know also that it is generally accepted that we must combat the rise in these costs.
A new financing formula was proposed to the provinces in January, and again today, under which payments are to be made on a per capita basis. The annual increase in costs are to be held down to the same level as the yearly GNP increase, rather than the present 13 per cent rate. This new agreement presents a change in emphasis, more toward a global budgeting concept, leaving the provinces the flexibility to decide how to apportion the funds according to the needs of their population. It is understood that basic standards of comprehensiveness, accessibility, universality and portability would have to be maintained.
I should like to add that preventive medicine is already a stated priority of the federal government. Emphasis, on the fitness side, of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the tripling of the fitness and sport budget in the next three years demonstrate this. Also, fitness, sport and recreation have been transferred to the health side of the department, echoing this change in emphasis.
We all share the hon. member's concern about the escalation in costs. We also realize that expensive hospital beds are not the solution. Finally, we hope for agreement from today's conference because the situation warrants immediate action by the federal government and also by the provincial governments.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday, May 9, 1973