1977-07-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the newly enlightened spirit of this government and its reformed will to make more information available to members of parliament, and in view of the refusal by the President of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to produce guidelines affecting the approval, management and inspection of housing projects, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House direct the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to table forthwith inspection guidelines, project officer manuals and lending approval criteria as requested by members in committee during the hearings on main estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate pursuant to the Standing Order can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BELL CANADA
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. Since senior Bell Canada executives have stated that that company intends to approach the CRTC before this year's end for another rate increase, and whereas a June 1, 1977 rate decision increased company revenue by $162 million and a January 1976 rate decision increased Bell's coffers by $110.3 million, and in light of the fact that Bell executives cite delays due to public hearings in receiving approval of the $162 million increase as a justification for the new application, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That this House instruct the CRTC to protect telephone subscribers from further uncalled for rate increases by reassessing Bell's profitability by examining the earnings of Bell's subsidiaries, and further that the CRTC not speed up public hearings to suit the corporate interests of Bell over those of its subscribers.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the Minister of Agriculture has taken part, together with his provincial colleagues, in a very important conference of a few days duration in Vancouver, that all hon. members in the House, as well as indeed all Canadian farmers, are anxious to see significant changes made to the agricultural policies of Canada, and that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) could no doubt advise the House of the main issues which were dealt with during this conference, as well as the resolutions which were agreed upon, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau):
The the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) make a statement in the House, followed by a question period, concerning the direction he intends to take following the agreements entered upon during the last federal-provincial conference of agricultural ministers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

July 14, 1977
Capital Punishment


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a recent management audit of the Farm Credit Corporation conducted by the Sib-bald group disclosed serious management problems within the Farm Credit Corporation, declining employee morale and moonlighting on government time by some employees, and in view of the unwillingness or the inability of government to give adequate explanations as to how they intend to deal with these problems, despite the clear need for the government to show ministerial responsibility in dealing with this S306 million federal corporation, I ask the unanimous consent of the House, under Standing Order 43, to move, seconded by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone):
That the management audit of the Farm Credit Corporation prepared by the Sibbald group be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for examination, and that the Minister of Agriculture appear before that committee to explain what action the government has taken or proposes to take to deal with the serious problems in the Farm Credit Corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion for debate can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that this is the first anniversary of the complete abolition of the death penalty in Canada, and in view of the fact that today a young police officer, killed in the performance of his duties, is being laid to rest, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That this House ask the government to immediately bring forward a measure reintroducing capital punishment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect to the sincerity of the motion before us, which has described the anniversary of the bill and the tragic events, I do not see any element of urgency to the subject matter raised.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, even in this twelfth year of the Canada Pension Plan, the urgency of the matter I wish to raise under Standing Order 43 will not go away. Indeed, it becomes more pressing as time goes on. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the government to bring in legislation to provide pensions for all homemaker spouses, in their own right, equivalent to those earned by contributors to the Canada Pension Plan, thus recognizing for pension purposes the contribution to our society made by those who work in the home, and this House urges that such legislation be included in the Queen's speech to be made at the opening of the next session of this parliament.


Miss MacDonald:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the government of Quebec has now presented Bill 101 and that that bill has no changes in the provisions restricting the right to English language education of Canadian children moving from other provinces, I wonder if the Prime Minister will tell the House whether he or the constitutional advisers to the government have this matter under consideration? What options are they considering now in light of the fact that this bill is almost certain to be passed by the Parti Quebecois majority in the Quebec legislature?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we were certainly surprised and saddened to see that the bill was brought back under a new number without any change in this very fundamental provision, to which the federal government has indicated its opposition. It is still a formal bill and it will be heard by the relevant committee of the Quebec legislature. We are still hopeful that the Parti Quebecois government will see its way clear to change this very serious infraction of the right of Canadians to move across the country. In its present form, it looks as if the Parti Quebecois is acting as
July 14, 1977

though the province were already separated. This is a point of view we most seriously deny and attack.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The federal government's position on this has been made very clear, to wit that English-speaking Canadians from other parts of Canada should be able to move into Quebec and have their children go to the official language school of their choice when such schools exist and are justified by numbers of English-speaking Canadians.


An hon. Member:: And vice veisa.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, we have also indicated in our policy that, vice versa, French-speaking Canadians moving from Quebec to other centres where there are sufficient numbers of Frenchspeaking Canadians should find schools in that language so that they can exercise the same freedom to move and have their children educated in the language of their choice.
The Leader of the Opposition asks if there has been a reference to the Department of Justice. Certainly, the minister and I have discussed this matter, but there would not be a formal reference of a bill to his law officers until that bill became law and until the constitutionality or otherwise of the bill was made an object of study by the Department of Justice.


Charles Joseph Clark: Just so we are clear, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has repeated the principle that he says guides the attitude of his government. He indicated that the only action the government has taken to this point is that there has been a discussion between himself and the Minister of Justice. There has been no reference to the law officers of the Crown to get a legal opinion of the constitutionality of a bill that holds every likelihood of being passed into law by the government of Quebec. Does the Prime Minister agree that citizens who are facing passage of a law which calls into question long standing rights that they have exercised are entitled to some reassurance from the government of Canada that this government will concern itself with their problems. What kind of reassurance is the Prime Minister prepared to give those Canadians today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this matter a few weeks ago when the Secretary of State tabled his paper on language policy. 1 indicated it was our hope that the provinces within the area of education, an area in their constitutional jurisdiction, would want to protect the linguistic rights of the official minorities in their provinces. I went further and said we would be prepared to envisage a constitutional amendment which would give the federal government the authority in the area of education to step in and protect those rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: With the present state of the constitution, the Leader of the Opposition knows that the area of education is within the jurisdiction of the provinces. We are still hopeful that Bill 101 will be amended. If it is not and it passes into law, we will pursue the two courses that I just indicated, get the provinces together to try to obtain from them some guar-
Oral Questions
antee for their linguistic minorities and, if not, press for a constitutional amendment that will give us the authority to intervene on behalf of minorities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBILITY OF REFERRING QUEBEC'S BILL 101 TO SUPREME COURT
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has indicated two courses of action that could be taken, both of which would be some time in having any consequence. I note that the Prime Minister did not make any reference to the possibility of the matter of the constitutionality of the bill, once it becomes the law, going before the courts. Does the Prime Minister exclude the possibility that the federal government would on its own initiative refer such a law to the Supreme Court in view of the serious questions that arise as to its effect on constitutional rights? In any case, will the Prime Minister commit the government of Canada to intervene in a court action brought by private citizens to protect constitutional rights which may be infringed by any such law?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is, no, we do not exclude such a course. In answer to the second question, it would be most likely the way in which the federal government would act by intervening in a case which would be brought by private citizens, which is the general and normal way whereby the federal government intervenes to plead the constitutionality or otherwise of the law.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What about disallowance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That was not the question of your leader. You could wait a moment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: You better be careful or the right hon. gentleman will bop you on the nose, making you worse than you are.


An hon. Member:: Watch that face.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Just because the right hon. gentleman had the privilege of sleeping with me one night on the aeroplane does not mean-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


An hon. Member:: The government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

July 14, 1977
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, we would keep open the possibility of intervening in a court case as, incidentally, we have done in Manitoba in a case which is not completely dissimilar, at least in so far as language rights are concerned. Here again, it would depend on our views on the constitutionality or otherwise of that particular piece of legislation. I should tell the Leader of the Opposition that in matters of education, I, personally, am not speaking yet as one who has been advised by the Minister of Justice or that department but I, personally, have always taken the view that educational rights were for the province to legislate upon and that there were only certain confessional aspects of those rights which permitted the federal government to intervene and plead ultra vires in that particular decision. But this is a legal discussion which I would gladly hold until the bill has become law and until the law officers of the Crown have reported on it.


Charles Joseph Clark: To make it absolutely clear could the Prime Minister say whether the situation now is that there is no formal study by the law officers of the Crown of Canada of the constitutionality of Bill 101? That is not now being undertaken by the federal law officers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I discussed this matter with the Minister of Justice. I cannot say that he has not discussed this matter with his officials and that they have not begun to look at the bill before it becomes law. I said there has been no decision on my part or by the cabinet to ask for a formal opinion about the bill until it becomes law. We still hope the bill will be changed and that the law will be better than it is now.


RIGHT TO EDUCATION IN OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF CHOICE-GOVERNMENT'S INTERPRETATION OF &quot;RIGHT&quot;
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: I am sure we all share the hope of the Prime Minister that the law now before the Quebec National Assembly will be more to our taste and more in accordance with our views than at present. I now seek some elucidation from the Prime Minister. Is he not using the word "right" in two senses? His government has stated most categorically that, subject to circumstances which may make a deferment of application necessity, Canadians have a right to have their children educated in the official language of their choice. Now, he has just said that the right within the field is in the provincial jurisdiction. Is the government of Canada in fact declaring that Canadians do have this right, or is it more accurate to state that they express the hope that this right will be appealed some day?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the hon. member for Halifax knows the answer to that question, but I would certainly repeat it for him. In areas of provincial jurisdiction we can express hopes that rights will be respected, but we cannot legislate in those areas. Naturally, the paper tabled by the Secretary of State a couple of weeks ago covered the whole area of languages in Canada. Some matters can be legislated exclusively by the provinces. Because of that, how-

ever, we did not feel that we should be precluded from expressing the view that we have of Canadian citizens and how this country should be operated as one country. It is in that sense that we talked of rights; not in the legal sense, but as they should be.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, whatever differences we may have in some areas I do not think there are any differences between myself and the right hon. gentleman on the subject of languages. Having said that, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is appropriate for the federal government to declare rights or to appear to declare rights in areas of provincial jurisdiction, and whether it is really in the interests of national unity for the federal government to appear to declare a right for Canadian citizens and have that challenged by a province within a matter of weeks. I ask that question most earnestly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I suppose this is a question of approach and of tactics. The hon. gentleman indicates that we are probably agreed on substance in so far as our belief in language policy. However, in so far as this particular question is concerned, we, in our paper tabled by the Secretary of State, did not hesitate to use the word "right" because we intended to signal to the provinces that we think this particular right should exist in the constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. gentleman will recall that in 1971 at Victoria we indeed stated rights that did not exist, relative to entrenching the official languages in the constitution. They were not rights in the sense that they did not then exist in the constitutional sense, but we wanted them to become constitutional rights. We are saying the same thing in this particular area about the right of minorities in Canada to be able to move where they want in Canada and to be able to continue having their children educated in the official language of their choice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Without questioning the earnestness and the good faith of the right hon. gentleman in this area, I ask him whether, when the right hon. gentleman is referring to the intention to do everything possible to protect those rights, the declaration of rights will not create tensions in the country, which we can well do without at the present time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand that it is the general inclination of the hon. gentleman never to provoke confrontation of any kind or anything which might be described as a tension, but it seems to me that in this particular case if there is any tension, it results from the actions of a government in Quebec which was not elected on a mandate to separate but which is now acting as though the country is-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 14, 1977


NATURAL GAS-PROPOSED INCREASE IN EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Last week the National Energy Board indicated to the petroleum industry its willingness to consider applications to increase gas exports to the United States during the next five to seven years. As a result two companies, TransCanada Pipeline and Pan-Alberta Gas, are now stepping up their purchase contracts to a combined total of 1.5 billion cubic feet per day, and they claim that they do not anticipate any difficulties or delays in getting National Energy Board approval to export part of this gas.
In view of the fact that the last report of the National Energy Board foresees a shortage of gas in Canada at the earliest by 1982 and at the latest by 1985, does the government approve of stepping up gas exports to the United States in view of the pessimistic and gloomy forecast which the National Energy Board has made with respect to Canada's anticipated gas shortages within the next five to eight years?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the government has not been asked to approve and we have not been given any reasons why we should approve.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am raising the question with the minister because I thought he would be aware of the action of the National Energy Board and would be willing to give the government's views to the National Energy Board if not to the House. In the proposal being made it is now suggested that the increased exports to the United States should be on a swap arrangement by which Alberta gas would be sold in exchange for Alaskan gas to be delivered when the pipeline is built.
Does the minister not think that this means Canada will be selling cheap gas to our American neighbours and in due course purchasing Alaskan gas at two or three times the price we have received for the Alberta gas? I should like to ask the minister if he considers this to be in the best interests of Canadian consumers and whether he proposes to make any representations to the National Energy Board who, after all, are appointed to protect the interests of Canadian consumers?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I understand very well the question the hon. member is raising about selling now and buying back later on a more expensive basis. The National Energy Board raised this sort of question in its recent report with respect to the Arctic gas pipeline questions. Those are the sorts of questions which members in the coming weeks during the debate in the House of Commons, will have an opportunity to examine. Undoubtedly, there will be considerations which will bear upon the final decision of the government.
Oral Questions


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The National Energy Board report speaks of the gas surplus "bubble" and points out quite properly that many of the gas companies want to sell their gas. If they cannot sell it in Canada they want to sell it in the United States in order to get sufficient financing for further exploration. That is understandable. I want to ask the minister if he or the government as a whole have given any consideration to the advisability of using Petro-Canada to buy gas in the ground, as is done in many countries and as has been done in Saskatchewan for many years where they bought gas in the ground in Saskatchewan and in Alberta as well. Such a procedure would enable the companies to get the necessary cash flow to continue exploration programs while at the same time retaining the cheap gas for the future needs of Canadians rather than swapping it now and having to pay very high prices to get Alaskan gas years later?


Alastair William Gillespie: In general terms, Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with senior officers of Petro-Canada about the gas situation in Alberta and what part of Petro-Canada might play with respect to the development of those resources. As the hon. member knows, those resources are subject to the controls and regulations of the Alberta government. I think one of the ways of alleviating the situation with the gas producers who have found gas, as the hon. member pointed out, largely as a result of the incentives which the Alberta government and this government have provided through higher prices-something which he has resisted-might be the pro-rationing by the Alberta government.


INDUSTRY
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Could he indicate whether he has replied to a letter from the Quebec Industry and Commerce Minister Rodrigue Tremblay in connection with the urgent need of restricting footwear imports in Canada to preserve some 10,000 jobs involved in Quebec alone?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have received several representations to that effect including those from my Quebec counterpart. This week, the Anti-dumping Tribunal should report to the Minister of Finance and at the beginning of next week we hope to table the report concerning the steps to be taken to assist this industry experiencing some difficulties at the present time.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. Since the House is to adjourn tomorrow-a motion to this effect appears on the order paper-will the minister be in a position to give us tomorrow some news to reassure the workers in that industry?

July 14, 1977
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to be able to do it tomorrow, but I do not believe I shall have received the report by then. Elowever, I shall act as quickly as possible, as I already indicated to the hon. member.


WHEAT-POSSIBILITY OF INCREASING QUOTA FOR 1976 CROP YEAR
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask this question with becoming appreciation of the fact that the Prime Minister said we slept together, which apparently indicates that having taken me for a ride I was to be denied any further interruptions. I want to assure him that he is entirely wrong. We did not even follow the Scottish custom of bundling together. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, no bolster was needed between us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: In that spirit may 1 ask the amiable Minister of Transport a question. A number of prairie farmers have been in touch with me because they have found themselves unable, because of restrictive quotas, to dispose of their
1976	crop. As there remain only 16 days in which they can sell their wheat before last year's production will come under the
1977	quota, will the minister approach the Wheat Board about increasing the quota so that farmers who have a great deal of wheat on hand today may dispose of a portion, if not all of it, in the current crop year?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter several times recently with the Canadian Wheat Board. They are opening the appropriate quotas to bring in all the kinds of grain required. Last year the prairie provinces produced an all-time record volume of grain. The result is that with the current program of selling, even though it is the highest in history except for the two superb years, 1971 and 1972, there is a small increase in the supply of wheat on hand at the end of this crop year. It is very encouraging for farmers to note the forward selling program by the Canadian Wheat Board, a very successful Canadian marketing agency, assures that very brisk movement of grain will continue. There will be space in the elevators so that farmers can deliver straight from their combines. This was not possible under previous systems.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the minister that we have an accumulation of wheat. It is piling up at a tremendous rate. After going to Europe and personally finding out the situation there, in the last few days Premier Lougheed has contended that we are losing our markets because of the failure of this government to act.


An hon. Member:: He was wrong.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Horner) is being regarded as the representative of the western farmer, would the minister consult with him and get his support for what he has already spoken his support for?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important in this House to meet the suggestions of Premier Lougheed which are completely unfounded criticisms of the Canadian Wheat Board and its operation. As a matter of very serious fact his interference and intervention in marketing has done more real harm and his criticism of the Canadian Wheat Board is absolute nonsense at a time when our sales have increased our share of world markets and sales ahead have increased it even more.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. An extensive RCMP investigation has been proceeding in Halifax and other parts of Nova Scotia for some time. I ask the Solicitor General, further to our earlier brief conversations, what progress is being made pursuant to the raids by the force in various premises in Halifax and other parts of Nova Scotia, including the premises of a Halifax firm, Automatic Amusement Co. Ltd. I realize the minister has been busy in cabinet this morning; perhaps he could give the House some information, since my information is that this investigation may extend to the highest echelons of the Nova Scotia government.


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving notice this morning of his intention to raise his question in the House this afternoon. It has been the practice of previous Solicitors General and my practice not to say if any specific individual in the country is being investigated unless that investigation has become common knowledge, and I see no reason to depart from that rule which is designed to protect peoples' civil rights. At any given time the force is carrying out a number of investigations into the activities of individuals in provinces where the force has policing responsibility, but 1 would be adversely affecting peoples' civil rights if I were to say, "Yes, Mr. so and so is being investigated, or he is not." I hope the hon. gentleman will therefore accept my answer on those grounds.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his answer. Perhaps the minister will assure the House that he will check to make sure that in this case the RCMP are, as I assume, receiving maximum co-operation from the Nova Scotia attorney general's department, that wiretaps used in this investigation has been obtained under proper legal procedures and that this investigation, significant as it is, is being carried out entirely in accordance with the law. Can the minister give me that assurance?
July 14, 1977


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any indication to suggest there has been anything but full co-operation between the RCMP and the office of the attorney general of the province of Nova Scotia. Of course, any electronic listening carried out in Nova Scotia would have taken place in accordance with the general practices and procedures of the force, in conformity with the requirements of the law, particularly the Protection of Privacy Act. The force would only have done this after obtaining the authority of the appropriate court.


SOCIAL SERVICES
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will we have uniformity and equality of service under the new social services act? The minister may recall that I asked him to look at the position of Quebec, the province which adamantly opposes the bill. The minister said he would look into the matter. Has he had further conversations with his provincial counterpart and can he say what progress has been made to meeting the objections of the province of Quebec to this bill?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec seemed to object to the financing method provided in the legislation on social services. The Quebec Minister of Social Affairs told me that he would send me some suggestions or propositions in this respect. However, I did not get them yet.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Considering that on July 13, 1976, the President of the Treasury Board announced that from then on he would require Crown corporations to submit annual reports on the development of their linguistic policy and program, and considering also that he said that the government must be able to assess the progress made by those corporations and that the establishment of a control mechanism would be necessary, can the right hon. Prime Minister inform the House whether today, a year later, the Crown corporation will table the reports required by the Treasury Board last year, and if not, what steps does the government intend to take to make sure that Crown corporations are taking all the necessary measures to
Oral Questions
guarantee that the equality defined in the Official Languages Act will be rigourously respected?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, to my mind, the hon. member is perfectly right in being concerned about the reply to that question. If he refers to Hansard, some two weeks ago, he will find that I said, in reply to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, who put a similar question to me about the status of women in Crown corporations, that I too was concerned about what was being done about the instructions of the government in the field of official languages, and that I indicated that I would ask my officials to get in touch with the responsible minister to make sure that the corporations concerned did in fact hand in the report requested by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the then President of the Treasury Board. I must recognize, with some shame, that those reports have not been received, in any event, not in any large numbers, but I did ask my officials, after having given that reply to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, to follow-up my answer and take action concerning the subject of the question just put to me by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Because of some delay in translation I did not give the hon. member for Hamilton West the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I now recognize the hon. member.


SOCIAL SERVICES
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I was a little slow; usually I am very fast.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. My preliminary investigations, as a result of correspondence with provinces involved with this bill, show me that they are concerned because they do not know what the regulations will say and they fear inflexibility. Will the minister assure this House that he will consult with the provinces, in order that they may have input into the substantive part of the regulations to do with the social services act?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the bill itself has been the subject of long consultations. Indeed, the provinces and the federal government studied six different projects before agreeing on the one that was tabled in the House in June. That bill was tabled precisely to allow my officials to discuss more freely with the provinces the suggested regulations that will be promulgated under that bill, once it has been passed by Parliament. Consul-

July 14, 1977
Oral Questions
tations will be held during the summer with the provinces concerning those regulations.


TWO-PRICE WHEAT POLICY-POSSIBILITY OF REVIEW AND RISE IN MINIMUM PRICE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport in his capacity as minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. 1 would think, after what he said about Premier Lougheed in response to the question of the right hon. member for Prince Albert, that he would say what specific sales opportunities were lost by reason of the premiers' visit to Europe; otherwise, one must assume his statement was nothing more than rhetorical fluff. My question arises from the government's two-price wheat policy. Since the Canadian farm input index has risen between 30 per cent and 35 per cent since the policy was introduced, and since legislation provides for the minister to make an annual review and to recommend increases in the minimum price to reflect increases in the cost of production, I ask if such a review has taken place, and does the minister contemplate raising the minimum price under the two-price wheat policy?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have had detailed discussions with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and others about the price level of two-price wheat and are now considering what action to take in the light of their comments and suggestions. The consultation with producers of course follows the spirit of the legislation to which the hon. member referred. As to the hon. member's opening remarks, it is a matter of very delicate judgment as to whether relationships built up over the years between the Canadian Wheat Board and its customers have been impaired. 1 am fairly satisfied that the Canadian Wheat Board, by its strenuous and effective efforts, will put right the harm done, but 1 resist very much any public suggestions by the premier that he will begin to interfere with the manner in which the Canadian Wheat Board is marketing our wheat. I should think hon. members opposite would resist that kind of interference.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has again refused to give specific examples; therefore we can only conclude his statements are rhetorical. Could the minister tell the House whether, in the light of the review process, which is being undertaken in connection with the two-price wheat policy any consideration will be given to making this adjustment retroactive and, if so, for what period?


