1976-02-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since the Prime Minister and about ten of his ministers are paying a one week's visit to British Columbia while the House is peacefully in session, and since British Columbia has been administered for several decades by Social Credit governments, which accounts for the fact that that province is ahead of many Canadian provinces as far as the prosperity of its people is concerned, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That this House immediately consider the opportunity of asking the Prime Minister as soon as he returns from his training session in administration and management by the Social Credit government of British Columbia to table in the House a complete report about all he has learned about efficient administration, so that all Liberal backbenchers who were unable to take the trip may profit from the British Columbia experience.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It appears that Security Advisory Services of the United Kingdom is the body recruiting mercenaries in England for service in Angola with funds provided by the CIA. This organization has caused an advertisement to be put in the Globe and
Mail of February 10, 1976, in effect seeking to enlist the services of Canadians as mercenaries, contrary to the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act, section 11, which prohibits any person from recruiting or otherwise inducing any person to enlist in armed services operating in another state.
Therefore, and in view of the resolution passed by this House opposing all armed intervention in Angola, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) be directed to investigate this matter forthwith and if the facts disclose an offence or offences against the Foreign Enlistment Act, to take the necessary proceedings.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED DIRECTION TO ENERGY BOARD TO EXAMINE ALL EVIDENCE TO ENSURE SAFETY OF TRANS-CANADA PIPELINE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the evidence produced by a former safety inspector for Trans-Canada Pipelines and offered to the National Energy Board by the CTV television network to substantiate allegations that welding done on substantial sections of the Trans-Canada pipeline running through Manitoba and Ontario are of such poor quality as to constitute a safety hazard has yet to be examined by the National Energy Board, although it is freely available, and further that the chairman of the National Energy Board, Marshall Crowe, has issued a press release expressing his complete confidence in the safety of the line without having examined the evidence, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House directs the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) in his responsibility for the National Energy Board, to instruct the chairman of the Board itself to examine any evidence offered to them by the CTV television network to assure the safety of the Trans-Canada pipeline beyond any reasonable doubt, before any further reports are released by the Board for public consumption.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion cannot be presented without unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.
2 1130-66)4

February 12, 1976
Industry


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the CBC radio this morning carried a news story to the effect that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been reported as stating in Victoria yesterday that he would resign as Prime Minister if capital punishment were approved by the House of Commons, and in view of the fact that there are some abolitionists in all parties who have now been placed in the most difficult quandary of determining what this nation needs most, that is, capital punishment, abolition, or a new prime minister, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That the Prime Minister be invited either to withdraw his statement or resign, preferably the latter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUGGESTED COMMITTEE STUDY OF INSPECTION OF IMPORTED WOOL FROM A HEALTH POINT OF VIEW-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Canada's inspection of imported wool and wool products is insufficient to protect human health, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That the matter of imported wool and its inspection from a health point of view be referred to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare for study and report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the said motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
Given the difficult situation of the economy of this country and the pernicious influence of this situation on the purchasing power of the people and on the rising

unemployment rate, and considering that Canada has the potential necessary to produce almost everything which is essential, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That a special committee of this House be established to investigate the means to be taken to avoid importing foreign products which we can or could easily produce here in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the recent extensive fire that occurred at the Quebec summer residence of the Governor General. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That the government account to this House for circumstances surrounding the fact that government personnel were aware that the fire alarm system at the Governor General's summer residence was not functioning for some months prior to the recent fire resulting in a one-hour delay in discovery of the fire, why a fire inspection of the summer residence by the appropriate personnel had not been made for over a year and similar inspection of Rideau Hall in Ottawa has not been made in over three years and, finally, the House requests a complete investigation to correct reported serious inadequacies of fire alarm systems and fire inspections in all federal government buildings including the parliament buildings.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker,
bearing in mind the statement of the chairman of the
Anti-Inflation Board that the price control mechanism of
February 12, 1976

the anti-inflation program is now in place, can the Minister of Finance tell the House when the Canadian people may expect some relief from high rates of price increases, as exhibited by this month's quite substantial increase in the consumer price index?