Otto Emil Lang: That is obviously part of the consideration also.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. It has to do with the appointment of Territorial mining inspectors. Two weeks ago, I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to check into the matter of mine safety in the Northwest Territories. I have learned, as I stated then, from the office of the Minister of Labour, that this matter does not come within the jurisdiction of that department. The Commissioner of the Northwest Territories has made repeated requests for authority to enforce the Territorial Mining ordinance and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development told me last week he would consult with the Minister of Labour about this matter. I should like to know whether such consultation has taken place and how the government intends to act in this regard. When can we expect a reply?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Soon, I hope. I believe that as a result of the questions the hon. member has asked officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and of my own department have been in discussion. But I understand this particular matter does not fall within my jurisdiction. I shall endeavour to get a report as soon as possible and get in touch with the hon. member.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries but in his absence I would direct it to the Prime Minister who showed an interest in our fisheries problems in 1974 when he was in Nova Scotia during an election campaign.
In view of the uncertainty which exists within the Canadian fishing industry among fishermen and processors ever since the unilateral announcement on January 1, 1977 of a 200-mile limit with regard to fish stocks and their location both laterally and vertically, would the Prime Minister tell us when we may expect an announcement that more research is contemplated with respect to continental shelf species-a project which could utilize some of our unemployed scientists-plus an announcement of government policy on fleet development strategy, which could activate our unemployed shipbuilders and shipyards as well as an announcement of government policy on foreign co-operative fishing arrangements? The present situation appears to be troubling processor and fishermen in Atlantic Canada.
July 14, 1977


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I take the question to be a series of interesting representations by the hon. member. I will transmit them to the Minister of Fisheries.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: On June 22, Mr. Speaker, I directed a question to the government House leader with regard to a motion I presented to the Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications. 1 should like to direct my question today to the Minister of Transport. I asked that the committee launch an immediate investigation into statements made by the Canadian Aviation Fellowship that 2600 Air Canada employees are requesting transfers out of the Province of Quebec. To date the government has taken no action with respect to my motion. Today, the Canadian Aviation Fellowship released a document of which the minister has a copy. It states that Air Canada planes are in a questionable state of airworthiness and that there have been complaints from pilots. Would the minister launch an immediate investigation or have the transport committee investigate the charges made by the CAF?


Otto Emil Lang: As I indicated to the hon. member on an earlier occasion, this whole issue of the relationship between employees and the corporations has been adequately brought to the attention of Air Canada management. I have confidence in the way it is being handled. 1 would hope the hon. member is not attempting to associate himself with some rather exaggerated statements without some further attempt, even on his own, to check with management, a course which I am sure would reassure him with regard to the safety of the aircraft.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The reason the CAF is preparing these documents, and the reason 1 am raising the matter, is that we have received no satisfactory answer at all from the chief officer, Mr. Claude Taylor; he has taken no action whatsoever. Since our committee meeting he has taken no steps to meet with these people, hence the steps which they are taking. So the minister will have to initiate some action himself and I would ask him to do so immediately.


Otto Emil Lang: The management of Air Canada has been very conscious of any problems which exist and is fully sensitive to their nature in the attempts made to deal with them. Obviously, there is some gross overstatement of the situation which they cannot meet. However, management is handling a situation which is not without its difficulties and sensitivities and recognizes there are people who feel themselves in a difficult situation. The hon. member is not helping the situation at all by his intervention and I may say I believe I know why he is raising the matter.
Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I draw to his attention the terms of the General Development Agreement with the Province of British Columbia signed on March 28, 1974 in which it is clearly stated that the main sectors identified in the agreement as warranting special attention are the northwest of British Columbia, the northeast and the Kootenays. In the light of the fact that the northwest and the northeast have now been singled out for special attention, what special status has been provided for the Kootenays? Are they to be ignored or will they be covered under a supplementary agreement?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, recently we did sign very important agreements with the government of British Columbia and, in most cases, these agreements cover the whole province, with the exception of the greater Vancouver and Victoria areas. Therefore, the area the hon. member has mentioned will of course benefit from all programs covered by these agreements and 1 am sure that the hon. member will be the first to recognize that all the decisions that have been taken during the last few weeks go in the direction of the representations made by all members of this House.


WATER SHORTAGE AT CASTLEGAR-POSSIBILITY OF ASSISTANCE
Robert Hylton Brisco: In the light of the urgent situation of the city of Castlegar in terms of its critical and chronic water shortage, can the minister tell us whether this community will qualify for assistance under DREE in respect to this problem within the new agreement signed with British Columbia?


Marcel Lessard: It is difficult to be specific at this point. Obviously, the city of Castlegar is one case among many other cases and 1 suppose that according to the subagreement which has been signed it might be possible for this municipality to get some assistance. But this will have to be weighed against other needs and the industrial potential of the city.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that despite a prolonged shutdown of the CNR shops in

July 14, 1977
Oral Questions
Moncton this summer, some of the personnel who were kept on as so-called skeleton staff are being asked to work overtime rather than calling back men who were laid off? Is this what the CNR calls "adjustment of railway expenses"?


Otto Emil Lang: I was not
aware of this situation but I shall be glad to take the hon. member's representations to the CNR.


Leonard C. Jones: A supplementary with respect to the railway in Moncton. Will the minister be able shortly to answer my starred question No. 2,855?


CANADIAN COAST GUARD COLLEGE
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to take the time of the House to raise this grievance but it is one which has gone on for many months without corrective action being taken. Is the minister aware that deck graduates from the Canadian Coast Guard College are restricted to the fleet systems section of the Ministry of Transport due to the nature of the certification they receive while engineering graduates from the same college are given marine safety certificates and become eligible to serve ashore or afloat in any marine position in the Commonwealth? Would the minister not agree that this is a form of discrimination and would he investigate the matter with the object of rectifying this anomaly?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to obtain an elaborate explanation for the hon. gentleman.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that the most recent consumer price index shows an increase in food prices of more than 20 per cent for some items and an increase of over 15 per cent for fuel and utilities, and in view of the fact that this situation, while bad enough in southern Canada, is even worse in northern Canada where a monitoring committee established by the New Democratic Party has shown that a basket of essential food items cost 40 per cent more north of 60 than in Ottawa and energy costs are 20 per cent higher, can the minister tell this House what steps his government is prepared to take to ensure that people living north of 60 are not penalized by paying as much as 40 per cent more for the necessities of life than people living in the southern part of the country?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the specific statistical breakdown which the hon. member has supplied, except to say that it is recognized by myself and other members of the government that people in the north are subjected to higher prices for many goods in those areas. I cannot offer at the moment any precise solution to this problem. I hope to visit the northern parts of the provinces as well as other areas, and I expect to hear directly about this; at the same time I cannot accept at face value the statistical percentage breakdowns of the hon. member.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM SUGGESTED LIFTING OF WAGE CONTROLS FOR NORTHERN WORKERS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, may 1 direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the answer just given by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that the members of the government are aware of the disparity in prices between northern and southern Canada, is the Prime Minister prepared to consider the lifting of the Anti-Inflation Board controls on the wages of workers who live and have to earn their living in the northern parts of this country, since they have to pay 40 per cent more for food and the necessities of life? Is the Prime Minister prepared to drop the AIB program in the Northwest Territories immediately?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is not implying that the people of the north are not interested, as he is, in combatting inflation.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before we proceed I wonder whether I might ask the government House leader what is proposed by way of business later today and tomorrow, and for however long we may be here?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, we will continue the debate on the bill in the name of the Minister of Justice, Bill C-51. Following that we will deal with Bill C-27, Bill C-17 and Bill C-23.


Mr. Epp:: What are we going to do tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The first three bills are in immediate play. As hon. members will have noticed, there is a notice of motion in my name on the order paper which proposes the adjournment of the House tomorrow, but that will only be called if in the meantime we have reached some understandings, which
July 14, 1977

have not yet been reached. We are continuing our consultations.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,648, 2,349, 2,748 and 2,800.


Mr. Herbert: As a percentage of total government spending, how much has been allocated in each of the past ten years for agricultural research and development?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as Agriculture Canada is concerned: 1967-68,539,695,260; 1968-69, $45,308,993; 196970, $45,870,584; 1970-71, $47,753,268; 1971-72, $50,726,390; 1972-73,	$54,310,436;	1973-74,	$62,959,460;	1974-75,
$74,334,487; 1975-76, $95,633,279; 1976-77, $95,747,501.
In so far as National Research Council is concerned: expenditures in Agricultural and Food Research and Development should be reflected in so far as they are available over the past ten years in Statistics Canada reports of scientific expenditures. Specific figures for grants to universities were available and provided for the years 1968-1977 in response to parliamentary questions Nos. 1,878 of October 13, 1971; 882 of February 9, 1973; 2,056 of March 8, 1977.
Order Paper Questions CANCER OF THE BLADDER


Mr. Rynard: 1.	For each year 1965 to 1976, by province, what was the death rate for cancer of the bladder?
2.	For the same years, what was the percentage of cancer of the bladder in (a) males (b) females and what percentage were cigarette smokers?
3.	For the same years, what was the percentage of cancer of the bladder in diabetics and what percentage were cigarette smokers?
4.	Were 10 cases of bladder cancer in heavy saccharin users reported to the Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare and, if so, how many (a) used saccharin for (i) 5 years (ii) 10 years (iii) 15 years (iv) 20 years (v) 25 years or more (b) were (i) on diabetic drugs (ii) on insulin (iii) on a special diet (iv) on alcohol abstainers (v) heavy users of alcohol (vi) moderate users of alcohol?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. The death rate for cancer of the bladder for the years 1965 to 1974 is provided on the following lists.
2.	The percentage of cancer of the bladder in males and females for the years 1965 to 1974* is provided on the following lists. It is not possible to distinguish between cancer deaths of cigarette smokers and non-smokers.
3.	Data unavailable.
4.	The Health Protection Branch has received documentation on a number of cases of bladder cancer in persons consuming artificial sweeteners. Of these, six were known to have used saccharin, although in three cases, cyclamates also were consumed. Precise information on the duration and degree of exposure to saccharin for these individuals is not available. They were reported, however, to be heavy users of the substance. No information is available on concurrent exposure to drugs, alcohol or tobacco nor are their dietary histories known.
* Data is not available for 1975 and 1976.
Mortality Rates for Bladder Cancer by Province and Sex, Canada, 1965-1974 (per 100,000 population)
Canada	Newfoundland	Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta	British Columbia	Yukon	North West Territories1965 T	3.9	1.8	7.4	3.0	3.5	3.4	4.5	3.5	4.5	2.9	4.5	6.7	-M	5.3	2.4	12.7	4.1	3.8	4.7	6.0	6.0	6.7	4.6	5.9	-	F	2.4	1.2	1.9	1.9	3.2	2.1	3.0	1.1	2.2	1.1	3.1	14.9	-1966 T	4.1	2.0	5.5	4.2	2.8	3.4	4.9	4.0	3.2	3.8	5.4	-	-M	6.2	3.2	9.1	5.5	3.9	5.2	7.0	6.6	5.3	5.8	8.7	-	-F	2.1	0.8	1.9	2.9	1.6	1.6	2.8	1.5	1.1	1.8	2.1	-	-1967 T	3.8	3.8	5.5	4.5	4.2	3.2	4.4	3.6	2.9	3.0	4.0	M	5.4	6.3	10.9	6.6	8.3	4.5	5.8	5.6	5.1	4.3	5.4	-	-F	2.2	1.2	-	2.4	-	1.9	2.9	1.7	0.6	1.6	2.6	-	-1968 T	3.8	2.2	3.6	4.5	3.8	3.2	4.4	4.4	3.9	2.6	3.8	-	-M	5.5	2.7	5.4	6.0	6.7	4.6	6.3	7.0	6.5	3.9	5.3	-	-F	2.0	1.6	1.8	2.9	1.0	1.8	2.5	1.9	1.1	1.3	2.3	-	-1969 T	4.0	2.9	5.5	4.3	5.1	3.6	4.3	4.3	3.1	3.3	4.8	6.7	-M	6.0	5.3	9.0	5.5	7.0	5.2	6.5	7.1	5.5	5.0	7.5	-	-F	2.0	0.4	1.8	3.2	3.2	2.0	2.1	1.4	0.6	1.6	2.2	14.5	-1970 T	4.0	1.7	4.5	3.8	3.8	4.1	4.4	5.0	4.8	1.9	3.7	6.3	-M	5.8	2.3	5.4	6.3	5.4	6.4	6.2	6.5	7.5	3.0	4.8	11.6	-F	2.2	1.2	3.7	1.3	2.2	1.9	2.6	3.5	1.9	0.8	2.7	-	-1971 T	4.2	2.5	7.2	4.9	3.3	4.2	4.3	5.0	5.0	3.4	4.2	-	-M	6.2	4.9	8.9	6.6	5.0	6.2	6.4	6.9	8.1	5.3	5.8	-	-F	2.2	5.4	3.3	1.6	2.3	2.4	3.0	1.8	1.4	2.5	-	-
July 14, 1977
Canada	Order Paper Questions Prince Edward Newfoundland ' Island Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta	British Columbia	Yukon	North West Territories1972 T	4.0	3.0	5.3	5.0	2.5	3.7	4.1	4.7	5.7	3.1	4.3	5.3	-M	5.9	4.4	7.0	6.5	3.7	5.8	6.1	6.9	9.5	4.6	5.4	9.8	-F	2.1	1.5	3.6	3.5	1.3	1.5	2.2	2.6	1.8	1.5	3.2	-	-1973 T	4.0	3.3	3.5	3.7	4.6	4.0	4.1	5.1	5.2	2.7	4.0	-	-M	5.9	5.4	5.2	5.7	7.0	5.9	5.6	7.4	8.7	4.6	6.1	-	-F	2.1	1.1	1.7	1.7	2.2	2.1	2.6	2.8	1.6	0.8	1.8	-	-1974 T	4.0	3.5	3.4	4.3	3.6	4.1	4.2	4.4	4.3	3.2	3.5	-	2.7M	5.6	4.7	5.1	6.4	5.1	6.1	5.8	5.5	5.9	4.3	5.1	-	5.1F	2.4	2.3	1.7	2.2	2.1	2.2	2.6	3.2	2.7	2.1	1.9	-	-Canada	Newfoundland	Deaths from Bladder Cancer as Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia	a Percentage of All Cancer Deaths New Brunswick Quebec Ontario	By Province and Sex, Canada 1965-1974 Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta	British Columbia	Yukon	North West Territories1965 T	2.9	1.8	5.3	2.0	3.0	2.6	3.3	2.4	3.5	2.5	3.0	5.9	-M	3.7	1.9	8.0	2.6	2.8	3.4	4.1	3.7	4.3	3.5	3.5	-	-F	2.0	1.5	1.6	1.3	3.1	1.7	2.3	0.8	2.1	1.1	2.3	20.0	-1966 T	3.1	2.0	3.3	2.8	2.2	2.6	3.6	2.7	2.5	3.3	3.6	-	-M	4.1	2.8	5.1	3.5	2.9	3.6	4.6	3.8	3.4	4.4	5.1	-	F	1.8	0.9	1.2	2.1	1.3	1.4	2.3	1.1	1.0	1.8	1.6	-	-1967 T	2.8	3.7	3.5	2.9	3.2	2.4	3.1	2.4	2.2	2.6	2.6	-	-M	3.5	5.4	7.0	4.0	6.1	3.1	3.8	3.2	3.4	3.3	3.1	-	-F	1.8	1.4	-	1.7	-	1.6	2.3	1.3	0.6	1.6	2.0	-	-1968 T	2.7	2.0	2.8	3.0	2.8	2.4	3.2	2.8	2.8	2.2	2.6	-	-M	3.6	2.2	4.0	4.0	4.7	3.1	4.1	3.7	4.3	2.9	3.1	-	-F	1.6	1.7	1.5	2.0	0.7	1.5	2.0	1.5	0.9	1.2	1.8	-	-1969 T	2.9	2.9	3.7	2.7	3.7	2.6	3.0	2.7	2.3	3.0	3.1	12.5	-M	3.9	4.7	5.6	3.2	4.6	3.5	4.1	4.0	3.6	3.9	4.1	-	-F	1.6	0.5	1.3	2.1	2.5	1.6	1.7	1.0	0.6	1.7	1.6	33.3	-1970 T	2.8	1.6	3.0	2.2	2.8	2.9	3.1	3.1	3.3	1.6	2.4	5.9	-M	3.7	1.7	3.1	3.3	3.6	4.1	3.9	3.7	4.4	2.3	2.8	7.7	-F	1.7	1.3	2.8	0.9	1.8	1.5	2.1	2.5	1.6	0.8	2.0	-	-1971 T	2.9	2.2	4.5	3.1	2.3	2.9	3.1	3.1	3.4	2.9	2.7	-	-M	3.9	3.7	5.3	3.9	3.1	3.8	4.0	3.6	4.5	3.8	3.4	-	-F	1.8	-	3.5	2.3	1.3	1.7	1.9	2.3	1.5	1.4	1.8	-	-1972 T	2.7	2.5	3.5	3.0	1.8	2.5	2.8	2.8	3.7	2.5	2.8	4.8	-M	3.6	3.2	4.0	3.5	2.5	3.5	3.8	3.7	5.3	3.3	3.2	6.7	-F	1.6	1.6	2.9	2.3	1.0	1.2	1.6	1.8	1.4	1.4	2.4	-	-1973 T	2.7	2.8	2.1	2.2	3.2	2.6	2.7	3.1	3.0	2.3	2.6	-	-M	3.5	4.1	2.6	3.1	4.8	3.5	3.4	3.9	4.4	3.2	3.5	-	-F	1.6	1.1	1.3	1.1	1.5	1.6	1.9	1.9	1.1	0.9	1.3	-	1974 T	2.7	3.0	1.9	2.5	2.5	2.7	2.8	2.6	2.7	2.6	2.3	-	3.8M	3.4	3.5	2.6	3.3	3.1	3.6	3.5	2.9	3.3	3.0	3.0	-	5.6F	1.7	2.2	1.1	1.5	1.7	1.6	1.9	2.2	1.9	2.1	1.4	-	-


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Since March 14, 1977, has the Minister of Labour met with officials of the railway companies and unions in regard to the Hall Report recommendations and, if so, what position did the Minister take in such discussions?
2.	Will the Minister urge the railway companies and unions to accept the recommendations?
3.	Is the government taking any initiatives on behalf of retired railway employees in order to find more immediate solutions to their problems and, if so, what are they?
4.	Is the Minister planning to introduce changes to the definition of "employee" in the Canada Labour Code in order to compel railway unions to bargain for pension benefits of retired employees?
5.	Will the Minister urge the railway companies and the CRLA to accept greater representation of retired employees in the collective bargaining process and, if this cannot be achieved on a voluntary basis, would the Minister consider introducing legislation requiring such representation?
6.	Has the Minister had any indication from railway companies as to whether or not they will accept the recommendation of the Hall Report that the trusteeship of both CNR and CPR pension plans be placed in the hands of an independent trust company?
7.	If the railway companies do not voluntarily turn the pension plans over to an independent trust company, will the Minister introduce legislation to insure
that the trusteeship of the plans conform with desired public policy and are brought in line with the expectations of National Revenue regulations and the Pension Benefit Standards Act?
8.	Will the Minister impress upon his colleagues the urgent need to establish a body to undertake a complete and independent review of the entire pension industry and the success of pension plans in meeting retirement needs?


John Carr Munro: 1. The parties are currently evaluating their bargaining priorities in the light of the Hall Report and are expected to meet shortly to explore needed pension improvements. As the unions and management are themselves in the process of establishing their own approaches and needs, I have not felt it would be appropriate or helpful to insert a third party into these proceedings.
2.	At this stage, I believe that the appropriate course is to acquaint myself with the reactions of the parties to the Hall recommendations as they explore them in the light of their own priorities. The parties are in the best position to examine the options and determine their own needs.
3.	While no government initiatives are planned with specific reference to retired railway employees, the government has established an Interdepartmental Committee under the joint

July 14, 1977

membership of the Departments of Finance and Health and Welfare to examine all aspects of the pension issue.
4.	Before compelling unions to bargain on the pension or any other issue, I would be guided by the views and experiences of interested groups to determine the effect of such changes on the collective bargaining process. As an initial step, voluntary approaches of the type recommended by Dr. Hall would seem to deserve the attention of the parties.
5.	Dr. Hall's recommendations concerning mechanisms to better involve retired employees in the collective bargaining process are being considered by the parties. As this matter is being carefully reviewed by the parties at the present time, it is premature to consider legislative mechanisms.
6.	This matter is under consideration by the parties.
7.	This question is hypothetical and premature as there is no indication that the railways have rejected this recommendation.
8.	This matter is being dealt with by the Interdepartmental Pension Policy Review Committee referred to in question 3.


Mr. Symes: What was the total amount spent in Sault Ste. Marie from October 1972 to date by the Department of Labour?


John Carr Munro: No funds spent in Sault Ste. Marie from October, 1972 to date.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning questions placed on the order paper on the first day of this session having to do with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its international service. These questions were on the order paper during the last session of the thirtieth parliament for approximately six months, and have gone almost a year and a half unanswered. I cannot see why the answers to these questions have not been made available, since the questions are very straightforward: they ask for very straightforward information where a "yes" or "no" would handle almost half of them.
On top of that, the distressing fact to me is that three of the top officials named in these questions have been transferred since these questions appeared on the order paper, having been demoted to other positions with no explanation having been given the public. However, obviously the government has been taking it out on them for the mismanagement of the international service of the CBC due to pressures placed against it by the Department of External Affairs, evidence of which appears in these questions.
I cannot understand why the parliamentary secretary goes on day after day telling us how many hundreds of questions he has answered, instead of telling us why there are certain questions that he will not answer. Can he today tell me why the answers to these 10 to 12 questions concerning manipulation of the CBC and its international service by the Depart-
Order Paper Questions
ment of External Affairs, influencing what is broadcast to the Soviet Union and other countries behind the so-called iron curtain countries, are being suppressed by the government, and why certain men who tried to do their duty on behalf of Canada, in the interests of a free democratic way of life, were demoted because the government did not agree with them and told them they could not even mention Christmas and a number of other things because it was anti-Soviet? I think these questions should be answered. Can the parliamentary secretary now rise and tell the House whether we are going to get them before we adjourn tomorrow, on Monday or Tuesday or whenever it may be?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has given the House a lot of gratuitous opinion, and once again has attempted to impute motives to me, to the Department of External Affairs and to the government generally in the process of answering questions which are on the order paper. I repeat today the assurance that I have given him and other members on other occasions in the House with respect to questions appearing on the order paper-certainly all the ones that are there at the moment-and that is that we do intend to provide answers to them as quickly as possible. It is our hope that those answers will be available before this session adjourns.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to rise at this point until the parliamentary secretary indicated that he wanted to assure members of the House that questions on the order paper would be answered as quickly as possible. May I bring to his attention question No. 632, which is dated October 18 but which was actually placed on the order paper in the last session of parliament. It asks the government whether the then secretary of state made a trip between Ottawa, London, and Stratford on July 9, 1976. In view of the fact that that secretary of state has come and gone and we already have another Secretary of State, and since this event took place over a year ago, can the parliamentary secretary tell me why it has taken so long to get a straightfoward answer to a very simple question, and when may I expect an answer?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be precise at this moment with respect to the particular question the hon. member has mentioned to me. As I recall it, I believe this may be the first time he has mentioned that question in the House. I will try and provide an analysis for him which will satisfy his curiosity respecting the timing involved in this question. But again let me say, for the benefit of all hon. members, that it is my intention to try to provide answers to all questions on the order paper before the end of this session.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Criminal Code



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
July 14, 1977

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, July 13, consideration of Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, when I called it six o'clock last night 1 had begun to tell the House of my experience in committee regarding this particular bill which was discussed at length and in great detail. I told my colleagues of the frustrations I suffered, as a layman, being exposed to the intricacies of committee and the House of Commons. I also mentioned my shock and dismay at the interventions by groups of individuals throughout the country who came before the committee. These groups consisted of people from law societies, civil liberties associations and persons who indulged in hunting and trap shooting. All these people felt their individual rights and freedoms were being threatened.
When closure was imposed in committee it was decided that no further witnesses should be heard on this bill. It was my understanding that there were 24 applications from people who wished to have their views and concerns considered by this committee. As I said last night, I cannot understand the indecent haste which has been attached to these measures. The measures are not designed to address themselves to the critical need which exists in our society today-a need to confront organized crime. The minister hangs his hat on gun control and electronic surveillance. These measures are designed to combat organized crime which is now rampant in our country, according to the minister. We do not see any meaningful tool or purpose in Bill C-51 which addresses itself to this critical situation.
We hear much about freedom of information these days. Some of my colleagues on this side of the House, and particularly the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), have almost exclusively concerned themselves for the last two or three years with the matter of freedom of information and openness by the government. Yet the government seems to be going the other way and feels that freedom of information will be achieved by wiretapping persons' phones. We have to ask ourselves for whom is this freedom of information laid before us in the green paper. Will the Liberal government have access to all information exchanged in this country?
As they retract into their shells and tighten up the leaks which trickle away from the ivory towers this government is operating out of these days, they want everyone else in our society to surrender some of the personal freedoms they have enjoyed. These are to be surrendered to the guardians whom

they espouse to be guardians of civil rights and liberties which are to be turned over for the good of the country.
The House of Commons is representative of the people themselves. We are supposed to deal in blind trust. We are supposed to be blindly trusting of this government in their transactions, be they in business or in public spirit. All one needs to do to become a senior official of the government today is to place his holdings in blind trust. But no one ever defines what the phrase "blind trust" means. The government wants us to blindly trust them because they are all good, divine, the seraphs of this world, the angels with seven wings. They can do no evil; they can do no wrong. Recently we have learned that there are, even in that supreme group on the other side, some rotten apples.
I wonder whether the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has looked seriously at all the implications of this bill before us, particularly in the area of electronic eavesdropping. As the minister has indicated, there was no law in existence before 1973 to protect us against a police officer entering our homes and placing bugs on our telephones. The police officer was prohibited from searching our homes or removing any files or property; but he could enter our residences and put electronic devices in place in order to monitor conversations. There was no law against that practice in 1973 or 1974, and thus we addressed ourselves to it. Yet we are about to pass a law now making it legal. I wonder if the minister has really thought that out. If it was legal to do such a thing at that time, can you imagine some police officer abusing his power and breaking into 24 Sussex Drive when guests are staying there who are student radicals and campus revolutionaries?
Can you imagine the telephone at 24 Sussex Drive being bugged and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) receiving a telephone call from Bill Teron, who is the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the following conversation occurring, "Mr. Prime Minister, I think you should have a swimming pool. As you know, my public companies are in blind trust and I cannot talk about them. Some of my cement trucks will be running around the city and they would not mind dropping off a few loads there. I do not want you to know where the cement or the money is coming from. What do you think?" Imagine Keith Davey telephoning the Prime Minister and saying, "What do you think about calling an election? As you are aware, I am a shareholder of a little company that grows flowers. Since you wear a flower in the House of Commons, how about a contract?"
We are all human. The Prime Minister is human, Keith Davey is human, Bill Teron is human, and so is any police officer. Just because a police officer has yellow stripes on his pants does not indicate he is different. He is a human being. This blind trust is going to be abused, because human nature applies equally to everyone. It applies equally to me, to my colleagues on this side of the House and to my friends on the other side of the House. I wonder whether the minister has taken all these things into consideration.
Let me tell you about some of the things said in committee. One day several representatives of the Law Society of Upper
July 14, 1977

Canada appeared before the committee. These representatives were lawyers who established the terms of reference and the code of ethics for all benchers of the Upper Canada region, which is Ontario. They were telling us that most of the criminal lawyers who operate in the city of Toronto will no longer speak to their clients over the telephone. All too often, at great expense, a senior law counsel advises his client to meet him somewhere in the dark on a park bench. He must ask him to go to the additional expense of hiring a taxi in order to meet in a park, because he can no longer trust the telephone. This should concern all members. It concerns me and all Canadians that we are surrendering rights and privileges enshrined in the Bill of Rights and every other piece of law and human justice that we have ever conceived.
How far can we go in trusting this government with the rights and freedoms that we once enjoyed? Does anyone think that organized crime will worry about this wiretap law? Is anyone so naive as to think they will use the telephone when plotting their sinister schemes? Of course not. They have worked out codes. They have worked out their own delivery systems. They could not trust the mail 20 years ago, and now they cannot trust the telephone. They know how to react.
The innocent, unsuspecting, law-abiding citizen does not have the money or the technology to react to this law. His telephone will be tapped. As the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) stated, he may want to call his doctor, who may be one of ten doctors in the clinic along with 30 nurses and five or six secretaries. One of them might be suspected of having committed a criminal act. The telephone conversations of everyone in the clinic will be tapped and be placed on the computer somewhere. Telephone companies are now producing new systems, having discovered that a person's voice is as clear an identification as his thumbprint or fingerprint. One person in 20 million can be identified over the telephone by closing the gap on the sound waves over the telephone system by computer. At this time we should be protecting ourselves, passing legislation against that kind of gadgetry which could abuse the rights of individuals. Instead, we are making all this information more accessible to the police.
The hon. member for Calgary North said there is no longer any need to do police work or operate a police academy; all you have to do is run the Bell Telephone system through the police station, have an army of people there to identify every individual who uses the telephone, and put their voices and comments in the computer. You need only push a button to get the conversation, and any judge will act accordingly. This is very frightening. Thousands of Canadians are writing to their members of parliament. Letters are pouring into our offices, as I am sure they are into the offices of the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox). I have here two letters which I will read. They are short. I chose them for that reason. The first was sent to the chairman of the committee. I quote;
Criminal Code
Bill C-51 is developing within me, as a Canadian citizen, an inferiority complex due to the fact that our elected members of government fail to realize that such a bill is eroding away my freedom as a Canadian.
I cannot help but ask that the complete firearms section of Bill C-51 be banished once and for all.
There are other such pieces of legislation. This kind of action is not restricted to the bills of the Minister of Justice. Other bills give this government powers beyond anything that any government in any free society has, particularly a government that works under a parliamentary system such as ours. Last week we dealt with Bill C-38. One of my constituents wrote to me as follows:
I would like to express my grave concern regarding the proposed Bill C-38 amending the Fisheries Act. The terms of the bill are so sweeping, the definitions so broad, that anyone near or on any body of water could be deemed in violation of the act in some way. This coupled with the draconian penalties provided by the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code place very broad discretionary powers in the hands of enforcement agencies. There would appear to be little regard for the scale of damage or the cost-benefit relationships of any project that may impinge even marginally on waterways.
The search without warrant powers granted to inspectors under section 9 would seem to be an obvious infringement of basic civil liberties.
My constituent obviously does not know what has happened in the past few years-in this government's term of office. The just society, human liberties and human justice have become a myth. They are something we once knew. We expected our government to keep them in sacred trust for us. As the hon. member for Calgary North said yesterday, and as the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said, the "just society" is just for the Liberal government but not for anyone else. The hangers on are also part of the just society, the sick minds sitting on the other side of the House which have conceived and perpetrated this legislation on us.
There is no way this bill can pass this House. We cannot condone this kind of action going unchecked. We do not have to subject ourselves to this kind of intimidation. Incidentally, intimidation is one thing for which a judge can allow a wiretap to be placed on someone's telephone. I would like a wiretap placed on the telephone of the Minister of Justice, because he intimidated members on this side of the House when he appeared on the scene of an unfortunate incident.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Ambulance chaser!


Frank Oberle: The minister said that incident happened because of people on this side of the House. It would have been a source of comfort had the minister given some assurance that when this criminal was apprehended he would stay behind bars until we were sure be would not perpetrate the same kind of act again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue only with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

July 14, 1977
Criminal Code


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to hon. members who have legal experience participate in this debate in a very legalistic matter. I have listened to all the legal arguments. I thought that the voice of a layman, a neophyte with regard to legal matters, would certainly be welcome. Some plain talk from the hon. member for Nickel Belt might throw some light on what has become a very fuzzy and complicated bill.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I do not want the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) deliberately to mislead the House and insult me by saying that I am one of the legal profession. I participated in this debate as a layman, and I am proud of it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that is not a point of order, but a point of debate.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is well taken. I did not intend to label anyone in this House as a lawyer. I thought I might put before the House some ideas with regard to this bill. I am caught on the horns of a dilemma with regard to Bill C-51. The bill includes gun control legislation, wiretap legislation and some parole provisions. 1 am trying to protect not only the particular concerns of my constituents but the concerns and the welfare of all Canadians, and I find myself in some difficulty because in principle I believe there should be some control and proper processing of those who intend to obtain firearms and to use them. I feel that the time has come in Canada to move in that direction.

Accompanying Bill C-51 are the wiretap provisions. I find myself in some quandary with respect to those provisions because, on the one hand, I recognize the need of my fellow Canadians for security which can be met by controlling the acquisition of firearms and, on the other hand, I am stuck with the problem of being asked to support some provisions in Bill C-51 to provide law enforcement agencies in the country with the power to wiretap. That is the dilemma in which I find myself as a member of parliament. I would like to raise some questions. I suppose the government felt this was a pretty cute way of putting things together in one bill, which might be called an omnibus bill, and in this way to get a bill which had certain provisions which appealed to the majority of members of parliament, but also some distasteful aspects of the legislation, passed by the House.
We also have a problem in terms of the Canadian people's perception of the security of the state. Most people who have written to me about Bill C-51 have written about the gun control section. Very few people have turned their attention to the wiretap provisions. I recognize the fact that probably those who were writing on the gun control provisions are a well organized group. It is a lobby operating with the aim of persuading and convincing members of parliament that they should not pass that section of Bill C-51. But those people
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
forget about the other part of the bill, namely, the wiretap provisions.
In discussions of this matter with my constituents and other people, the response I usually get is that, after all, they do not care if the police listen to their conversations, because they are not doing anything wrong. That sort of thinking pervades the minds of Canadians. They think that in fact we should give that right to law enforcement officers and agencies to ensure the maintenance of our security and freedom. I consider this to be a very serious step. What we on this side of the House have been trying to put across to the government is that when you extend wiretapping provisions, which is what this clause in the bill will do, when you extend occasions for wiretapping and you extend the notification period, it is an extremely important step.
At present, wiretapping is permitted for the smallest of crimes, such as even the smuggling of a pair of shorts across the border. It seems to me that wiretapping should not even be contemplated, and certainly such a decision should not be made at the snap of one's fingers, because wiretapping invades the privacy not only of the individual concerned but also of the person who is contacting him. Privacy is one of the rights to which Canadians are entitled, and that right should be protected. Much is made of the right to privacy between client and lawyer, patient and doctor, and confessor and sinner. That right is greatly respected.
However, there is also the right to privacy between citizens. They should have the right to hold private conversations. When we decide to broaden the wiretapping provisions, we decide to take an extremely serious step. I think that if I were to weigh the seriousness of widening the accessibility to wiretapping by law enforcement officers and agencies against the existence of crime, I would be prepared to protect the right to privacy and recognize that there is crime in the community and that we have to find a more effective method of dealing with it. So if I had to make that trade-off, I would say there should be no wiretapping at all, for anyone-private citizen, agency, or law enforcement officer.
The question that comes to my mind is whether accessibility to wiretapping makes a law enforcement agency more effective. Would the widening of this provision make that agency more efficient? I have grave doubts about it. I argue that all it does is to encourage laziness and slothfulness. To get an order permitting wiretapping is the easy way to go about it. We can keep a 24-hour tap on somebody's phone and listen to thousands and thousands of conversations-goodness knows for how long. Is it more efficient and productive to have three-man shifts listening in on a wiretap, or is it more efficient to infiltrate organized crime and obtain evidence in this more direct way? Will it not make a law enforcement agency more efficient to develop good detective techniques, thus encouraging excellence in detective work which is so essential in ensuring that crime is eliminated in a community?
The question that occurs to me, as well, is this: What has been the experience, in terms of the conviction rate, with the use of wiretaps? Can the minister tell the House whether, in
July 14, 1977

countries which have permitted wiretapping, the conviction rate has been studied in terms of a cost-benefit analysis? Has this been a more effective means of bringing lawbreakers to heel? Has there been a higher conviction rate, and can the minister provide us with any experiences proving that?
I am prepared to listen. As the hon. member for New Westminister (Mr. Leggatt) has pointed out, we had Ramsey Clark, former attorney general of the U.S., before the committee. Mr. Clark pointed out that wiretapping is the most inefficient method of busting criminals. The minister argued that wiretapping would help us get at dons in the mafia. Surely the mafia does not use telephones to set up contracts. The technique is to go beyond the borders of countries where there is wiretapping. The mafia holds conferences where there is no wiretapping and where there are weak police forces. Is the minister prepared to tell me that where wiretapping is in effect the conviction rate is higher? Can he give me examples? If he can, I am certainly prepared to listen to his argument.
Citizens have the right to privacy. The statement made in many letters I have received with regard to the gun control part of Bill C-51 is that people have the right to bear firearms and that the gun control part of this bill is contrary to their rights. It seems to me that the right to privacy has been completely forgotten. The government seems to be playing on the fears of the Canadian people. It seems to imply that organized crime is taking over and that people ought to trade off their right to privacy so that the law enforcement forces can invade that privacy.
The hon. member for New Westminster has taken a strong position on the question of wiretapping. It has been pointed out that we do not need this, and that there are more effective ways of putting a stop to criminal activities. The hon. member's amendment suggests that if we are going to use wiretapping, it ought to be used in relation to very serious crimes which would be punishable on conviction by ten years' imprisonment or more. The hon. member tried to delineate that in his amendment.
I cannot impress enough upon hon. members the seriousness of extending wiretapping. The telephones of members of this House have been tapped. If this bill goes through as proposed by the government, members of parliament might never know about these things because three years down the line many of us will no longer be members of parliament. We might never find out that conversations between ourselves and our constituents which we thought were private were not private at all. I call on hon. members to consider these important matters, and perhaps the minister should answer some questions. Can he assure the House that wiretapping increases the rate of convictions? What is the rate in jurisdictions which have used wiretapping?
Can the minister show us that the use of wiretapping has made law enforcement agencies more effective? Is there a risk of taking away the privacy of individuals? Will wiretapping invade privacy? How does that stand up against the right to
Criminal Code
security within the state? Are there not more effective ways of providing security than by the invasion of privacy of individuals by law enforcement agencies? Those are important questions with which the minister ought to deal. He should not be trying to frighten us by saying that organized crime will take over tomorrow and that the mafia dons are all using telephones to put out contracts, and so forth. Even now, bookmakers are not using telephones.


Mr. Woolliams:: Lawyers and doctors don't use them.


John R. Rodriguez: I do not know what lawyers are using these days, but the lowly bookmaker uses runners. The only way to bust a bookmaking operation is through the use of undercover agents and through breaking codes. Would wiretapping provisions provide the means by which we can get at the laundering of money obtained illegally on the other side of the border? Would they help us deal with money laundered through the buying of stocks or through buying into legitimate organizations? Have we any experience which tells us that wiretapping has stopped any loansharking operation? The loanshark operates in the workplace, on the docks of Montreal and in factories. He does not use the telephone.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. 1 regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Leggatt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At the conclusion of the debate on this motion yesterday, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) indicated that he would withhold his consent to my amending my motion by removing the words "mentioned in paragraph (a)". I understand that the minister is now willing to grant consent, and I assume the House will be kind enough to grant that consent. However, I understand that the minister has some reservation which he would like to explain to the House, and he would like an opportunity to speak again briefly on the motion.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to accommodate the hon. member and give that consent. I wanted an opportunity to reflect. However, that amendment considerably changes the motion, and under the rules I am not allowed to speak on the changed motion. 1 ask for the permission of the House to make, in a short time, a brief observation on the motion as changed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Due to the fact that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has already spoken on this motion, he requires unanimous consent to speak again. Does the minister have unanimous consent?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I think the first question to be decided is whether the House unanimously agrees to the change in question. There was a typographical error. 1 pointed

July 14, 1977
Criminal Code
it out last night. Our party agrees to the change. I do not object to the minister's speaking. Perhaps he has something to explain.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Does the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) have the unanimous consent of the House to change the wording of his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is so ordered. Does the Minister of Justice have the unanimous consent of the House to speak on the change of wording in the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I assume I will speak later.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have refrained from speaking on this bill as most of the arguments I would have advanced have already been placed before the House in previous debates. In order to guard against repetition, I decided I would not speak. That view was reinforced as I read the debates that have taken place. I pay tribute to members who have made their contributions, as the arguments are clear and definite. As I say, I speak with diffidence following the various speeches that have been made. There was the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams), who has a fine record as a trial lawyer, the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates), and this afternoon the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) made an exceptionally fine speech. I think all of us would be enriched if we were able to handle the English language the way he does after only some 25 years in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I want to say a word about the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). In quite a remarkable example of parliamentary skill and debate he dealt with the problem as he saw it. Also, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) throughout the debate has delivered himself in a way that does honour to him and to his constituency.
After all, Mr. Speaker, we do not all have to see alike in everything. Whenever I hear a harsh debate such as sometimes occurs in this House of Commons, I am reminded of the answer given by Sir John A. Macdonald when he was bitterly attacked at the time of the Canadian Pacific scandal. I made a note a moment ago of what he said, and feel the quotation is entirely apt. He said, "I am not totally perfect, to my faults be somewhat blind, to my virtues ever kind." That is a pretty good rule for all of us. However, as I followed this debate I was disturbed by the attitude of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford).


Walter David Baker: The country is disturbed.


John George Diefenbaker: I have heard various ministers of justice in this chamber through the years, Mr. Speaker. I think of the Hon. Louis St. Laurent, as he was then, who took the judicial view, not a narrow partisan view. I think of others who succeeded him, such as the Hon. Davie Fulton who served in my administration and who never brushed aside members of the opposition and their viewpoints by imperious attitude. I realize that in speaking I cannot hope to change anything in the mind of the Minister of Justice. He is immune to suggestion; he is insulated against realities, and I am not hopeful of bringing about any change. What shocks me, however, is that he endeavours to fool the people of Canada with the pretence that anyone voting against this bill is voting against gun control or the proper powers, as he sees them, to be granted to the police.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: In other words, he is afraid to bifurcate this bill. If he will do that, he will change my opinion very greatly. But for him to endeavour to hoax the people of Canada and have them believe that if we vote against this bill we vote against gun control, or against giving proper and appropriate rights to the police, providing the civil liberties of individuals are protected, is a smokescreen to cover the fact that he is afraid to divide the bill. I was more convinced than ever that he will not give way, by the remarks he made the other night when a terrible tragedy took place and a fine young city police officer was shot to death. He is to be buried today, and Ottawa and the nation mourns. The minister's ejaculations on that subject as he arrived at the scene of the crime were, to say the least, more pious and unctious than they were excusable.


An hon. Member:: Ambulance chaser.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot understand whether the observations that were attributed to him at the time were actually made in connection with blood on the hands of certain members whom he designated-


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege, just so there is no confusion in the debate I think I should point out to the right hon. member that apparently he is prepared to say that I said certain members had blood on their hands.


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


Stanley Ronald Basford: Just so there is no confusion, Mr. Speaker, I at no time said that.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it took the minister three or four days to bring about his denial. I am glad even now that I have been able to raise him from his seat in order to deny something that was totally inexcusable, if true. Why he has been silent so long is not for me to say. Whether he used the words or the suggestions I have made, or not, these are some of the statements he allegedly made-statements that I find hard
July 14, 1977

to credit to an experienced lawyer and parliamentarian. According to an interview with broadcast news on July 12, he said:
What I don't understand is we have a group of members, such as Stan Schumacher-
The hon. member for Palliser.
-Doug Neil-
The hon. member for Moose Jaw.
-Ritchie
The hon. member for Dauphin.
-Towers-
The hon. member for Red Deer.
-Bob Brisco from Kootenay West, who spent all day yesterday and presumably all day today debating such things as the right of people to collect and use machine guns-
That statement was not true.
-or amendments reducing the sentences for the use of guns; weakening the provisions relating to safe storage and what I just don't understand is how many people, how many policemen, how many citizens, have to be shot down in Brampton or Oshawa or Ottawa or Penticton, where they shot a tax collector-
I cannot understand bringing in a tax collector. 1 continue:
-or Vancouver, or Montreal, before parliament will react to that public situation and pass the legislation.
Sir, what unctuous hyprocrisy those words are. First, the government introduced legislation to abolish capital punishment. Then it brought in legislation to be in effect until December 31, 1977, provided that anyone who murdered a police officer or custodial officer shall be subject to the death sentence. The government contended that the existence of that death sentence would constitute a deterrent. The government brought that legislation in. Then several policemen and custodial officers were wantonly murdered. Six or seven murderers were awaiting execution. The law providing for the death sentence was in effect, and what did the Minister of Justice do? The government, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wanted to find a way out of the quandary. Having brought the law in themselves, but not desiring to carry it out, they took another course.
Mr. Speaker, one of the last capital cases to come before the courts had to do with two police officers murdered in New Brunswick with unbelievable brutality.


Walter David Baker: It was a premeditated murder.


John George Diefenbaker: It was premeditated and carried out in a way impossible to describe. Those murders were horrible. In that case the murderers, after conviction, were awaiting the death sentence to be carried out. They appealed. The appeal went to the Supreme Court of Canada and was thrown out. Then, suddenly, the light shone on the government. It decided not to carry out the law. Mr. Pearson had never done so. Mr. Trudeau has not done so since he became Prime Minister. They asked themselves, "What shall we do?" They said, "We
Criminal Code
shall return to the House of Commons and bring in a new law to provide that the law which was to be in effect until the end of this year shall be set aside." The various murderers of police officers became the beneficiaries of the actions of the government which, having brought in the law which made the murderers of police officers and custodial officers subject to the death penalty, the government turned around and decided it wanted to get out of the position in which it found itself.
That the Minister of Justice should now endeavour to place the responsibility for the death of the young police officer on members of the opposition is infinite gall. He should withdraw his statement publicly now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: He has not done so. I tell you this, Mr. Speaker: When there is a change of government there will be a reversal of this legislation at the earliest possible time thereafter. I see smiles on the faces of the self-satisfied members opposite who no doubt have read the results of the Gallup poll. I know something about polls. On June 8, 1957, the election being on June 10, the Gallup poll stated that it was obvious the St. Laurent government was going to be re-elected. The party opposite pointed to preceding polls, which bore an unusual relationship to what is happening today. On May 25 the poll said that the Conservatives would get 32 per cent of the vote, and the Liberals 47 per cent. I can tell you what the subsequent polls said. I do not hear Liberal members quoting those former Gallup polls of 1957 on which they put such reliance.
The polls were taken right across the country. We were told, for example, that in the maritimes the Conservative party would get 44 per cent of the vote, and the Liberal party 52 per cent. We pretty nearly wiped them out in the maritimes. It said we would get 22 per cent in Quebec and the Liberals would get 70 per cent. You know what happened there. According to the poll, in the west we would get only 19 per cent of the vote and the Liberals 34 per cent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the right hon. member, but suggest he should return to the motion under discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall do so with great pleasure. I have a strong argument to advance which may seem not connected with the subject before the House, but it is. I say this with great deference, and you know the high regard I have for you, sir. I am saying that when we come to power we shall put an end to all this nonsense, to this legislation such as the Minister of Justice continues to foist on us. Sir, I proceed and will not take long.
I cannot go into provisions concerning wiretapping because there is only one clause before the House. I ask, what happened to the wiretappers of Watergate? I remember somebody asking the Prime Minister in this House, after he had met President Nixon in Washington, if he realized his conversation had been taped. He said, "I do not care." Naturally- nothing was being said. Nonetheless, they had the finest tape system in the president's office you could find anywhere.

July 14, 1977
Criminal Code
Only in the last couple of days a familiar case came to my attention. I will not give hon. members the particulars of it because I do not believe one should be so immodest. I have before me the "RCMP Quarterly", volume 39, No. 4, for October, 1974, and I refer to the story entitled "The cop in the closet." That is a story of a case in which I appeared. In that case they did not have any wiretapping, but they had a policeman and beautiful girl esconced in a cupboard, a small cupboard 24 inches long and 12 inches wide. The man who tells the story is the policeman. They sat there for hours, playing rummy. That is what he says. That is recorded as the first kind of wiretapping case in Canada, but it was not wires they had to tap.
Sir, I would sooner take the opinion of Canadians who believe that you do not need to destroy human rights and fundamental freedoms in order to achieve security.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I would sooner take the opinion of the 500 or 600 lawyers, experienced members of the advocate society of Ontario who, summarizing their view, said wiretapping is a serious threat to the general security and welfare of all Canadians. I will not quote newspapers, but all across the country one newspaper after another has taken a stand against wiretapping. Mr. Speaker, this is a short cut to tyranny; that is what wiretapping brings about.
The hon. member for Calgary North is the proposer of an amendment, with which I will not deal now, except to say this: you will soon put an end to wiretapping, unjust wiretapping, if you accept that amendment. The hon. member says the police can tap to their heart's content; they may gain information from that wiretapping which may help in a prosecution, but the evidence thereof shall not be admissible in a court of law. That is the only way in which you can protect Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I have not been one of those members who over the years has complained if his telephone was being tapped. 1 do not care if it is tapped. If it is, some people may hear things they do not like. To allow police officers to listen in to communications in a lawyers office between the lawyer and his client is a reversion to the days of the Star Chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I hope the minister will reconsider-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to interrupt the right hon. gentleman, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret that after the co-operation we endeavoured to show in the committee, and of which the Minister of Justice is aware, even though permission to call witnesses before the committee was denied, a member from Montreal-1 forget his constituency-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Who cares?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -should say "No" to a man who has been prime minister of this country and is one of the greatest counsel Canada has ever produced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The right hon. member for Prince Albert has fought for human rights and civil liberties throughout his career. It was he who produced the Bill of Rights for this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Not only should the Minister of Justice apologise for that lack of courtesy, but the hon. member concerned should apologise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: I rise on the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might I simply say that, while a member on this side has refused consent, I am at the same time negotiating with one of the members of our party whose bill would be before us during the private members hour at five o'clock, to give up this hour of private members' business in the hope that progress might be made on the bill before us, and in the hope-as I believe is the desire of all members-that we may at some point in the course of this summer be able to spend some time with our wives and children. This in no way is disrespectful to the right hon. gentleman. If it is the general feeling, it will expedite passage of the bill by allowing him to speak for a few minutes longer. We would, I am sure, have no objection. But we are all trying to work with a will to make progress on this measure.


Walter David Baker: You are not going to get it with that sort of tactic.


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1 am saying that I am currently engaged in conversation with one of our members, asking him to give up private members' hour in order to provide more time for this debate.


An hon. Member:: That is irrelevant.


Stanley Ronald Basford: It is not. We are all making sacrifices to get on with this bill. I suggest to the House that it might be helpful if the right hon. gentleman, or the hon. member for Calgary North, were to ask for unanimous consent for the right hon. member to speak for an additional period in which to conclude his remarks.
July 14, 1977


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker. I understand well the argument advanced by the Minister of Justice, that all hon. members who have wives want to be with them. I wish I could be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Herbert:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think it should be any surprise to the right hon. gentleman that I should have said "No". He was in the House on the previous occasion when 1 told him I would be taking this action. First of all, I believe that when such extension is given to a member, it is given as a privilege and is not to be abused; it means that the member concerned shall continue to speak for only a few minutes and should not just continue to address the House without time limit. I have refused unanimous consent because of what I consider to have been an abuse of that privilege in the past.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You should hang your head in shame.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Possibly at some future time we should change the rules to limit additional remarks to a fixed period of time. That is for the committee on procedure to decide. In conclusion, I would suggest that the right hon. member has been here long enough that he ought to be able to say what he has to say within the time allotted to him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Since there is not unanimous consent, I call on the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was not
rising on the point of order; I was rising to say a few words in the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Point of order.


Mr. Fraser:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to say, without equivocation, that as a member of the bar who has spent 17 years before the courts, I spent those years believing that one of the fundamental obligations of a lawyer in society and of the law-maker in society was to ensure that the civil liberties of our people, liberties which have been gained at great cost over many hundred years, are not lightly taken away; they must not be restricted unless there is clear, even overwhelming evidence for such a course, the burden of proof being upon those who advocate the restriction of those liberties that it is in the public interest-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. That is not a point of order. The House did not give the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) unanimous consent to continue, so I recognized the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas).


John Allen Fraser: But Mr. Speaker, let me continue with my point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas).
Criminal Code


John Allen Fraser: I want to move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North, that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) be heard in this House this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I cannot accept the motion due to the fact that the hon. member does not have the floor. I recognized the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and he has the floor.


Walter David Baker: You just wait over there!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You will be here until August.


John R. Rodriguez: You Liberals have blown it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate because I felt my colleagues and my hon. friends had already expressed the position of my party. I rise, however, first of all to say how much I regret that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who has been a consistent defender of civil liberties over the years, not only by his words but by his actions, should not have been allowed to complete his speech. He certainly deserved the right to be heard by the House and I, for one, would have liked to hear him.
I am also rising because I listened with dismay to the speech made yesterday afternoon by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). I have always considered the Minister of Justice a very reasonable person. I have had considerable respect for his ability both as a lawyer and as a parliamentarian, but I could not help but feel yesterday that he put up a most unfair defence of a very weak piece of legislation in regard to dealing with electronic surveillance.
The minister began by setting forth the terms of the legislation which was passed in 1974. That was good legislation. It should be remembered that in 1974 we had a minority government and therefore the government was compelled to get the co-operation of the opposition groups. That legislation on the statute books was designed to stop private wiretapping and eavesdropping; to provide for police electronic surveillance under clearly stipulated conditions; and to provide that persons whose telephones were tapped were to be given notice in due course that their telephone conversations were tapped.
Yesterday the minister told the House that this legislation has not worked. He did not tell us why it has not worked. He said that it is difficult for a judge to define what is meant by "organized crime". Very well, Mr. Speaker, if that is true, the minister should have brought in some legislation more clearly defining what is meant by "organized crime". But how does allowing wiretapping to be used in evidence in court, and extending the time for reporting to those people who have been spied upon to three years, clarify what is organized crime? The minister has a responsibility to tell the House why the present
7670

July 14, 1977
Criminal Code
eavesdropping legislation and wiretapping provisions have not worked.
In quoting the police and the attorneys general of the provinces, the minister is implying that the judges have been uncooperative in giving authorization. Is that true? Is the minister saying that the police had difficulty getting authorization from judges? It would be a terrible indictment of the judiciary of this country. If the police have been getting co-operation, then why does the minister now need provisions allowing the tapes which are taken of a wiretap to be used in court as evidence?
The minister stated the basic principles here. First of all, he said, we are all opposed to private wiretapping. Agreed. He said we are also agreed that the police should be allowed to indulge in electronic surveillance under what he calls "proper judicial supervision". I, for one, Mr. Speaker, do approve. 1 think there are times when it may be that wiretapping and other forms of electronic surveillance are necessary in order to deal with criminals and to stop criminal activities in this country. That is why we voted for the legislation of 1974. But we voted for it on the understanding that these wiretapping operations would only be permitted when authorization had been granted by the courts.
The minister is now saying that he wants electronic surveillance under, to quote his words, "proper judicial supervision". How can there be proper judicial supervision when the police can wiretap and eavesdrop, and then take the tapes into court and have them accepted as evidence? Why would the police bother to go to court to get permission, if they can use the evidence in court? The simplest thing to do is to go on a witch-hunt, a fishing expedition, wire enough people and tap enough phones so that if nothing of interest is found except some petty gossip they do not need to do anything with it. That is, except to keep it on the record because it might be useful on a further occasion for a little blackmail. However, if the police do find something, Mr. Speaker, which they got illegally, by breaking the law, then they can take it into court and use it as evidence against a person who is charged.
Just where are we going, Mr. Speaker? What the minister is saying is that when you ask the question, "What is a crime?", the answer is that a crime is an illegal act which is committed by the police. If the police break the law, or if they tap phones by using eavesdropping facilities illegally, that is not a crime; the reward is that the evidence can be used in court in order to convict some individual.
I wonder whether the minister and the House realize the road down which we are travelling. At the present time, as I understand the law, the police cannot break into my house or office, or any other person's premises, in order to secure documents unless they first obtain a search warrant or writ of assistance. Is the next step going to be that they can break in illegally? There is some evidence that the police have broken in illegally, which is why the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) has ordered an investigation into the RCMP. But if they break into premises illegally, are they to be allowed to use any

documents which they find as evidence, in court? That will be the next step.


Stanley Ronald Basford: They can now. That is the present law.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They can use evidence illegally obtained?


Stanley Ronald Basford: That is the common law.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then the minister had better get busy and change it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: You should have brought that amendment in with the bill.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister's interjection seems to me to point not down the road which we might travel, but down the road which we are already travelling. Surely what happened in the United States is a lesson to this country. The CIA set up its "dirty tricks" department where the "plumbers" were illegally breaking into premises, not to deal with criminals but to get political information against their political opponents. That has built up to the point where we know Edgar Hoover got private dossiers on people in public life, such as senators, congressmen and people like Martin Luther King. Is that what we want to do? There is now evidence that the CIA had assassination squads in South Vietnam. Why? On the assumption that the forces who are supposed to maintain the law can violate the law any time they pleased, it is in the interests of national security to do so. If we start down that road, we are going to find ourselves in exactly the same kind of difficulty from which the United States is now emerging.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Surely, in this country, if an act is illegal for ordinary citizens it is illegal for the police.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The police have no right to wiretap. They have no more right to break into your home or mine unless they have the proper authorization set forth in the law. To say they can wiretap or they can search my home in order to get documents and use them in court, even though they get them illegally, is a negation of the law. Louis XIV once said, "L'etat c'est moi"-which means, "I am the state". In a democracy, this government is not the state; it is the servant of the state.


Some hon. Members:: Right on.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The people in this country are the state and we are here as their servants. The ministers who sit on the treasury benches are there to protect the country against any group in the community which wants to violate its rights as free men and women. What is this
July 14, 1977

government doing to protect them? It has stooped to a subterfuge which has been pointed out by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). It brings in pieces of legislation covering four or five topics-gun control, dangerous offenders, parole, and electronic surveillance. It is true that all of these measures deal with the Criminal Code. The fact that one agrees with part of this bill does not mean that one has to accept all of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The government has taken those pieces of the bill which the great majority of us in this House support and has endeavoured to use those sections as a sugar-coating to cover the bitter pill of allowing illegal wiretapping by the police forces and allowing them to use that as evidence in the courts, thereby giving them an open invitation completely to ignore the provision that they must go to the courts, because they do not need to go to the courts. They can eavesdrop to their heart's content, knowing perfectly well that whatever evidence they secure illegally can be used as evidence in a court of law.
We have supported the minister in the past on gun control and many of the measures in regard to parole and dangerous offenders. I, for one, am not prepared to support any piece of legislation which contains provisions allowing the police forces of this country, even with the best will in the world, to go out and break the law and use the results of their illegality as a means of convicting some person in the courts of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Therefore, even at this late date the minister ought to break up this bill and give the House of Commons at third reading an opportunity to vote separately on these sections of Bill C-51. If he does not, he leaves those of us who believe in basic civil liberties of Canadian people no option but to vote against this piece of legislation.
This government has always boasted of its liberalism. This government is still smarting from the unhappy memories of October, 1970, and the War Measures Act. I would have expected that a government which burned its fingers on those anti-civil libertarian measures would now want to give the House an opportunity to deal with the matter of electronic surveillance on its merits, rather than burying it in a bill which the government hopes we will accept even though we dislike this portion. I dislike this portion of the bill so strongly that I am prepared to vote against the bill as a whole, although there are many things in the bill with which I heartily approve.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Many members of this House regret the incident which occurred a little while ago, and I should like to ask the House to grant the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) an opportunity to be heard a second time now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed?
Criminal Code


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Agreed, and so ordered.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the motion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) which is in keeping with the best traditions of parliament. However, as I have already stated, I would not want to accept that, not because he has advanced it but, rather, because of the hon. member who took the stand and as a result of doing so obtained another forward step in notoriety. I would not want to remove the benefits from him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, I want to facilitate the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) by agreeing to his changing of the words of his amendment. I wanted an opportunity to speak very briefly on the changed amendment. I recognize that electronic surveillance is a matter upon which all members of this House hold very strong feelings. As I said yesterday, in 1974 this House examined the question very thoroughly. 1 ask hon. members to look at this amendment, as reworded, very carefully, because 1 suggest to hon. members and to the mover of the amendment that a careful reading of the amendment would make it clear that it would be "open season" for the police to investigate any activity involving two or more persons.
I know the intention of the hon. member for New Westminster. We discussed that intention very carefully in committee. It is essentially my intention, namely, that we have a list of specified offences upon which the police could obtain an authorization to wiretap, and that there be some general clause relating to organized crime allowing authorizations there. In 1974 there was the first general organized crime section that the then hon. member for St. Paul's, Ronald Atkey, a Conservative member, wrote into the Criminal Code. That general clause has not proved effective, and this is an amendment to rewrite it. This amendment deals with a number of persons acting in concert in furtherance of a commission of crime involving one or more offences. At the very least, those are confusing words. At the very most, it is "open season" for wiretapping any activity by two or more persons involved in an offence.
All offences must be given this general meaning. It is not restricted to Criminal Code offences, indictible offences or offences with a penalty of five years or more. The general meaning of offences is anything carrying a penal consequence. The courts would have to interpret that not only as being an offence under some federal statute but under provincial statutes and even municipal bylaws. I suspect that a very careful reading of this amendment has the most dire consequences
80020-21 Vi

July 14, 1977
Criminal Code
which are not being noted. As I say, it would be "open season" for wiretap activity against any two people involved in anything which would be an offence under a federal statute, provincial statute or municipal statute. I do not think that is the intention of the opposition or of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). It is certainly not my intention. I urge the House, including the members of the NDP, to defeat this amendment. As judicially interpreted, it would have very drastic consequences.
When they appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, the Advocates' Society and other groups who appeared strenously objected to this very provision whereby one could have two or more people involved in any offence and it could be wiretapped. As I recall the evidence, they spoke of two gas station attendants who agreed on the price of gasoline who could be wiretapped under the combines act. The Advocates' Society mentioned a lot of other incidents that could be subject-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Like income tax.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Like income tax. I suggest very seriously to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) that the amendment now before the House is precisely the situation to which the Advocates' Society was addressing itself. The amendment that the justice and legal affairs committee finally agreed upon as a compromise measure had a list of specific Criminal Code offences and a section relating to organised crime involving Criminal Code indictible offences with a penalty on indictment of five years. That is far more limiting than amendment No. 29.
I ask the hon. member for Calgary North, who has a deep interest in this matter, to look very carefully at the wording of this amendment. It is precisely the situation against which the advocate society was making strong representations.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford a question?


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) must have unanimous consent, as he has already spoken.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, this is a point of order. It is simply to clarify the amendment that I asked the House to consider last night. In doing so, I do not put forward the explanation in any kind of great detail. I do not propose to do that now. I want to read the particular amendment into the record because the Minister of Justice is clearly in error when he says it does not apply to indictment. It clearly does. I will read it again for the minister. The motion, as amended, reads as follows:
-and any other offence created by an act of parliament for which an offender may be prosecuted by indictment-

The words are clearly there. The minister is misleading the House when he says that the "tappability" would apply to all offences. The offence must be indictable. I quote:
-or that is an offence mentioned in section 3 or 20 of the Small Loans Act, that there are reasonable grounds to believe is part of a pattern of criminal activity planned and organized by a number of persons acting in concert in furtherance of the commission of crime involving one or more offences mentioned in paragraph (a) or a conspiracy to commit one or more such offences-
That is the best definition I know for organized crime. If the minister has a better definition, he should submit it. The minister said we were opening the door to everything. That is exactly what we are not doing with this amendment. We are leaving the door open only enough to handle organized crime. The minister's amendment does not deal with the question of organized crime. This amendment simply ensures that you can only tap an individual where the offence has a ten-year penalty, but with organized crime you leave it open to an indictable offence.
1 do not know how the minister can come to any other conclusion from reading this motion. Bringing in this red herring of a couple of people in a gas station simply does not wash. In explanation of this, the change is clearly to allow us the capacity to tap for organized crime. I do not know of anyone in this chamber who opposes that provision. I still argue that the amendment is in order. The hon. member raised a red herring in terms of acting in concert. He clearly misunderstands. He even made the argument that it carried forward for all offences, when clearly only offences that are indictable are covered in terms of organized criminal activity.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may 1 ask the Minister of Justice a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Calgary North on a point of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member has already spoken on this motion. He can only speak again with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I know the minister is anxious to get this legislation through. He spoke with great affection about Mr. Chappel, Mr. Cooper and Mr. Cartwright who appeared before the committee for the advocate society and the benchers of Upper Canada. He referred to them in reference to the motion of my good friend from New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). I have on the order paper two amendments. They state that you cannot wiretap solicitors' offices because of the privilege and confidentiality, not of the lawyers, but of the clients. The second amendment reads:
-"but all evidence derived from an unauthorized intercept and all evidence derived therefrom shall be inadmissible in any court of law."
Those two amendments were recommended by the distinguished group who appeared before the committee. Will the
July 14, 1977

minister now accept those two amendments without any further debate? Ele used that society to bolster his argument with reference to the amendment of the hon. member for New Westminster. If he loves their report and refers to it in the House of Commons with great affection, I ask him to accept the two main amendments recommended by the lawyers of Upper Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on motion No. 29 in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on proposed motion No. 29 stands deferred. We will now proceed to motions Nos. 30, 31 and 32. These will be grouped for debate. A vote on motion No. 30 will also dispose of motions Nos. 31 and 32.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I believe there have been some discussions through the usual channels, led by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell), with regard to private members' hour. Possibly, before we start debating amendments, it might be useful to deal with that. There is a willingness on the part of the hon. member for Scarborough East, who is the sponsor of the bill to be dealt with at five o'clock, to give up this particular private members' hour providing, of course, that at some subsequent time he will have the opportunity to present it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed that private members' hour, to commence at five o'clock, will be dispensed with?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is so ordered.
Criminal Code


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to delay the proceedings, but it would be worth while for the House to note its gratitude to the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) who has been most cooperative both today and on other occasions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Motion No. 30.
That Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in clause 9 by striking out lines 23 to 31 at page 49 and substituting the following therefor:
"consultation with clients".
Motion No. 31.
That Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in clause 10 by striking out lines 5 to 20 at page 51 and substituting the following therefor:
"but all evidence derived from an unauthorized intercept and all evidence
derived therefrom shall be inadmissible in any court of law."
Motion No. 32.
That Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformeries Act, be amended in clause 10 by striking out line 35 at page 51 and substituting the following therefor:
"he may not".


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


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a small point of order. I notice that the Chair has linked motion No. 30, which deals with conversations between solicitor and client, and motion No. 31 which deals with the admissibility of evidence. That is like trying to mix water and oil. In light of what happened earlier this afternoon when the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was speaking, if I, for example, asked for extra time because those two motions are linked together, would I be given extra time? As it is, I am only allowed 20 minutes to speak on such a serious subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In fact, you are allowed 40 minutes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I ask that these two motions be separated and that we vote separately on motions Nos. 30 and 31.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I am informed that due to the fact that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) moved the motion, he will be allowed 40 minutes.


An hon. Member:: That's too much.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about the other speakers, sir?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: On the same motion, the other speakers will be allowed 20 minutes, but the hon. member for Calgary North will be allowed 40 minutes due to the fact that he moved the motion.

July 14, 1977
Criminal Code



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 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 Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)- National Defence-Alleged differentiation in treatment by customs between forces personnel and civilians; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-Post Office-Allegation union denied access to means of communicating with members-Government position; the hon. member for Well-ington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty)-Farm Credit Corporation-Indictment of management in audit by Sibbald Group-Government action.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I will deal with motion No. 30 amending clause 9 at page 49 by striking out lines 23 to 31 and substituting the words "consultation with clients". The clause reads:
No authorization may be given to intercept a private communication at the office of residence of a solicitor, or at any other place ordinarily used by a solicitor and by other solicitors for the purpose of consultation with clients,
If the clause stopped at this point, that would be fine, but it goes on to read:
-unless the judge to whom the application is made is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the solicitor, any other solicitor practising with him, any person employed by him or any other such solicitor or a member of the solicitor's household has been or is about to become a party to an offence.
The first point I want to make is that all communications between clients and solicitor should be privileged and confidential. Otherwise, no solicitor could act for his client or use the telephone in privacy. There have been cases of telephones in courthouses being wiretapped and there have also been cases of phones in law offices being wiretapped. This means that if the police suspect one person in that office of, say, smoking marijuana or doing something within the definition of offence in the amendment moved by my good friend, and there are 100 lawyers in that law firm, 30 or 40 secretaries and several
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
bookeepers, they can wiretap the whole office so that all the private conversations can be listened to in the hope that they can hear one sentence which would help them obtain evidence against the one person they suspect.
Let us consider a medical clinic with 20 or 30 doctors practising together, specialists in different fields. If the police were to suspect a clerk, an orderly, a nurse or even a doctor in that office, all the conversations could be tapped for 60 long days, all the most private matters that were discussed concerning our wives, our children and ourselves and concerning all other Canadians, could be overheard. As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) said in his brilliant speech this afternoon, this could happen. But he could have added one sentence-namely, that this information could have been fed into a computer.
There are unfortunate cases of high school girls 14 or 15 years old becoming pregnant, calling the family doctor and telling him of their misfortune. If that clinic were wiretapped, the record of that girl's conversation could be overheard and fed into the computer. If my unmarried daughter should become pregnant, or if that were to happen to anyone else, I would not want that published in the Calgary Herald or the Toronto Star. I see a few doctors present in the House. They know how private some medical information can be, and that the privilege of confidentiality is not to protect lawyers or doctors but to protect clients and patients.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) spoke about exemptions, but there is no exemption here. It says that no authorization will be given unless the judge to whom the application is made is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for it. Anyone can be suspected in a solicitor's office, his partner, someone working for him, someone on his staff at home, such as the gardener, the maid or the fellow who sands the floors.
As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands pointed out, the police cannot enter your home without a search warrant or a writ of assistance, but they can smuggle in by wiretapping a telephone, by putting a bug in your front room, or even under your bed. This is what this amendment is all about. As the right hon. member for Prince Albert said this afternoon, surely the minister will show some sanity in reference to this matter. This is a reasonable amendment. I will quote from the brief in a few moments. The minister read from the brief and he said that the Advocates' Society of Ontario did not agree with my good friend, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). 1 question the fact that is an accurate statement, but even if it is an accurate statement, the Advocates' Society came before the committee on June 9 with three very intelligent legal briefs. In one of them they said:
The present sections of the Criminal Code make no special provision for the interception of communications to and by solicitors. If there are reasonable grounds for belief that a solicitor is a person the interception of whose private communications may assist the investigation of an offence, an authorization will be granted to intercept his communications.
This is at the discretion of the judge. The minister says he trusts judges. I have a lot of respect for our judiciary, but this is not an ordinary case. This is made ex parte, which means that a law officer of the Crown or a police officer goes before a
July 14, 1977

judge with an affidavit and nobody has the right to crossexamine him, and he swears that this and that is the fact. So the judge signs the order on a busy afternoon, and the wiretap is allowed.


John Allen Fraser: Elaving heard only one side of the story.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, and that side has not even been examined by scrutiny of the right of cross-examination. I cannot accept that, and neither can any other lawyer in this country. The law societies of the provinces, the Canadian bar, the Advocates' Society of Ontario, and the benchers of Upper Canada say that this cannot go on, not because lawyers should have any special protection, but because the citizens of Canada have civil rights, and they are entitled to privacy. Have we reached the stage where we can press a red, blue, pink or green button and out rolls our whole lives? What human being is without some sin? What human being does not have some little skeleton in his closet which he would rather keep locked up during his lifetime? What family in this country has not had difficulties? We as members of parliament are not immune because we are in public life. It does not matter which party we belong to; it always saddens me that our lives and the lives of our children and our wives are bared. When this bill goes through, everybody will be subject to that scrutiny, and that is not good enough.
Mr. Austin M. Cooper, Q.C. says:
Bill C-51 would add section 178.13(1.1) which would give specific legislative sanction to the interception of private communications at the office and at the residence of a solicitor, or at any other place ordinarily used by him and other solicitors for the purpose of consultation with clients.
Mr. Cooper, Mr. Chappel and Mr. Cartwright are distinguished legal scholars who believe in the philosophy of civil rights. Mr. Cooper said he could not talk to his clients on the telephone any more. He has to drive out into the country and hope that there is not a bug in the bush. What is the matter with Canada? Has the Liberal party lost its heart and soul?


John Allen Fraser: And common sense.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And common sense?
The interception may lawfully be made even if the particular solicitor whose privacy is sought to be invaded is not suspected of complicity in any crime.
The press has failed to realize that once a clinic or law firm has been wiretapped, evidence collected over a period of 60 days has to be played back in order to find one small piece of evidence. We should not give judges the right to allow that. I engage the services of a gardener once in a while. Since we have to be down here all summer, somebody has to cut our grass. My gardener is a fine fellow, but I have sometimes thought he imbibes a little too much. That is his privilege and his business. But I do not want my house wiretapped because of that person or any other person. When people call me, my telephone is used to discuss private political matters and matters relating to my duties as a member of parliament and as a senior partner of a law firm. I ask hon. members opposite,
Criminal Code
where is your heart and soul? Why do hon. members opposite support the Minister of Justice in this regard? The government brought in human rights. Is the human rights bill like the curtains around this chamber? Was that brought in to please or to buy votes, or do hon. members opposite really believe that people in Canada should have civil and human rights and that there should be no discrimination? What is the philosophy opposite? I cannot answer that; I can only draw inferences from what I see going on.
It is sufficient if his partner, or an employee of the solicitor of his partner, or a member of the solicitor's household is suspected, on reasonable grounds, of being or having been party to an offence.
It is submitted that the proposed addition to the present legislation is not limiting; on the contrary, it extends the present power-
Without this legislation, I question whether a judge would allow that; but with it clinics and law firms can be wiretapped.
If, for example a solicitor's son (a member of his household) is suspected on reasonable grounds of possessing marijuana, the same eavesdropping may be lawfully indulged in by the police at the solicitor's office and at the jail and at the courthouse.
I told the House that I once hired a psychiatrist to examine a client with regard to a question of insanity. The psychiatrist's interviews were bugged. A spy was involved. A letter went to the attorney general and the Crown attempted to use that letter. The judge threw it out, but the Crown's psychiatrist read the letter and changed his opinion with regard to the sanity of the accused. What kind of civil right is that? That is what is taking place in good old Canada.
There is no restriction on the persons whose communications with the solicitor may be intercepted. All of his clients' conversations with him may be recorded.
How can we defend anybody if the Crown has the story? We might as well adopt the Napoleonic law and say that the accused is guilty and he has to take the stand to prove himself innocent. Then he would have to undergo cross-examination on what he said or may have said or meant. The documents I quoted from yesterday pointed out that the word "No" could taken out so that something might seem affirmative rather than negative. A magnet can be used to cut three or four minutes out of a tape. We do not need Nixon's secretary to do that.
It is submitted that the proposed legislative sanction to the interception of solicitors' private communications poses a serious threat to the privacy of the client's consultations with his lawyer which has traditionally been respected and protected by the common law and by statute.
I hold in my hand "Phipson on Evidence" which, as well as "Whigmore", is a leading authority. It sets out the privilege which exists between solicitor and client. That privilege exists because if it did not a person could not have an adequate, proper and legal defence. Our jurisprudence and freedom go back to before Magna Carta. Hon. members would repeal Magna Carta. That is what they are doing today, and that is why the debate got a little hot this afternoon. We heard today from an hon. member who has much experience. He knows in his heart where he stands on civil rights. He would not have been nominated and elected to this place if he did not have some decency and understanding of civil rights and the need

July 14, 1977
Criminal Code
for individual privacy. It does not matter to which party he belongs.
Hon. members opposite think they are all powerful. They have a majority. They want to go home for the summer, and they want to get this bill through. They say we have delayed it. I agree that the statement made by the Minister of Justice yesterday was a shabby one. In reference to the gun control part of this bill, I said that the guns which are used illegally are not the guns covered by the bill at all. I said that the minister's statement was false-and it was false. However, to get this bill through, anything goes. An old friend of my mother used to have a machine to make great sausages. This government likes to grind out legislation like sausages. It does not matter how it comes out.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Baloney, in this case.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is baloney, but this is serious baloney and this bill is bad baloney.
It is submitted that the proposed legislative sanction to the interception of solicitors' private communications poses a serious threat to the privacy of the client's consultations with his lawyer which has traditionally been respected and protected by the common law and by statute. It is no consolation that privileged communications overheard by the police may not be introduced in evidence subsequently at a trial. Citizens' rights to obtain accurate legal advice and to prepare their defences in consultation with their counsel, are threatened.
I could go on and on with reference to that, because to me that section is wrong. I want to speak for a few moments on motion No. 31, which in part reads as follows:
"-but all evidence derived from an unauthorized intercept and all evidence derived therefrom shall be inadmissible in any court of law."
That is what the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) said this afternoon in his speech, and I have moved an amendment to that effect. It has also been recommended in the report submitted by Mr. Cooper, which says:
There is no requirement in the Criminal Code that the judge to whom an application for an authorization to wiretap is made be advised as to whether a previous similar application has been brought-
He goes on to discuss it. You can now do it for 60 days, and you do not have to notify the person for three years. If you do not get an order at all, you produce the evidence. The Minister of Justice says there is a section in the code. But I do not know of one police officer, since that was implemented in the code, who has gone to jail because he had made unauthorized wiretaps. There is one law for the authorities and one for the people. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker.
I say any conversation where that application is impeccably correct in every regard and in proper order as granted by the judge should be made and the authorization should be given. The courts in Vancouver have now ruled that when you get to trial and are faced with this, you cannot even cross-examine the police officer who made the application to see if it was proper, because the Supreme Court of Canada has said, in

effect, "Forget about it." The test is whether it is relevant to the issue or not.
I must quote, again, my good friend, the former premier of Saskatchewan, who spoke this afternoon and asked why we should have any authorization at all? Why not just go out and bug the telephones, run the lines through every police station in Canada, turn the computers on, and then the police can play cribbage or rummy while the computers are running? Occasionally they can check some place out and not bother about police work. Of course, the person being bugged may not have gone so far as to commit a crime but just be getting near to it.
That brings us to a police state, Mr. Speaker. What happens to our rights then? We know what happened under the Nazis. At night people listened to their neighbours whispering in their bedrooms, their front rooms and their kitchens and reported to the S.S. who came and took them away. Where did they go? All of us know the story. We know of the six million Jews who were put through the furnaces. We know the story of Anne Frank's diary and how the family lived in a little attic, how somebody whispered one day and then the police broke down the door with rifle butts and took them away. They suffered and died. We say that will not happen in Canada. They said it would not happen in Germany. What protects us here is not parliament itself, it is the rule of law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When my children go to school, it is not Premier Lougheed who guarantees their safety; it is the law of Canada. When I get on an airplane to come to this House from Calgary, it is not the president of Air Canada, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) who protects me; it is the rule of law. It is the rule of law that protects every Canadian. Once you give the law to the authorities, they will break it.
Mr. Speaker, I have defended the RCMP and I have defended city police in this House, but 1 can give instances where I have found police to have lied on the stand in very serious trials. In one murder case they lied, and those lies were brought out by cross-examination. In that trial I asked the police if they denied being in the basement of the house, and they said they were never down there. I asked, "Detective, did you ever own a Packard car?" The judge wanted to know what that had to do with anything, and I replied, "Let me finish." Then 1 asked the detective, "Did you ever finance it through Trader's Finance?" He said, "Yes." I asked, "If you were not in the basement, how did your conditional sales contract get there?" Then he said he was there and had forgotten. "What were you doing down there?" He said he went down to look for tea. He wanted to make himself a cup of tea, and was waiting for somebody.
1 could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. I remember a police officer saying he had read all the authorities on a certain situation. I named four of five authorities that did not exist, and he said he had read them-but when I pointed to a real authority, he denied reading it. Those are the experiences of a trial lawyer, Mr. Speaker. If I sat over there as minister of
July 14, 1977

justice I would be against arming people anywhere. We are all people with certain human failings, and just putting on a uniform does not make us full of justice. I say any evidence derived from an unauthorized wiretap should be inadmissible.
Here is another trick, Mr. Speaker. The police may decide not to bother about the authorization and just wiretap. They hear something on the telephone, and in another place find an article of evidence. That is called derivative evidence and it is admissible. When they are on the witness-stand they do not say they used a wiretap to find out about the article-they just happened to walk into the building and saw a canary singing in the open window. You know what happens, Mr. Speaker, and I know what happens. Certainly, anybody who has been an attorney general in this country must know what happens. I think I would make a tough judge when it came to that kind of stuff. I do not know what happens to people when they are elevated to positions, sometimes even the bench-and I do not say this carelessly. Over the years, however, I have found they will believe police officers over anybody. A defence counsel knows that. He knows he has got to get at something to be able to discredit those people before a judge and jury.
I had one judge stop me in a murder trial and ask, "Are you trying to show the RCMP are liars?" They had denied being up in the mountains at Banff interviewing the man but they had witnessed a statement and when I brought it to their attention all of a sudden they were able to recall. I said, "It is obvious that I do not need to prove they are liars." The man, Stringer, was acquitted of murder, but it would have been different if I had not cross-examined the police. I do not know how many statements they had-the man was never sober long enough to know what he did-but they had statements yet they denied being there; they denied the crime; they denied a lot of things.
That is what has happened in my career, Mr. Speaker. Yet I defend the police. We have to defend them because we need police officers to protect the citizens of Canada. Anytime we find such a situation, however, it should be brought to the attention of the minister, the commissioner or whoever is in charge. Let me tell you another story. A man was charged with capital murder and convicted of non-capital murder of a little child. He was taken to the cells in Edmonton and the police officer said, "Here is a child murderer. I cannot get him, but you prisoners can have him." What happened? One of the prisoners slugged the police officer. He threatened to lay a charge, but the guard was honest enough to suggest he should forget the whole thing. I need not tell you I had that investigated, so I know what took place.
I do not believe we are always going to have honest affidavits when there is no right of cross-examination. Even if you get that beautiful order with a seal and a stamp-even with an authorized wiretap there will still be abuse. We must watch this kind of legislation, Mr. Speaker. I cannot understand the minister and his top lawyers. The Advocates' Society-Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Chappell and Mr. Cooper-did not come to committee with a cooked-up brief. They came as honest scholars and asked the committee and the minister not to pass this
Criminal Code
legislation. The hon. member for New Westminster, who in committee supported the amendments 1 am talking about, knows that the vote was nine to eight. The tie was broken by the chairman who is a member of the government. I make nothing of that. However, because that is our parliamentary system, when eight vote for the motion and nine vote against it, in the public mind that is close enough for the minister to consider it, so he brought in an amendment.
He said we were going to leave the whole thing to the judge's discretion. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada held that if it is relevant, it is admissible. Consequently, what discretion does the trial judge, magistrate or provincial judge have? He has none. If it is relevant to the issue, it goes in as evidence. If a judge or magistrate excludes the evidence, the Crown will appeal on the ground the court has not followed the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. This happens, Mr. Speaker.
Surely, in light of this fact and in light of what I set out with regard to consultations between solicitor and client, in clinics and offices, and the admissibility of evidence obtained from unauthorized wiretaps, I have made my case. Perhaps I did not need 40 minutes to make it. Earlier this afternoon the Minister of Justice referred to a similar point raised by the hon. member for New Westminster and to what certain people had said on it. He said they were right. If they were right concerning the hon. member's point, why would they be wrong concerning mine? How can you explain the distinction? I suggest you cannot explain it.
I conclude that the minister is becoming the prisoner of his department's officials, and any clauses they draw up for him he must push through this House or risk losing their confidence. The Minister of Justice, as did his predecessor, likes to stand in this House and say what the law is. I remember Mr. Turner, now the director of many companies, trying to tell us the exact state of the law concerning abortion. He was not right. Mr. Speaker, the law is not what the Minister of Justice says it is. He does not interpret the law. Our judges, provincial courts of appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, interpret the law. What the minister is recorded as saying in Hansard has no bearing on the law, because the courts cannot refer to anything reported in Hansard when interpreting the law. The law is interpreted according to the language in which it is written. A penal statute should always be interpreted in favour of the subject, in accordance with sound law.
Having said that, I seek the support of the government and of the minister. We could end this debate immediately. My good friends in the New Democratic Party say they will support my motion. Therefore, only the government stands in the way. By accepting the motion the government could end this debate which became somewhat heated this afternoon, and rightly so. I say to the minister, give in for once; be flexible; as the Minister of Justice, be big.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. First, I tell the House that the New Democratic
7678

July 14, 1977
Criminal Code
Party supports not only motion 30, in the name of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), but, as well, motions 31, 32, 33 and 34. The acceptance of each one of those motions would make a significant contribution to the protection of the privacy of each citizen of this country.
Why does the minister sit in this House and pretend, "Here I am, really a civil libertarian, folks?" He sits there, with a kind of wounded innocence, saying, "Why are you attacking me? After all, I am doing nothing very serious. We are just going to change a few rules in the wiretap law, get after those bad people out there in the world and put them in jail." If that is the minister's position, that is hypocrisy of the worst kind. I want the minister to stop hiding behind his cloak, to stop pretending he is a civil libertarian. He is becoming the enemy of every civil libertarian in Canada because of his approach to this bill.
If the minister is interested in controlling crime, as we are, and interested in reducing preventable homicides, which we can do under the gun control provisions, he can stand in this House right now and agree to sever the wiretap provisions from this bill. If he does this, I assure him that my party, and I think the Conservative party, will say, "Good. Let us put the matter to the vote now." I say, let us send these wiretap provisions back to committee. Perhaps they can be examined in the fall. Let us take another look at them.
It is clear that the people who drafted this bill and its wiretap provisions knew exactly what the minister wanted. The minister has failed in his primary obligation, which was to protect the liberty of the citizen against the encroachment of a police state. It is his duty not to listen only to the whispers of the commissioners of the RCMP with regard to increases in power; it is his duty to examine that question objectively and then come down on the side of the citizen. But he has not done that. He has not done it because this is an old, tired government, largely in the hands of its bureaucracy. We look for greater things from ministers of the government. We want them to act objectively and independently. We do not want them to accept the advice, holus-bolus, of a bureaucracy grown fat, sassy and arrogant.
The motion before us deals with the legislative sanction the minister would give to the wiretapping of solicitors' offices. At first blush people may say, "Oh, you lawyers are trying to protect yourselves." The fact is, the privilege associated with consultation is the privilege of the citizen. We want to make sure that every Canadian has the right to consult with someone in private without his conversation being overheard. People talk of the insidious growth of police power and the loss of the citizen's freedom. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a member of the legal profession because that profession is one of the last bulwarks remaining against encroachments of the police state.


John Allen Fraser: Right on.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Similarly, the motion now before the House would, if accepted, also be a bulwark against the encroachment of the police state. The ordinary citizen has not the time to read complicated law, to familiarize himself with its provi-

sions, to tackle our bureaucrats and learn all the rules of the game. The little guy cannot do that. He needs someone to represent him in his dealings with the minister or the bureaucracy, or with the authorities. The minister would jeopardize his ability to consult in private.
It is the duty of the legal profession to protect its clients against "Big Brother", the big state. That is why the motion the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has proposed is so important. Perhaps it is the most important motion moved so far in relation to this bill. Surely it should be every person's right to talk to his solicitor in confidence, without fear of being overheard.
If the minister wants to be known as a civil libertarian, why cannot he stand in his place today and say, "I agree with you in principle. I agree with the hon. member for Calgary North's amendment in principle." It is a reasonable amendment, and he can say he supports it. But he does not do that. He has not done so. He sits in his seat and tries to play both sides of the street, as it were. The Canadian people will not let this government get away with it. After I had proposed the previous amendment, the minister stood up and said, "Oh, the hon. member for New Westminster would open the door to allowing everybody to be tapped. His definition is not narrow enough." I ask the minister, how would his officials draft that clause? How would they draft the definition to narrow the question down to organized crime? I will accept such a definition. If the minister's position is that my definition is too wide, I will accept his version.
The minister's staff has examined my motion. I will accept the minister's version if he accepts the principle that we should tap wires in cases involving organized crime and indictable offences, but not tap the conversations of little old ladies who may have brought an extra bottle of wine across the border. I think the minister knows what we want to accomplish. If the minister were to bring forward amendments in this regard which he will support, I would quit talking now. We will be happy to accept the minister's proposal concerning that offence section. But the minister will not do that. He sits in the weeds and plays little word games with this motion.
We must support this amendment to the wiretap provisions. It is vital that we wake up the Canadian people to this insidious attack on their freedom. The minister is representing only one section of the community, that which has the obligation of apprehending criminals. It is a very important part of the community but it should not dictate the laws of Canada. That is a job for legislators who can see both sides of the question, and the sooner the minister wakes up to this, the sooner he will have a more successful career.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in following the member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) I want to say that while we are in different parties I am extremely proud to be able to advise the House that the hon.
July 14, 1977

member, who has been my personal friend for many years, was my classmate at law school in the University of British Columbia and, as far as I am concerned, in the conduct of my colleague in the House and in committee on this bill, the class of which 1 was a member has every right to be very proud of the hon. member for New Westminster.
I want to say also, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), while not in my class at law school, was at the same law school, albeit a few years behind myself, and that his class would not be very proud of the conduct he has shown in the last few days.
Having spent some years as a practising lawyer in the courts, as a civil lawyer, as a prosecutor in criminal cases, and as a defence counsel in criminal cases, I am appalled that a product of a Canadian law school, a member of parliament who has practised law, albeit not for too many years, who has sat as a legislator on the government side and in the cabinet of the Government of Canada for a number of years, and has served with some distinction, and who now occupies the most important post connected with law enforcement and the protection of the rights of Canadians in the whole of the Dominion of Canada, as Minister of Justice, should take the position he does. How can the hon. gentleman so misunderstand the issue now before the House as to stay stubborn, to stay adamant, or as my hon. friend from New Westminster said, to stay in the weeds and try to play it down both sides of the street?
A number of the amendments which have been brought in are important. The amendment of my friend from New Westminster was important. But the two amendments which have been introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), are absolutely vital. It is all very well for the Minister of Justice, and perhaps some other members in this House and also, occasionally, for people outside this House to say, "How dare you fetter the right of the police to go and catch criminals?" Mr. Speaker, that has been the argument the police in every country in the world have always used to invade the rights of privacy and the civil rights of ordinary citizens. That argument is not new. It has been used over and over again. And it will continue to be repeated over and over again.
There are two places where one can check that argument. One is among the lawyers of a country who understand their role, which is not only to uphold the law-because they are called upon to administer justice according to their oath-but to ensure that the law is not transgressed so that the liberties and rights of the Canadian people are taken away from them unless there is overwhelming evidence that those rights ought to be restricted in the public interest. That evidence has not been produced here.
The other place that can protect the rights of Canadians is this Chamber. Lawyers are not the only people in the community who have a special and intimate understanding of law. Legislators have that, too. All hon. members in this Chamber know exactly of what I speak. Many of the members of parliament are not legally trained, but they have because of
Criminal Code
their service in this House, developed a special relationship with the law because they serve as members of parliament. We all know it and the public knows it, too. With that special understanding and relationship with the law goes a very definite and important responsibility which says that no matter what party you belong to, you have an obligation to look extremely carefully at provisions which take away the rights of Canadians by either impairing them or restricting them.
As other hon. members have pointed out, the privilege which exists between a client and his or her solicitor is not the privilege of the lawyer. It has nothing to do with putting lawyers into a special category, as I heard one member of the government party say in committee some weeks ago. It has nothing to do with that at all.
It has to do with the right of Canadians to have the confidence to consult with their lawyers with respect to their problems relating to the law. And they must be free to speak on the most intimate matters which are, at times, of great import to them and would often lead to great embarrassment if such information came to the knowledge of their neighbours. That is what privilege is all about. It is not good enough for the Minister of Justice to say, "Well, up until a few years ago you could do this, and it was not even against the law. All we have done here with this amendment is to improve things a bit because now you need a judge to say you can go ahead and tap a lawyer's telephone if the judge thinks you have a reasonable case against an accused." This is to be done by this legislation whether the suspect is a lawyer, a fellow lawyer in the office, or an employee of the lawyer.
I have practised in a number of different places, Mr. Speaker. I was first called to the bar in the city of Victoria and I practised in a small law firm. I later practised for several years on my own, associated with a bigger firm, but still I was on my own in the small town of Powell River in the riding of my hon. friend from Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Pearsall). Then I joined larger law firms, and when I was elected to parliament I was a senior member in a very large law firm. There were over 30 lawyers and nearly 100 employees. Can you imagine what would happen if some junior clerk were accused or suspected of a criminal offence and that, as a result, the police put a tap on the main telephone line into that firm the result of which could be that all the communications for 60 days of every client who came to that law firm-information which belongs to the citizen who comes to the lawyer, not to the lawyer-was in the hands of the police? Not everybody who would be privy to that information would be a sworn police officer. What about the staff? What about the people who file the information? What about the people who type it all out? What about all the people who might just take some of it and put it through a Xerox machine? What about the potential for blackmail?
My hon. friend from Calgary North has made it quite clear. That, to use the old adage: "Who among us is not without a little sin?" Police constables have been known in the past to be tempted. Some have been more than tempted. Some have committed crimes. We know that this will happen. But this is
80020 -2 2'/z

July 14, 1977
Criminal Code
not an indictment against policemen in general, any more than it is an indictment against any other group in the community. I ask all hon. members: what is so very difficult about admitting that in this case the government is stretching too far? What is wrong with that? Is there anything wrong with admitting that one has made a mistake, or being persuaded by the House of Commons that the position should be adjusted? Is that not what this place is all about? This is not even a partisan debate. You can see an amazing coalition of people here from different parties.
1 wish now to refer to the other motion moved by my hon. friend from Calgary North who is now talking about the terrible danger of allowing evidence to be used which, while illegal in itself because it is not properly authorized as a wiretap, amounts to information which then allows the police to get some other evidence, and the police can then bring the other evidence into court. Putting aside wiretapping, the present law is that evidence, even illegally obtained, if it leads to other evidence can be accepted by the court if it is relevant to the issue of truth.
However, when you come in with new powers like wiretapping, if you want to safeguard the community against the abuse of wiretapping, then, as other hon. members have pointed out, you have to say right across the board that you cannot use derivative evidence. You have to take away from the police authorities the temptation to get what they want to know illegally so that later they can get further information to bring in against a person.
I believe in law and order, Mr. Speaker. I believe you have to have order in society. But it has to be under the rule of law. The attention that we pay to the quality of our rule of law is the real determinant of the quality of our life and of our liberties.
The hon. member for Calgary North said something today which ought to be remembered by every member of this House and the public. He said: "What is it that secures your liberties? It is not the Prime Minister, it is not the premiers, it is not even this Chamber; it is the rule of law". The state of the rule of law is of absolute importance to every member of this House. If that rule of law is impaired to the point where any group in the community can take undue advantage of other groups in the community, if privileges and rights which we have fought and worked for over centuries are to be whittled away or in any way impaired, unless for great cause, then the rule of law is cheapened and it will no longer protect us. Once the rule of law is gone, there are no other protections. Then citizens have to take the law into their own hands, and with that there is a breakdown of the civil community.
I say, Mr. Speaker, with all the feeling I can muster, but also having had considerable experience, that this is a very dangerous provision which the minister is asking us to accept. These amendments proposed by the opposition are proper amendments. Nay, they are more than proper, they are essential. There has to come a time in this Chamber, in dealing with

matters which, no matter to which party we belong, we have to accept and believe in, namely our fundamental rights; there has to be a time when the government must admit that it is not just a meek surrender or a collapse but is common sense and is sensible and right to listen to those people of wisdom and of conscience who are trying to persuade even this government that it has reached too far.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, may I just say a few words. I know that both the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) have condensed their remarks, but I should like to make a few comments because of what has been said, although this question was extensively covered in the minutes of the proceedings of the committee.
May I give the background to this whole situation? The amendments to the Criminal Code in 1974, which provided the legislative regime for electronic surveillance, dealt with the question of privileged communications in only one respect, namely, that tapes of privileged communications could not be introduced in evidence.
The law at that time did not make provision for the actual surveillance of privileged communications. It did not provide any regime other than the normal regime for that situation. As a result of some rather unpleasant incidents, one in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, where the barristers' telephone in the courthouse was bugged, and another in Manitoba involving the wiretapping of judges-both authorizations, I want to make clear, which were authorized in the normal way by judges- concern was expressed by many, including myself, that the law relating to electronic surveillance of lawyers should be changed.
The solicitor general and 1 immediately reviewed the guidelines which are published for the RCMP and for Crown agents setting out a regime by which they would not apply for authorizations against lawyers except in very special circumstances. Several other attorneys general in the provinces did the same thing. But because we were dealing at the time with the wiretap amendments in this bill, I said that this was an opportunity to provide some amendments relating to electronic surveillance of lawyers' telephones.
Obviously the question arises whether there should be some blanket exemption or whether there should be some special rule. I opted, as did the justice and legal affairs committee, for special rules relating to those communications.
I want to emphasize that there are on the committee, members on this side of the House who are knowledgeable on the question of wiretap. I point particularly to the chairman of the justice and legal affairs committee, who unfortunately is out of Canada on parliamentary business, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), who was an active member of the previous parliamentary committee and has been active obviously in this committee. His credentials as a protector of human rights are, I think, unchallenged in this House. Also the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) was very active and concerned on the question of
July 14, 1977

wiretap. Ele examined every word of these amendments very carefully, both with me and my officials.
In working out the amendments I met, in the course of discussion of this whole bill, with a group consisting of the criminal justice chairman of the Canadian Bar Association, with Mr. Borovoy of the Canadian Liberties Association, and with Arthur Whaley, president of the Criminal Lawyers Association of Toronto. In their brief they were very critical of some aspects of the wiretap amendments, and I should like to read to the House what they said:
Apart from the welcome restrictions on the bugging of places ordinarily used by solicitors, nowhere do these amendments even confront the dragnet impact of electronic surveillance. On the contrary, the government bill would increase even further the ambit of permissible surveillance and decrease even further the safeguards for personal privacy.
That was said before further amendments were made to the bill. They went on to say:
Unfortunately, the new restriction on the bugging of places used by solicitors could not even copeand so on. They went on to say:
Even if all of these government amendments had been in force at that time, there would have been nothing to prevent the eavesdropping which took place on the conversations of all the other lawyers and their clients. At a minimum, in our view, the law should be further amended so as to prohibit the interception of privileged communications beyond those which a court has expressly authorized.
I examined those people and Mr. Borovoy made it very clear to me, speaking I take it on behalf of the Canadian Liberties Association, that it would be improper to give a blanket exemption against wiretapping to the legal profession and that they were opposed to it. The position that the civil liberties general counsel took was that we had to put into legislation a special regime to safeguard lawyers' communications and privileged communications on the basis, obviously, that the administration of justice requires that the citizen have an unfettered access and right to advice and counsel by a lawyer. That is precisely what is being done in this bill, and was precisely what was done in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs where further amendments were made.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received which is as follows:
Ottawa, July 14, 1977 Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Jean Beetz, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 14th day of July, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to certain bills.
The Royal Assent
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Pierre Trottier
Deputy Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills.
Bill C-9, An Act to approve, give effect to and declare valid certain agreements between the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, the Government of Quebec, la Societe d'energie de la Baie James, la Societe de developpement de la Baie James, la Commission hydro-electrique de Quebec and the Government of Canada and certain other related agreements to which the Government of Canada is a party-Chapter No. 32.
Bill C-25, An Act to extend the present laws in Canada that proscribe discrimination and that protect the privacy of individuals-Chapter No. 33.
Bill C-20, An Act respecting the office of the Auditor General of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Chapter No. 34.
Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 35.
Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan-Chapter No. 36.
Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act-Chapter No. 37.
Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Currency and Exchange Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 38.
Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act and the Foreign Insurance Companies Act-Chapter No. 39.
Bill C-283, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Beauharnois-Salaberry)-Chapter No. 40.
Bill C-427, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes)-Chapter No. 41.
Bill C-392, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Brampton-Georgetown)-Chapter No. 42.
Bill C-433, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Cochrane)-Chapter No. 43.
Bill C-394, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Huron-Bruce)-Chapter No. 44.
Bill C-406, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Kootenay East-Revelstoke)-Chapter No. 45.
Bill C-418, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Laval)-Chapter No. 46.
Bill C-405, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Lethbridge-Foothills)-Chapter No. 47.
Bill C-422, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (London-Middlesex)-Chapter No. 48.
Bill C-428, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Saint-Jacques)-Chapter No. 49.
Bill C-429, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Saint-Leonard-Anjou)-Chapter No. 50

July 14, 1977
Criminal Code
Bill C-393, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe)-Chapter No. 51.
Bill C-1001, An Act to incorporate Continental Bank of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6.06 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, when we were interrupted at 5.45 p.m. by Black Rod I was concluding my speech. I said on this amendment that there were two questions: whether a lawyer should have a blanket exemption or whether we should write into the bill a special legislative regime to protect privileged communications which it is essential we protect. After a long discussion in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, the government put forward proposals and a number of amendments were introduced to provide additional safeguards which are set out in Clause 9 and section 178.13(I)(1.1) and (1.2) of the Criminal Code. These sections set out a legislative regime which protects solicitor-client communications and at the same time does not provide a blanket exemption, which, I believe, would be contrary to public policy. That is the purpose of the bill. This has been worked out in committee, and I think the amendment should be resisted.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I am surprised at the minister's reluctance to accept these changes. The one that I am not particularly concerned about is motion No. 30 which refers to consultation with clients. I think that both lawyers and clients are crooks, as certainly the court finds on occasion, so I am not concerned about that clause.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That's a dumb statement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think so too.


William Arnold Peters: I think that some of the clients are guilty and some are not guilty.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: They are respectable people and you should not say such things in the House.


William Arnold Peters: Not being very rich-


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: But you're dumb.


William Arnold Peters: Not being very rich, I-


Some hon. Members:: Dissension in the ranks.


William Arnold Peters: -for my own part I know I am innocent-I thought everybody would know that. It is when I am guilty that I want a good lawyer, the best I can find.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is nonsense.


William Arnold Peters: I know this is strictly limited to lawyers and those interested in the law and that lay people are not supposed to get involved in that. There are not many lawyers, it seems to me-


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am having considerable difficulty in hearing the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and I hope the House will allow him to make his speech in peace and quiet so that I can hear him.


Some hon. Members:: Ha, ha!


William Arnold Peters: The point I was making and that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) is so touchy about is that I feel no compulsion to speak on motion No. 30 because I figure the lawyers will take care of the relationship between lawyers and clients. In the only case I ever heard of where the lawyer's telephone was tapped for the purpose of listening to the client, there was a court case, the evidence was found to be admissible, and not only the client but the lawyer also was convicted. So I am not concerned about that motion. Everybody knows about that case because it took place fairly recently.
I am concerned that the evidence obtained from an illegal wiretap can be admissible. 1 would have thought that we would have been happy enough to allow the police to wiretap illegally as they have done in the past and then use the evidence obtained. If crooks are caught, good; if not, that is fine too, but that evidence should not be used in court. Evidence illegitimately obtained should not be used. I do not know very much about law, but there are precedents which indicate that just because you steal something does not mean you can keep it. Usually you have to give it back, if it can be found. If it cannot be found, there are other penalties. The little boy who steals from a store keeps what he steals, but he is fined, and that is what we are doing with illegal wiretapping. We are letting the police keep the evidence obtained while we say it is illegal.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Don't accuse all my clients of being guilty.
July 14, 1977


William Arnold Peters: I thought we had left motion No. 30. Quite frankly, I admit I came out of that a little worse for wear. I will leave motion No. 30 alone. 1 want to deal with motion No. 31.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It doesn't matter if you listen to everybody in the world.


William Arnold Peters: That is my point. I have always suspected that many of the phones in this building were tapped, and there are reasons to think they were. That is a very easy thing to do. It was easy to tap telephones in the building for a long time because the lines ran through my office. To indicate how easy it was I attached my tape recorder on to them once and recorded a couple of conversations.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


William Arnold Peters: I am trying to prove my point. I did not know whose conversations they were because I am not familiar with the telephone exchange system, but I am sure that after a couple of weeks of listening I could have found out. It is very easy to tap a telephone.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about bugging front rooms or kitchens?


William Arnold Peters: The caucus room of the NDP was once bugged.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then you should support every amendment.


William Arnold Peters: A couple of weeks ago a microphone in our caucus room was left on after a committee meeting. I looked at it and tried to turn it off. I could not turn it off, so I left it on. Nobody cared one way or the other. In most cases people do not care about listening in or eavesdropping. But they do care if action is taken as a result of that eavesdropping. Worse still, information can be used for blackmail.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Are you using this debate because of the unemployment insurance bill?


William Arnold Peters: I presume the hon. member has not been paying much attention. I do not want to get involved in answering that question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am right in that regard. All you are doing is using this debate. You know nothing about it. You don't want the unemployment insurance bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Hon. members who wish to debate this motion may rise in their places and be recognized in due course. Right now the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has the floor. I think we should listen to him.


Mr. Boulanger:: He has nothing to say.


William Arnold Peters: If the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) makes a speech, it will be the first time he has done so for a long time. The other hon. member who is doing the yapping
Criminal Code
thinks he knows much about the law. If he knows as much as he thinks he does, he will do all right.
Laymen have something to say and, whether hon. members like it or not, I have something to say. If we agree with the minister's proposition, we will change our whole system of justice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Any time you make a change in the Criminal Code, you change our system of justice.


William Arnold Peters: That is like hearing somebody recite from the almanac. Perhaps I do not put things in a legalistic and impressive way, but if something is taken away illegally, it usually has to be given back. Most of the other countries in the world agree with that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: History has not proved that to be true.


William Arnold Peters: In Geneva there is a world court which makes decisions, and just because the police are charged with maintaining law and order they should not be able to do so in any way they want. The last amendments we passed regarding the legal use of some form of wiretapping contained some fairly large concessions. It was a little bit like the camel in the tent. The camel asked the Arab if it would be all right to put his head in the tent because it was cold outside. When he got his head in, he wanted his shoulders in, and soon the Arab was outside. It seems to me that that is true with the police. They have 30 days in which to report wiretaps, and I do not know if they report them or not.
People do not know when their telephones are tapped. Not too long ago I was involved in a matter in which a wiretap was used. A cabinet minister was also involved. I do not know if that cabinet minister was notified that his telephone was tapped.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What is his name?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Honourable.


William Arnold Peters: An honourable minister.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know he was honourable, but what was his name? Let's get the facts.


William Arnold Peters: I do not want to get that particular gentleman in trouble, but after making inquiries I was under the impression that a third party telephone had been tapped. My conversations would have been involved, and I said to the inspector of the RCMP that he did not need me to tell him anything. He had the tape. As it turned out, he did not have the tape. The tap was not on the right telephone.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then you are in favour of the motion.


William Arnold Peters: Many conversations were on that tape because the tap was in place for a long period of time. Most of the conversations were not of a questionable nature.

July 14, 1977
Criminal Code
Despite the volatile nature of the mover of this amendment it is one that I think all members, not only those in the legal profession but those interested in the rights of the individual, could bring themselves to support.
I honestly believe that the general public is not concerned about the police using wiretaps if they go through the procedures that are required for other kinds of searches. I do not think they are violently opposed provided there is some justification.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You mean for the police or for the wiretap?


William Arnold Peters: On a normal Friday night or Saturday night in Ottawa-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about an abnormal Saturday night?


William Arnold Peters: An abnormal one would be one the hon. member is involved in, and it would probably be pretty abnormal-subnormal, maybe.
As I understand it, 19 or 20 warrants would be issued for searches, and in some places they do not have warrants but they must have permission from somebody to do the search. I hear very little objection from anybody, even those who are guilty-I do not have that kind of relationship with them but 1 do not hear them complaining-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There is one thing about you; you are making the most intelligent speech I have ever heard here.


William Arnold Peters: The ones who do not go to a lawyer are the ones who do not worry because they do not think they are guilty. That is true as well with the people who are involved in a respectable way-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about unemployment insurance? Are you against the baby bonuses?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have not been in a position to worry about baby bonuses for sometime so that subject does not concern me as it does some other people. I believe that if a warrant is obtained and there is some reason for it, there would be no outcry from the public. I think the public would violently disagree with the government's proposal to allow the police an almost unlimited use of wiretapping, however, simply on the basis that if they find anything they would be able to use it. If they did not find anything there would be no point in doing it.
I am one of those who believes that the police will wiretap if they want. In most police departments they will shortly be in a position to eavesdrop without wiretapping as such. When that comes about there will be few places where criminals habitually gather that the police will not be able to obtain information.
I believe the country is really in a pretty stupid state when it will agree to this kind of extension. It has been used, it has been tested, and it has not proved very valuable.

I think the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) recently indicated the number of wiretaps executed by the force he is responsible for, and the number of convictions that came as a result. It was not a large number.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It was 1,062 wiretaps and 13 convictions.


William Arnold Peters: It is really a very small number of reported wiretaps-only three per day all across the country. It is not very extensive.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then you are going to vote against the amendment?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, is there something wrong with my equipment?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There certainly is.


William Arnold Peters: I keep getting an echo that is not really an echo, Mr. Speaker. It is distorted as it comes back to me. We should try to cut down the echo in the Chamber. I know it is not going to produce any results, but I do know something-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What do you mean by that?


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member is going to lose the amendment because he is working so damned hard to muck it up himself. 1 think he is going to lose it, and I think it is a very good amendment. It is the kind of amendment the Canadian public should think about very seriously. I do not think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) should ask for this kind of power unless there is a demonstrated need. I do not think the bill as it is worded should pass, but 1 think this amendment should receive the support of all hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I was sitting very quietly in my seat and had the privilege of listening to my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), who served to arouse the intellectual juices, as it were, and I felt called upon to deal with some of the serious issues he has raised.
I intend to vote against the amendment though not out of any disrespect for the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) whom I respect very highly and who, 1 am sure, has given very careful thought to the wording of the amendment. I should like to outline my reasons.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Which amendment?


Max Saltsman: Motion No. 30, the one dealing with lawyers. Most people-and that includes me-do not like the idea of wiretapping. For that matter, do they like the idea of getting a ticket or being stopped by police for no reason?
People want the most freedom that is available to them. I can understand the desire for unlimited freedom, but on the other hand most people also want society to have a sense of security. Most people want a police force that has adequate
July 14, 1977

means at its disposal to deal with crime. Most people want both things, and the dilemma for people who are framing our laws, or for legislators responsible for laws, is to find some kind of balance between unlimited freedom and the need for security. Society walks that constant tightrope of choice.
What bothers me about much of what goes on in the debates or interventions 1 have heard on this subject, is the refusal to recognize that you cannot have both conditions. You cannot have the unlimited freedom that all of us would desire, you cannot do away with wiretapping, you cannot do away with policemen, you cannot do away with surveillance, and still have the security you want. The question is: what kind of balance do you strike, and do you strike that balance fairly?
I think up until recently our society has tended to go in the direction of absolute freedom. To a very large extent we have been a civil libertarian society; virtually every piece of legislation introduced has increased the protection of the individual and has tried to diminish the role of the police officer.
I think the time has come when society says that precious as those absolute freedoms are, the need for security in our society is also important, and in fact the police have been hamstrung. We have gone too far in terms of preventing the police from doing their job. This is what needs to be faced openly. Just look at the dilemma; you cannot have both things at the same time. It is easy enough to say we are all for the police, we are all for security, we are all for civil liberties. We must make this decision. Trade-offs, never pleasant, popular or easy to make, must be made. Members must be honest with themselves and say what they are doing. I shall try to do this.
I admit that once I was much more fearful of authorities than I am today, much more apprehensive of the police and of the kinds of institutions which existed when I was born, than I am today. I have worked hard all my life to restrict some of the unlimited power those institutions wielded. Those powers needed restricting. The concern for civil liberties was not strong in our society. I take a moment to pay tribute to those who fought for civil liberties, and fought for some of the changes which have come about in our society. But like everything else in society, the pendulum never comes to rest in the middle. It swings too much one way or the other, and must be brought back to the middle, as it were. And that is the dilemma, or crisis if you like, which faces law makers. That is the dilemma which faces people like me who, at one time, may have been considered radicals, who were against authority, who tried to curtail the power of authority. But there comes a time when you ask if our authorities have enough power to do the job they are supposed to do, in order to deal with our society's problems. Frankly, I do not think they have, and they ought to have such power.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Surely you should be the last person to say that.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I do not suggest our society is more lawless than societies preceding it. I do not think it is. I
Criminal Code
think our society is probably more law-abiding than any I can recall in history. People talk of the good old days, as though the good old days were secure old days. They were not. I think the public's desire for security has increased enormously. Our people want security in terms of social security measures like old age pensions and hospital insurance, and in terms of protection from crime. Actually, to some extent society has changed and our legislation reflects the changes which have taken place in society.
Basically, the question we must decide comes down to this: do we trust the police of Canada? Do we trust the courts of Canada?


An hon. Member:: No.


Max Saltsman: Voices at the back say, no. They don't trust the police; they do not trust the courts. I want to go on record as saying the courts are not always right and the police are not always right, but if you cannot trust them, what is to become of society?
If your police force is not effective you must change it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, and appoint Liberals to the Bench.


Max Saltsman: But at some point you must say if you have confidence in our society and confidence in the people who were appointed to positions of authority.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That's what the Germans thought. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) does not agree with the hon. member's opposition. The Germans put trust in their law, police and courts, but we cannot say we should have trust in the system.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the strong positions some members take on this question. Unfortunately, some of their arguments involve non sequiturs. Anyone who advocates giving the police more powers, is in favour of increased security and expresses confidence in our courts is immediately tagged as being in favour of a Nazi state. Members who argue this way are grossly unfair and dishonest. I have not questioned their motives. I have not said that adoption of the hon. member's amendment will lead to all women on our streets being raped, or to the breakdown of law in our society.
At one time people talked of extreme authoritarianism, but now people speak of extreme civil libertarians. If you propose measures they do not like, they immediately accuse you of being in favour of a Nazi state. They are wrong and not fair. Mr. Speaker, I spent five years in the war; I saw Buchenwald and Dachau. I had a personal involvement, and nobody fears the Nazi state more than I do. And if I thought that in order to avoid the Nazi state we need to live more insecurely, I would advocate more insecurity. But, Mr. Speaker, we can have security. It is possible to respect the police and our institutions and not live in a Nazi state.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

July 14, 1977
Criminal Code


Max Saltsman: On the contrary, as those who know history will tell you, the Nazi state arose because there was disrespect for parliament in the Weimar republic, because the people had disrespect for the police and disrespect for the courts. Their society broke down, which is why those camps came into existence.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, which the hon. member may appreciate. Surely he knows that the Nazis burned the Reichstag and blamed the fire on the Communists.


Max Saltsman: I appreciate the interventions of my colleague for Calgary North, but suspect he is dealing with some other debate, because I do not know how his remarks are germane to this one.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You, yourself, raised the subject.


Max Saltsman: I appreciate the hon. member's knowledge of history. At least he knows some names, if not the facts or the events.
We face certain difficulties. I will stick my neck out. I have stuck my neck out previously and, no doubt, the press will castigate me tomorrow as will my colleagues opposite. I disapprove of those who say, "You must not listen to authority, because it is always wrong; you must oppose the courts, because they are always wrong, you must oppose the police, because they are always wrong." Such sentiments are destructive of our society. I do not mind standing up and taking flak for my views, for I put them forward sincerely.
1 intend to vote against the amendment, and have set out some of the reasons for my position. I have been of this opinion for some time now, and have no hesitation in saying that if events prove me wrong, which they may-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They will.


Max Saltsman: -I shall be of a contrary opinion. If this legislation leads to abuses, we shall change it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It will be too late.


Max Saltsman: If we are not in this House, others will be; they will fight the legislation or amend it. Parliament does not end with us. It does not end tomorrow. We have seen bad legislation passed, and amended it.
It is time to give our courts and police the authority they need to fight organized crime and the other problems in society. Hardly a day goes by without some member of this House, in the opposition or on the government back benches, rising to castigate the government for insensitivity to organized crime, or for allowing organized crime to flourish. You will hear these sentiments time and again. I do not mind members castigating the government. It deserves it. But when the chips are down and the government brings in a measure with which we can fight organized crime effectively, it is the opposition's responsibility, after scrutinizing and criticizing, to say, yes, this legislation will do good. You cannot advocate stricter

control of organized crime, and resist legislation which seeks to control it.
You cannot have it both ways. As a member of the opposition I have to say this. I have a bee in my bonnet that it is time for me to release, and it has to do with capital punishment. I have been here for three votes on capital punishment. On each one I took enormous political risks, as did others who voted in favour of abolition. What concerns me is that many of the people who voted for abolition and were gung-ho for capital punishment, which would not have done a damned thing for the security of this country by taking a few crazy people and hanging them after the fact-


An hon. Member:: How do you increase security by doing that?


Max Saltsman: Sure, it makes you look great. It makes you feel fine, but it does not help the security of the people. When you bring in a piece of legislation like this, one which will increase the security of the people-sure, it is not dramatic like hanging someone; it isn't so expurging-they suddenly become libertarians. They suddenly become extreme civil libertarians. They are willing to hang, but they are not willing to wiretap.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: I find it a strange situation, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, for some of the language I have used. It is not often I use language of that kind, but I get angry at some of these things. I think, sometimes, that anger can be excused.
I have gone through a heck of a lot with regard to capital punishment. I have been accused of being a fascist, or a Nazi, or as being in favour of a Nazi state because I believe policemen should be trusted and because I believe the courts should be trusted. I have had enough of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: Let us deal with one other fact. Lawyers, it is argued, should be exempt. Why lawyers? Lawyers are admirable people. But are they so admirable that they should be exempt? I listened to the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) who talked about those people with yellow stripes down the sides of their pants. They are nice people-but they are only people; they are only policemen and they have to be watched. Are lawyers not also only people who occasionally have to be watched? What kind of special confidence exists between a lawyer and his client that should be denied to me an M.P. between me and my constituent? Yet I am not exempt under this legislation.
What kind of special confidence is there between a lawyer and his client that does not exist between a man or a woman and a priest? Yet a priest is not exempt.
July 14, 1977

What kind of confidence exists between a lawyer and his client that is denied to the psychiatrist and his patient? Yet they are not exempt. Why should lawyers be exempt?
I do not believe lawyers should be spoken of any more harshly than any other group of people. Yet I do not think they are entitled to privileges which are not available to other people.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Expand the exemption then.


Max Saltsman: My hon. friend says "expand the exemption". That is perfectly logical. It is a logical position for an extreme libertarian to take. I respect my hon. friend for that. But that is not what the amendment is saying. And for those reasons, Mr. Speaker-I have a few others-I do not think the amendment should be supported. I do not think the amendment makes a great deal of sense-at least not to me.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate. Like my desk mate, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), I am not a lawyer, but I do not think civil liberties, democracy, and freedom are the exclusive preserve of lawyers and that it is only lawyers who can talk about the basic principles which are contained in this bill.
As I listened to the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge speak I thought he must have gone to sleep two or three years ago and not heard or read about what has gone on. I am not talking about nazi Germany. I think members who compare what this bill will do, amended or unamended, with what happened in nazi Germany are way off course. I do not think there is any relationship, either today or in the foreseeable future, with what happened in nazi Germany, whether this bill is amended or not. But surely what we have learned in the past two years or so as a result of events in Canada, the United States and other countries, should have convinced us of one thing. I have in mind the dictum that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. We know this happens in countries which are governed by authoritarian regimes. We know this is what happens in fascist countries or communist countries. But we need only look at democratic countries to see that the same thing could happen there to a lesser degree.
It is only five or six years ago that there was complete confidence in the incorruptibility of the RCMP, in the perfection of the RCMP, and if one reads letters written to newspaper editors one realizes there was the same confidence in the United States in the FBI and the CIA. The American people have now learned from bitter experience that nobody can be given complete power, that no person or agency can be entrusted with absolute power. This is what the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge forgot to say. Nobody, lawyer or no lawyer, should have a protection which other people do not enjoy.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member is delivering a very good speech, but I want to point out that nobody on this side, or even in his own party, suggested lawyers should enjoy any
Criminal Code
special privilege. The privilege is not for lawyers but for Canadian citizens generally who deal with doctors, lawyers, and psychiatrists. I hope the hon. member will quote us correctly in that regard. I don't give a damn about lawyers.


David Orlikow: If the hon. member had waited for a few minutes he would have heard me say precisely what he suggested I say. Citizens of the United States have learned through bitter experience that the police can make mistakes, that police can be involved in activities which are not only immoral but which are illegal. They learned this as they have learned about practices in which the FBI were involved. In the last few weeks senior officials in the national police force in Great Britain have been convicted of crimes and sentenced to prison terms of five to eight years for taking bribes. Some of these things may, indeed, have happened in Canada. After all, the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) has admitted that the RCMP carried out an illegal break-in of l'Agence Presse in Montreal. It is now obvious that if the RCMP itself was not involved in a break-in and theft of documents in Toronto at the Praxis organization, it was in receipt of stolen documents and kept them for seven years. They did not report that they had possession of those documents either to the organization whose property had been burglarized or to the metropolitan police in Toronto.
We do not yet know what role the RCMP played in Alberta, but we do know that as a result of the hearings of the Laycraft commission the attorney general of Alberta has expressed some very serious misgivings about the activities of the RCMP in that province. The chief of police of Winnipeg has also expressed some very sharp criticisms about what the RCMP may or may not have done in that city in connection with the Alberta inquiry. There have been press comments on supposed activities of the RCMP in Nova Scotia. I have a great deal of respect for the RCMP, as I have for all police forces in this country. They do a very necessary and valuable job. But I believe, as does the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox), that the RCMP, like any other agency of government, should be responsible to the people of this country.
I am not a lawyer but I have read something of the history of this country, and I have what seems to me to be the mistaken assumption that one of the basic principles of British justice is that a person is considered innocent until he is proven guilty. I would assume that a person in difficulty with the law, or a person who believes he may be charged with some offence by the police, would want an opportunity, whether he be innocent or guilty, to discuss what he should do and how he should act so far as the police are concerned, with his lawyer, knowing that the consultation he has with that lawyer will be kept private between the two of them. He should assume that he has the right to tell his lawyer everything without somebody listening in on the conversation.
My seatmate for Waterloo-Cambridge wants me to assume that the police will take action to tap a lawyer's telephone only when they are 100 per cent certain there is guilt, that they

July 14, 1977
Criminal Code
would not do so unless they had good reason. I would assume that is correct, Mr. Speaker, and I accept that that will be their intention. But the police are only human and I have every right to believe that, being human, the police will sometimes make a mistake. So long as the police, like everybody else, are capable of making a mistake, 1 say that we must protect the innocent. We must protect the right of people to discuss their situation with their legal counsel, confident that they will not be listened into by somebody else.
I simply cannot understand how the Minister of Justice can ask the members of this parliament to accept a provision which provides that the police can listen in on a telephone conversation with a lawyer if they have reason to believe that someone is involved in something which is illegal, provided they get the approval of a judge to do so. One does not have to be a lawyer, or to be in court every day or every week, to know that in every city in this country there are judges and judges. Some judges will be extremely careful in how they use the authority the minister proposes to give them in this provision of the bill, judges who would want a complete explanation from the police who are asking for permission to wiretap-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, no, no, that is not the law.


David Orlikow: I am saying "if' this is the law.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I rise again? I like my good friend's speech and I can see that his party is divided, that its members are fighting, but the law is not that way. We have just had a case in the courts of British Columbia which says that you cannot look behind-no, don't get up, Mr. Speaker, please.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member is making a misstatement of the law. He is absolutely wrong.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I am sure the hon. member is very serious about what he wants to discuss, but I fail to see a point of order; the hon. member's point is mostly a point of debate. I suggest we listen to the hon. member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to finish what I was saying, with the greatest respect. The law is that the judge says that you cannot cross-examine even in reference to the application for authorization.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is the law. But please let us not have this drivel.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) were not so possessive in regard to his amendments to the bill as to feel it necessary to correct every member who tries to say a few words. If indeed I

have mistated or misinterpreted one of the sections of this clause, I am sure I am not the first member today to do so, and I am certain I will not be the last. I am simply saying that in my view, and on the basis of what I have read and heard, there are judges and judges. Some will co-operate with the police much more quickly and easily than others.
If this section is left in, 1 am sure that the police, whether the RCMP, provincial police or municipal police, in any city would be able to find a judge who would authorize any and every request for permission to wiretap which is made. I cling to what may be an old-fashioned and no longer valid conclusion, that if the law leans in the direction of favouring a person it should lean in the direction of protecting the few innocents rather than convicting a few more of the guilty.
I would suggest to the hon. member for Waterloo-Cam-bridge (Mr. Saltsman) that he ought to take the time to read the evidence given by a former attorney general of the United States, Ramsey Clark, who managed that department in a country which has, unfortunately, a great deal more crime than we have in Canada, and who made a very simple and plain statement that the use of wiretap by the police in that country was virtually useless in terms of the conviction of criminals, including criminals who are part of organized crime. The proposal to permit wiretapping with the permission of judges does not meet the needs of this country. We do not have a democratic society in which we have gone too far in the direction of giving people civil liberties. Democracy requires giving people the fullest possible rights and protections.
To my knowledge there is not a member in this House who has followed the counsel given in the United States by very competent and highly respected organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which is opposed to all wiretapping. That is not the case here in this parliament. Not a single member has advocated the complete abolition of wiretapping.
Those of us who support this amendment are not opposing the police any more than did members on both sides of the House who ignored the advice of the police when they voted for the abolition of capital punishment. All those members who voted for the abolition of capital punishment were singularly unimpressed by the arguments of the police in favour of retaining capital punishment. Just as I was prepared to listen and reject the advice of the police on capital punishment, 1 have listened to the advice of the police on this question, and to the advice of others, and I have come to the conclusion we need to restrict much more the rights of the police to engage in wiretapping. Therefore I intend to vote for this amendment, and I suggest to the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge that he should re-examine the evidence that has been given on this question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 14, 1977


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the amendments introduced by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) dealing with Bill C-51.
First, I would like to make it clear that we have always been in favour of law and order-there is no doubt about that. We back perhaps 100 per cent the police departments to maintain law and order in Canada, and we are also in favour of establishing courts of justice and for security. On the other hand, when we examine the history of all those countries where with the same arguments that are being made, namely in the name of security, they want to put up wiretaps and make them available to all police departments in Canada, we fully realize that this gives opposite results.
Mr. Speaker, police reforms are currently under way in Quebec. Everybody knows that municipalities and cities today have lost, not control over police departments but the sense of democracy in that they can no longer from a practical point of view fire those policemen who no longer meet the needs of those municipalities. There are hundreds of cases in Quebec where city councils wanted to fire policemen. Those problems have been before our courts for several years and are not over yet. I could give striking examples, Mr. Speaker.
Furthermore, there is talk at present of taking away from Quebec municipalities the authority they now have over police departments to transfer that authority to the government of Quebec. In that way, the police departments in our municipalities and cities will become with respect to discipline and for all other areas responsible to the government of Quebec. That means that the further away we move authority from the people, the less security we have. This legislation will only trouble ordinary people because criminals, bandits, those who may fear bugging are smart enough not to use the telephone to consult their lawyers. On the other hand, 99.9 per cent of the people-honest people-will have to fear consulting their lawyer because they will not know if his office is not bugged when it is the bandits who should be under surveillance.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will only bother people as a whole, but it will not solve anything as far as crime is concerned because those who will be directly concerned by this legislation will be smart enough to find ways to elude wiretapping of any police force. Mr. Speaker, municipalities in the province of Quebec-because it will be an ever more critical issue in that province-will have less and less power over police forces and authority will be more and more in the hands of the state. It is also established that the more we rely on the state for our security, the less the ordinary citizen is protected.
For all these reasons and many others, particularly because this legislation will do nothing but annoy honest people in the province of Quebec as well as in other provinces, without changing anything in the crime situation in Canada, I have an obligation to vote for the motion, not out of fanaticism for civil rights, but for liberty alone. I will have an obligation to vote for the amendments of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).
Criminal Code


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 33 and 34 will be grouped for debate and will be voted on together.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Motion No. 33.
That Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in clause 12 by striking out lines 30 to 33 at page 52 and substituting the following therefor:
"which the authorization was given, notify in".
Motion No. 34.
That Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in clause 12 by striking out lines 44 to 47 at page 52 and lines 1 to 27 at page 53.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the applause, particularly that from the government side. I hope they will put their applause with their votes.


Francis Fox: Count on it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. lady shakes her head, but her grandmother would not agree. She is a real Conservative and the hon. lady knows that. Let us get down to the gritty facts.


An hon. Member:: Gritty facts?

July 14, 1977
Criminal Code


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right, gritty. What we are doing here is talking about notice. As the Code now stands, within 90 days notice must be given to the person who is the object of a wiretap. I think 1 covered the subject pretty fully this afternoon. The amendments before us now allow a period of three years. It is within the discretion of the judge. What will happen? There will be a form affidavit which they sign and swear to, a form order, and the police will get the right to wiretap everybody for 60 days. It is a 100 per cent gain. The person being wiretapped does not have to be notified for three years. That is what it is all about.
This afternoon I spoke for almost 40 minutes. Notification does not have to be given for three years. Let me put it in very broad terms. By that time the lawyer may be dead, the accused may be dead, the judge may be dead, and even those who put on the wiretap may be dead.


William Arnold Peters: Do you expect a nuclear bomb?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am going to quote the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and then resume my seat. He was premier of my home province. I did not always agree with him. However, he was a distinguished scholar, distinguished as an academic, and distinguished as the premier of my province. He put his finger on the whole matter, He said forget about authorization and wiretap everybody, because it is going to be evidence any how. Regardless of whether notice is given, it will not make any difference.
When I spoke this afternoon, I expended a lot of energy. I will not waste the time of the House tonight. However, as I watch the division in the NDP-


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: There is no division here, only a tiny crack.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is not. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) certainly disagrees with the hon. member for-


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman).


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right. Thank God they don't think alike. If we all thought alike, there would be no thinking. We are always criticizing the press. There they sit, two out of 70. I say this to them. Once in a while the Tories do not agree. They think that is a terrible thing if you do not agree. They think we should all be like the Liberals. They all agree and they have a great party. I say thank God we have some disagreement in our party. If we all thought alike, there would be no thinking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I was very proud of the NDP tonight. That is something I have always admired about them. They did disagree. That is healthy. I hope the press will be as fair with them as they have bei n with us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: What a wonderful line.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I realize that. I will tell you why tonight is the greatest debate. Let me be really honest. I will tell you why the debate is better than average. Members opposite were at a big party tonight in the office of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). There was a big party in room 200 for the Conservatives. That is very healthy. We meet and we think.
I made my speech this afternoon. I repeat that if we extend the notification from 90 days to three years, God help the law abiding citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer the House to the existing legislation that we are presently trying to amend through amendments which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has presented. The existing legislation deals with the question of notice. The Minister of Justice has been up in this House over and over again saying, "Have faith in our judges, have faith in our police." The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), when speaking about five minutes ago, said have faith in our judges, have faith in our police. I want to read to the Minister of Justice and the House the law that he is seeking to change. I quote from page 17:
-to the judge who granted the authorization that the investigation is continuing and the judge is of the opinion that the interests of justice require that a delay of a determinate reasonable length be granted, in which case the judge may grant a determinate reasonable delay."
I do not know whether the House is in the mood to listen to something that is as mundane as the law we are attempting to amend. I know that is a bit mind-bending for a lot of people here tonight. What we are trying to do with the amendment the Minister of Justice has presented to this House is to take away the discretion of the courts and say that the notification period shall be up to three years.
I would rather trust the judges of this land, and that is what the hon. member for Calgary-North (Mr. Woolliams) is attempting to do with the amendment we have before us. There is no reason in the world to change the law as it stands. It has worked well. It gives the courts a review process that is absolutely vital and necessary in terms of wiretapping. The trouble with this debate is that it gets so simplistic no one looks at what we are trying to change.
I have great respect for the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge. I have respect for his intelligence and intellect. He is an extremely astute member. However, what he has failed to perceive is that liberty is a very delicate flower. The species has developed liberty in a unique and unusual way. Somebody has to defend liberty once in a while because the trends are all against liberty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Unless somebody waters and fertilizes the flower, it will die. The Minister of Justice, the government, and the Liberal party have thrown salt on that delicate flower. They are going to kill that flower.
July 14, 1977


An hon. Member:: Salt or Saltsman?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and 1 ask the House to think of what you are doing in terms of this wiretap legislation. Why not leave it up to the judges to exercise their discretion to determine the notification period? Then the judges can protect the liberty of the subject. I do not have any confidence in the Minister of Justice protecting the liberty of the subject, none at all, so I support the amendment, and so does my party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on motions Nos. 33 and 34. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the motions will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division for the proposed motions stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 35, 36, 37 and 38 will be grouped together for debate. The vote on motion No. 35 will dispose of motions Nos. 36 and 37. The question on motion No. 38 will be put separately.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Motion No. 35.
That Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in Clause 24 by striking out lines 37 to 45 at page 68 and lines 1 to 12 at page 69.
Motion No. 36.
That Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in Clause 26 by striking out lines 32 to 37 at page 70 and substituting the following therefor:
""11. Notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act, the Board shall
be required, in considering whether or not parole should be granted or
revoked, to conduct a hearing in accordance with the principles of natural
justice." "
Motion No. 37.
That Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in Clause 29 by adding immediately after line 14 at page 73 the following:
Criminal Code
"(4) Where a case is referred to the Board pursuant to subsection (3), the
Board shall within 30 days from the date of the reference either cancel
suspension or hold a hearing pursuant to section 11."


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


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We have now considered the wiretap provision and are on questions of parole, which form a very significant part of this legislation.
1 am surprised there was not more interest on the part of parliamentarians about the subject of the penitentiary system. I might say that I appreciate the fact that an all-party committee has reported on the question of penitentiaries in this country. It is an important report. I am glad to see the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) here tonight listening to the debate with some interest.
With regard to the amendments before us under Bill C-51, only one of them relates in any way to the recommendations made by the all-party committee on changes in the penitentiary system, and I am disappointed that at this point we have not yet seen more action.
Perhaps, first of all, I could deal with motions Nos. 35 and 36. Motion No. 35 simply asks that the Parole Board act in accordance with the principles of natural justice in making its determination. I have left the motion general because the principles of natural justice are easily defined by the courts. It is again an attempt to allow the courts an opportunity to exercise their discretion. It is an opportunity to allow the judges to take a look at the parole provisions and ensure that the Parole Board is acting in a fair way. I am not suggesting that we superimpose a whole new set of jurisprudence on the Parole Board. I am only suggesting, in view of the disruption that we have seen in our prison systems, that the Parole Board act in accordance with the principles of natural justice so that there can be more peace and calm within the prison system.
I am not suggesting that the Parole Board should be any more lenient than it is. My argument is that it should have been stronger in some cases. The board leans in the other direction. That does not mean it should not also act in accordance with the rules of natural justice. So, quite simply, motions Nos. 35 and 36 ask that the general principle of the rules of natural justice apply to the operations of the Parole Board.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to support the motion of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what has always been my concern with regard to the Parole Board. It is that many times the Parole Board is blamed for weekend leaves which are granted by the wardens of penitentiaries. If these amendments are accepted, hearings will be held, as they should be, in every penitentiary in Canada. There are one million unemployed in Canada. We do not have enough people to process the applications. Perhaps this is where we should employ some personnel and train them to listen to reason when hearing the evidence of the incarcerated. I say this is a good amendment and I support it 100 per cent. My party will vote for it.

July 14, 1977
Criminal Code


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, may I say briefly that, as 1 see it, motion No. 36 requires the board to conduct hearings when it has decided to grant, deny or revoke parole. Motion No. 35 is consequential since it would delete the power of the governor in council to make regulations, prescribing when a hearing must be held, the information to be furnished prior to the hearing, the entitlement to assistance at the hearing, and the occasions on which reasons for decisions would have to be given by the board.
It is a matter of principle on the question of the hearing, and there is no dispute. The question is whether it should be in the regulations or in the statute. 1 believe it is in the interest of the inmates that it be left in the regulations. If we put it into the statute, because of the high number of people who would be involved-I only have to mention, for instance, the number of day parole hearings that would have to be held, or to mention the number of people on short sentences in penitentiaries and provincial prisons where hearings would have to be held to conclude that if we put it into the statute, we would be delaying the procedural safeguards which the board is now maintaining and which it should continue to maintain. That deals with motions Nos. 35 and 36.
With regard to Motion No. 37, the amendment would add a subsection on the procedure to be followed on suspension of parole and subsequent review. The subsection would make it mandatory for the board to hold a hearing as to whether parole would be revoked, unless the board, within 30 days from the date it had the matter referred to it, chooses to cancel the suspension.
This motion is along the same lines as motion No. 36 in that it attempts to incorporate into the legislation a right that the board contemplates will be dealt with under the regulations. The board will be recommending to the governor in council, and so will I shortly, regulations that will require a hearing to be commenced within 30 days following a reference to the board by the person effecting the suspension. I believe once again that this is another occasion where the only difference between what is proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) and what we will be proposing is the method by which the inmate is to be given certain rights. 1 believe it will be easier to proceed faster in this regard by keeping in the hands of the governor in council the power to make regulations in this regard and to make progress as soon as possible. I understand, however, that the hon. member will be speaking on motion No. 38.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I must beg the indulgence of the House. I did not realize you would group all the motions together. 1 had assumed that the motions I spoke to were grouped together because they were on the same subject, but obviously the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) has referred to motions Nos. 37 and 38, which I did not realize would be grouped. With the leave of the House, 1 should like to spend a moment to explain the reasons for those motions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House in agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Motion No. 37, to which the Solicitor General referred, deals with the problem inherent in the revocation of parole under the existing law. The revocation of parole, when made, would now be subsequently referred for review by the Parole Board. However, no time limit is provided for the Parole Board in terms of reporting, and my amendment would require that the board report within 30 days so that the inmate would at least have some hope of knowing what decision there would be in the long run. It seems to me that that is a matter which would encourage peace within institutions. The board would have some responsibility not to delay its reports indefinitely. The minister's legislation does not provide for any time limit with regard to that, and I think that that is really a matter of cleaning up the legislation. Perhaps the minister will accept that amendment, which is fairly reasonable.
With regard to motion No. 38, in the past a parolee who violated his parole, subsequently had the time spent on parole added to his sentence. The result could be that a person serving a two year sentence could ultimately spend three or four years in jail because of his violations. Appropriately, the government has attempted to solve that problem by proposing that the time spent on parole not be added to sentences. The difficulty is that the government has failed to include those people who presently are serving time on parole. It seems reasonable to me that they should not be discriminated against by the passage of this legislation, which would apply only to persons being paroled subsequent to the passage of the legislation.
I am asking the Solicitor General to apply the worth-while rule which he has brought into the legislation to parolees who are now on parole. This would not affect those whose parole was previously violated and revoked and who have been recommitted to prison. I am asking the Solicitor General not to discriminate between those who are now properly on parole and not violating their parole and those who may subsequently be paroled. It seems to me that it would be a fairly logical step for the Solicitor General not to discriminate between those two classes.
1 support the amendment, but we are discriminating against those who are presently on parole. We are allowing the legislation to apply only to those who are subsequently paroled.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Does the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) have the unanimous consent of the House to speak at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, we support this amendment, but I want to bring to the attention of the House that the
July 14, 1977

person who is now charged with the murder of a police officer in Ottawa was on parole, and if we had had this kind of intelligent law, perhaps a different decision would have been made. That person was on parole, and let us make it very clear that long guns were used in that incident, and they are not included in this bill. Any statement differing from that is false and untrue.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on motions Nos. 35, 36 and 37, in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the motions will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: On division.
Motions No. 35, 36, and 37 (Mr. Leggatt) negatived.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Motion No. 38.
That Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in Clause 31 by striking out lines 44 and 45 at page 73 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) any time spent on parole;".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Criminal Code


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 38 (Mr. Leggatt) negatived.


Francis Fox: Motion No. 39.
That Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in Clause 41
(a)	by striking out line 30 at page 77 and substituting the following therefor:
"24.1 (1) Every inmate who, having been";
(b)	by adding immediately after line 42 at page 77 the following:
"(2) The Governor in Council may make regulations providing for the
appointment by him or by the Minister of a person to preside over a
disciplinary court, prescribing the duties to be performed by such a person
and fixing his remuneration."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion I am proposing is the direct result of the unanimous report which was submitted to me by the subcommittee on penitentiaries in Canada. It deals with giving the governor in council the power to appoint independent persons to chair over disciplinary courts in penitentiaries.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, referring to motion No. 39,1 suggest that the Solicitor General is being given rather extraordinary powers. I concede that the report was unanimous but in any case, we might have to regret some day having followed its recommendations-


Francis Fox: Your party was in favour of this.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: All things considered, the Solicitor General is given an extraordinary power under motion No. 39. It is an issue where the rendering of justice is at stake. 1 do not want to question the good faith of the present Solicitor General who is here today, but it could be someone else tomorrow. All things considered, the Solicitor General is being granted extraordinary powers and maybe someday we will realize, I think, that we have gone a bit too far, because Parliament must always keep a monitoring power since it is, in my opinion, the very essence of our democracy. Our democracy will survive so long as we retain the principle that the ministers are accountable to Parliament. Quite sincerely, I believe that this amendment should be suppressed in order to let parliament exercise more monitoring power with regard to the way justice is carried out in this country.


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the subcommittee which inquired into the constant crises in penitentiaries, the violence and the hostage taking, I am pleased to support the motion of the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox). It is indicative of the seriousness with which the Solicitor General views the problem facing taxpayers and the problems in penitentiaries. The Solicitor General

July 14, 1977
Criminal Code
has taken the opportunity to use Bill C-51 to incorporate this important measure which can keep our prisons from exploding again. In view of the fact that all parties were unanimous and non-partisan in the committee, I hope this motion will be passed unanimously.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 39 (Mr. Fox) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Since all motions at the report stage have been considered, the House will now proceed to the outstanding recorded divisions on those motions.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

And the division bells having been rung:
Mr. Speaker:: The first question is on motion No. 25 in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil).


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 25 lost.
The question is on motion No. 29.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 29 lost.			
The question	is on motion No.	30.	This also disposes of
motions Nos. 31 and 32.			
The House divided on motion		No.	30 (Mr. Woolliams)
which was negatived on the following division:			
	(Division No. 87)		
	YEAS		
	Messrs.		
Baker	Hnatyshyn	McCain(Grenville-Carleton)	Hogan	McCleaveBeatty	Holmes	McKinnonBlackburn	Huntington	MitgesBrisco	Jarvis	NeilCadieu	Johnston	OrlikowClark	Kempling	O'Sullivan(Rocky Mountain)	Knowles	PaproskiCoates	(Winnipeg	PattersonCrouse	North Centre)	PetersDarling	Lambert	Pigott (Mrs.)Dick	(Bellechasse)	RitchieElzinga	La Salle	RodriguezEpp	Leggatt	RondeauFraser	MacDonald (Miss)	SchumacherGauthier	(Kingston and the	Scott(Roberval)	Islands)	StanfieldGilbert	Malone	TowersGrafftey	Marshall	WhitewayHalliday	Mazankowski	Whittaker Woolliams-(53)NAYS	Messrs.	Abbott	Begin (Miss)	BlouinAppolloni (Mrs.)	Blais	BoulangerBasford	Blaker	BreauBussi&res	Criminal Code Messrs. Guay	MunroCaccia	(Levis)	(Hamilton East)Cafik	Haidasz	Nicholson (Miss)Campagnolo (Mrs.)	Harquail	O'ConnellCaron	Herbert	OuelletChretien	Holt (Mrs.)	ParentClermont	Hopkins	PearsallCullen	Joyal	PennerDawson	Kaplan	PhilbrookDe Bane	Lajoie	PortelanceDemers	Lalonde	PoulinDionne	Lamontagne	Railton(Northumberland-	Landers	RainesMiramichi)	Lang	RobertsDouglas	Langlois	Robinson(Bruce-Grey)	Lapointe	RompkeyDuclos	Lee	RoyDupras	Lefebvre	(Laval)Duquet	Lessard	SaltsmanEthier	Loiselle	Sauve (Mrs.)Foster	(Chambly)	SavardFox	Lumley	SharpFrancis	MacDonald	SmithGillespie	(Cardigan)	(Saint-Jean)Goodale	MacFarlane	TessierGoyer	Maine	TrudeauGray	Mclsaac	TrudelGuay	McRae	Watson(St. Boniface)	Milne	Young-(86)


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motions Nos. 30, 31 and 32 lost.
The question is on motion No. 33. This will also dispose of motion No. 34.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 therefore declare motions Nos. 33 and 34 lost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, 1 thought a vote was called for motion No. 35.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It was disposed of on division this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Our records indicate that motion No. 35 was negatived on division.


Walter David Baker: That is correct.


Stanley Ronald Basford: that Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Walter David Baker: At the next sitting of the House.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I may ask the parliamentary secretary if he knows what we will be dealing with tomorrow and in what order the business will be called, and if he has anything else he would like to add we would be delighted to hear it.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to begin tomorrow with Bill C-17, the Air Canada legislation, which is at the report stage. We are optimistic that that bill will be dealt with expeditiously. There are two other items for consideration tomorrow, the third reading stage of Bill C-51 and the third reading stage of Bill C-27. It can be the subject of further discussion with respect to the specific order in which those two items might be called, but it would be my expectation now that we would proceed after Bill C-17 with the third reading of Bill C-51.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, what brings us together is my question of the other day to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) and the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) about the practices of the Armed Forces in dealing with people moving through customs, namely, National Defence people, and about whether they should have to make a declaration if it is felt they had made purchases abroad of $50 or less. The practice for the population as a whole is that they do not have to make any declaration or they may make an oral declaration, and they do not have to fill in any forms. In maritime command personnel do have to fill in a form. Having looked at the documents I can say that somebody in the department has misinterpreted the practice in general, and maritime command people have been required to fill in the form, whereas the rest of the personnel can move back and forth and be treated as civilians.
I am somewhat hampered in this debate because 1 have probably mislaid the document I once had. I have looked for it in my office and here in my desk. I cannot find it. In any event, a directive was sent out by maritime command stating that these forms did have to be filled in, but the rest of National Defence was not required to do so. I think there is a misunderstanding, and when I raised this matter the other day the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of National Defence thought one thing, but when I showed the Minister of National Defence the documents, he indicated to me that probably in one part of National Defence there had been a mistake, and that was going to be corrected. 1 have probably taken more of the time of the House than i originally intended.
I think the parliamentary secretary will straighten this up, and I thank the House for its indulgence.

July 14, 1977


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's brevity, considering the fact that it is past ten o'clock. Perhaps we could ask search and rescue to find his document for him, but in this case I have the answer to his question, and I think it will alleviate his justified concern.
Canadian Forces administrative orders state that goods valued at $50 and under may be declared verbally unless a customs official requests a written declaration.
Apparently in the past customs officials have been requesting written declarations from service personnel, but as a result of an interdepartmental inquiry the Department of National Revenue has agreed to process service personnel in the same manner as civilians.
The message referred to by the hon. member was issued from maritime command headquarters on June 23, 1977, and contravenes the Canadian Forces administrative order in so far that it "directs a requirement for written declarations" without qualification that goods valued at $50 or less may be declared orally except when directed otherwise by a customs official.
Maritime command has been directed to clarify the instruction and to ensure that the procedures outlined in the Canadian Forces administrative order issued by National Defence headquarters are adhered to. Maritime command will change the message and will adhere to the Canadian Forces administrative order.


POST OFFICE-ALLEGATION UNION DENIED ACCESS TO MEANS OF COMMUNICATING WITH MEMBERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, when I raised questions concerning the Post Office on July 4, the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) answered that he had no idea of the reasoning behind the breakdown in negotiations and that his department had never interfered with the union in the carrying out of its duties.
I would like to refresh the minister's memory tonight in regard to that interference, and perhaps in that way he may be better able to understand the labour unrest which is current in the Post Office.
Perhaps I should start by reminding the Postmaster General of the case in Charlottetown, P.E.I., last April where a union steward was "counselled" and threatened with dismissal for submitting grievances. In other words, management threatened to fire him for doing his job.
Then there is the case in Sydney, Nova Scotia, of a Mr. J. Legge. Mr. Legge is the local CUPW president and he was ordered by postal authorities to remove union bulletins from the premises of post offices. These bulletins, Mr. Speaker, had already been initialled by the employer. But the employer changed its mind and ordered them removed to prevent communication in the union.
Adjournment Debate
The cases get more serious. There is the case of Wayne Mundle, a union official from the Halifax area. On May 17 he tried to enter a post office on union business. At that time he was denied access to the building. When he asserted his right to be there as a representative of the union he was ejected from the building. The result of that was that assault charges have been laid against the post office official responsible.
But to make matters even worse, yesterday Wayne Mundle was suspended from his job for three months. The reason given was that he had no right to be in the building. In other words, the Post Office is suspending union officials from jobs in a post office for the crime of trying to work for the men and women they represent.
The Post Office made its attitude even more clear recently when its district director, W. L. Ryan, informed the regional director of the union, Mr. D. W. Tingley, that he would not entertain any correspondence with him and that he would not be allowed to enter postal installations in Nova Scotia. This means that Mr. Tingley will not be able to represent unionists in the matter of grievances or anything else. The government is flatly denying the right of the union to be represented by its elected officials.
This is surely in keeping with the Post Office Department's campaign of misinformation over the years. They have sent their senior employees kits calling certain CUPW officials marxists and separatists. They have sent conflicting bulletins to different parts of the country, and I have copies of these here.
It is small wonder that we have labour difficulties in the Post Office with the attitude and actions shown by the employer. In fact it is a wonder there is as much industrial peace as there is.
The government has had the opportunity to set matters right. It signed a contract last year which should have helped in the matter of technological change and casual employees. But it refused to honour the provisions of that contract, Mr. Speaker, and today in Toronto there are actually more casual or temporary employees than there were at the time the contract was signed.
The union wanted to reopen the bargaining early this year, in January 1977, as they had done in the past, to clear up some of these outstanding problems. The government would have nothing to do with an early bargaining. So now again we are faced with labour trouble in the Post Office, and again the government does nothing to clean up its own mess, choosing instead to propagandize and attack the union leadership. Mr. Speaker, there is one way in which the matter can be settled.
The union has called for a royal commission into the Post Office to find where the problems lie. If the government is so confident the union is to blame, why will it not hold such a commission and give an undertaking that it will carry out its recommendations? Is it afraid that a royal commission will take the road of all past independent commissions and blame the way the Post Office has been managed, or mismanaged

July 14, 1977
Adjournment Debate
over the years? These are questions the government must answer.


Mr. Walter Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested in this House that the breakdown in negotiations between the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the Post Office Department is the result of alleged interference in communication between that union's national executive and its membership. I would like to make it absolutely clear there is no truth in this allegation.
For about nine months now the Post Office Department has been communicating with employees-all employees at all levels-on a wide variety of topics. Those topics include the current status of negotiations with each of the five postal unions, the results of union elections, international art exhibitions, hockey tournaments, and the retirement of long-serving employees. Whatever the subject matter, these messages report substantiated facts; they do not express opinions; they do not indulge in name calling. These messages are not addressed to rank and file emloyees, but to all levels of management, including first-level supervisors. The only motive behind this system of communication is the need to have a well-informed management, so that they can either pass this information along or respond to questions from the people they supervise or manage.
On one occasion a message containing an incorrect statement was sent out. The error was quickly spotted and corrected within hours. The correction was identified as such. Therefore that one hon. member should suggest that the Post Office Department issues "conflicting bulletins" is a complete distortion of the facts. No doubt the CUPW has its own reasons for refusing to return to the negotiating table, but interfering with the union's communications is most certainly not a reason. The union has repeatedly been invited to resume bargaining. Its executive has refused to do so for reasons which may become clear later. They are certainly not clear at present.
It has been further suggested in this House that the Post Office Department has refused to allow union publications to be posted and distributed to the membership. I assume the hon. member is referring to unsubstantiated charges made before the Public Service Staff Relations Board.
In fact the union, through its legal counsel, has now been before the board for seven days and has not yet addressed itself to the charge made against the Post Office Department under article 20 of the staff relations act. The chairman of the board has more than once urged the union to present the proper evidence, but it has not yet done so. Largely because of this, the staff relations board has had to schedule a further nine days of hearings which will last up to October 6 next, with still no certainty that the union's case will be made even by then.
A reasonable man might conclude that the union, in stating it cannot resume bargaining until the hearing is concluded, is just stalling.

I understand CUPW is having its convention in Halifax on July 25 and I wish them success in their deliberations, Mr. Speaker.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION-INDICTMENT OF MANAGEMENT IN AUDIT BY SIBBALD GROUP-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, it is almost midnight and, like members in this House, the members of the press gallery are tired. Therefore I shall try to be brief. However, I must raise one matter of considerable importance.
For several days I have tried to raise in the House of Commons questions concerning difficulties of the Farm Credit Corporation. For years farmers in all parts of the country highly regarded the Farm Credit Corporation, which provided farmers with low interest loans and money with which farmers could expand their operations, stay in business, or even go into the business. In recent years the corporation has encountered increasing difficulties. In 1975 it ran out of funds, and many farmers were unable to secure the loans the corporation had promised them. Last year the government actually showed restraint in one area. It cut back the authorized lending capital of Farm Credit Corporation, putting the squeeze on the agricultural sector of the economy. In the last two years senior management personnel have resigned from the corporation. That is a sign of malaise within the corporation.
In April, this year, the Sibbald Group released the results of an audit and study of Farm Credit Corporation. It showed that within the corporation there was poor morale, and moonlighting by employees on company time. Employees were taught to learn French and then sent to areas where no one spoke French, with the result that the taxpayers' money was wasted. The report showed that there was poor administration at all levels. It was a very blunt report, extremely caustic in its assessment.
Let me put on record these quotations having to do with management. The first is from page 33 of the report. It says:
The number of references to management problems during the interviews was too great to ignore. Here are complaints about lack of credibility, lack of confidence in leadership, lack of communication, and mystery regarding corporate objectives at almost all levels of the corporation.
At page 59 the report states:
Corporate senior leadership is widely viewed at all levels as being less than adequate. This feeling is more pronounced and widespread the higher one probes the corporate ladder.
It is vital the government should disclose what steps it is prepared to take to provide leadership to the corporation. After all, this is a $306 million organization. The taxpayers have a right to expect that it will be wisely managed; the employees have right to expect that proper direction will be given to them, and that they will be in a position to understand the direction senior management wishes to take. Most important of all, the farmers of Canada have a right to expect that
July 14, 1977

the corporation will provide them with the best possible service.
1 hope the government is prepared to extend the terms of the motion under Standing Order 43 which 1 sought to move today, and in respect to which unanimous consent was refused. It would have referred this report to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and given the minister an opportunity to indicate whether he was prepared to accept his responsibility to restore control and direction to the corporation.


Walter Bernard Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify some of the comments which have been made about the Farm Credit Corporation and the studies carried out by the Manitoba Institute of Management Incorporated and the Sibbald Group. Unfortunately I cannot reply to all of the allegations which the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Duff-erin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) has made in recent days. Therefore I shall respond briefly to those which seem to have been uppermost in his mind when the questions were being asked.
I should first caution the hon. member about the manner in which this report was prepared. A number of FCC employees from all levels of the organization conducted interviews with fellow employees and clients of the Farm Credit Corporation. From these interviews the report was written, without allegations and charges having been pursued in detail to verify their validity. Therefore much of the report is hearsay and in several instances most misleading. As the report was only intended as an internal document to assist management, this approach was quite reasonable.
Insofar as moonlighting is concerned, I am advised the corporation does have strict guidelines against such a practice and that any instances brought to its attention will be dealt with accordingly. There would, however, appear to be some confusion insofar as this allegation is concerned. In 1969 the Farm Credit Corporation reached an agreement with the Department of Finance that FCC employees would value rural
Adjournment Debate
properties for banks considering loans to farmers under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. As it is the corporation which is reimbursed for this activity, it is normal procedure that such appraisals should be conducted as part of the employees' duties.
The Farm Credit Corporation does not send people on French language courses when its clients do not indicate a need for service in the second official language. However, it is the policy of the corporation to serve its clients in the language of their choice wherever possible. The confusion in this instance may have been caused by an occasion when an individual occupying a bilingual position was sent on French language training. Upon his return to the field he applied for, and was successful in winning, a competition in a unilingual area. It is not the policy of the corporation to restrict the advancement of its employees because of additional language abilities.
The comments about lack of credibility arose primarily because of the financial restrictions placed on the corporation when the anti-inflation program was commenced by the government. Unfortunately, at the same time, increased farm incomes were resulting in a very significant increase in the demand for farm loans. The combination of these two factors resulted in certain loans that had been approved in one fiscal year not being made until the following fiscal year.
The allegations concerning lack of leadership result primarily from the new system of management introduced by the present chairman. Under this system decision making became a participatory process with input being welcomed from several sources. In addition to this group decision making, authority was decentralized from the head office to the branches.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his allotted time has expired.


Henry Perrin Beatty: With unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, might he continue?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.57 p.m.

Friday, July 15, 1977