Hon.   Donald. S. Macdonald@Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, I note that in respect of many of the commodities which are controlled under the program there has been no increase in these particular figures. Indeed, from the Statistics Canada report, among other things, the return to the 7 per cent Ontario sales tax as well as higher utility costs were most responsible for the increase. As the hon. member knows, there are certain aspects of this including government taxation which are not subject to the direct control of the Anti-Inflation Board.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the consumer price index today reflected a decrease in the price of food, which was a direct consequence of the self-imposed freeze by the major supermarket chains, and bearing in mind the fact that we can anticipate further increases in food prices as reflected in statements by the vice-chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board and the president of one of the major supermarket chains, does the minister have any plans on behalf of the government and the Anti-Inflation Board to protect Canadians against the effects of uncontrolled food prices, having regard to the fact that this will call into question the whole credibility of the government's anti-inflation program?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's term "uncontrolled food prices" is scarcely justified in view of the fact that the operations of the major chains are subject to scrutiny by the Anti-Inflation Board, as indeed are the operations of marketing boards where they are protected in particular from import competition. In that sense I feel the controls will be effective, although we recognize the fact that particularly at this season of the year in relation to imported commodities, with the variation in prices of other commodities, there will be a variation in the food index.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF ANALYSES OF IMPACT OF CONTROLS ON PRICES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is prompted by a statement attributed to the Prime Minister in which he said the following in respect of the impact of prices:
We are very satisfied with the analyses we make from time to time on the effects of the program.
May I ask the minister if he is prepared to lay on the table of the House those analyses and any evidence the board may have on the impact of the program to control prices, especially food prices.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I must say I think what the hon. member is asking for is a continuous report in the House day after day on the activities of the board day after day. I think that would be rather difficult to do. Of course, the law does provide for reports to the House and there will be opportunities to examine the members of the board when the estimates come before Parliament.
Oral Questions URBAN AFFAIRS


GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO CONTROLLING COST OF HOUSES AND LAND
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Despite the decline in the food component of the consumer price index, the increase in the cost of home ownership excluding land costs remains at an unacceptable 13.8 per cent year over year. What concrete measures has the minister in mind to curtail the rising costs of home ownership?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the measures that were passed just before Christmas will go a long way toward reducing housing costs and making housing more available for people of moderate income. It will speed the production of land and serviced land. It will assist the municipalities in providing additional services which should reduce the cost. It will make it possible for moderate income people, and all people indeed, to buy modest housing at low carrying costs. It will do many of these things and many more, as well as stimulate the activities in the construction industry on a four-year sustained high volume basis which should help achieve economies of scale. If in the process this helps bring down inflation and reduces inflation even more the cost will be reduced even further.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, in view of this rapid increase in home ownership costs, and considering that the Minister of Finance has declared that land costs are even more culpable in contributing to aggregate housing costs, can the minister inform the House which area has higher priority insofar as curbing increases go?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand which area. Of course, I have indicated several areas where we are taking specific action. I indicated yesterday in the House we are making efforts, in co-operation with the provinces where the jurisdiction lies and the municipalities to speed up the processing of land which I think, with the exception of interest rates, is perhaps the one most troublesome area in keeping costs high. If we can be successful in bringing down the land costs and speeding its processing and getting it on the market I think we will make a great deal of progress indeed.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD ALLEGED LACK OF RESOURCES TO CONTROL PRICES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Considering the fact that the Anti-Inflation Board has not ordered a single roll-back in price increases since the program began, will the minister confirm the board has at its disposal resources to monitor only 350 corporations in Canada and that the real reason for the board's not making its pricing decisions public is not alleged reason of confidentiality but the fact that because of its scarcity of resources to act in monitoring prices, public revelation of this fact would reveal its total incapacity to control prices.

February 12, 1976
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I might point out that the hon. member's initial statement is quite mistaken. For example, in the B.C. Telephone case the Canadian Transport Commission has rolled back the price that would have been proposed. As to the hon. member's suggestion that there should be a larger and more elaborate bureaucracy created in this area, I will consider that in the light of the earlier statements made by the hon. gentleman that one of the difficulties with the program was that it might create a bureaucracy.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Increasingly the minister is refusing to answer questions. Perhaps he will tell us in his second answer why there have been no rollbacks in prices, other than the one in which the board was indirectly involved. I should like to ask him, since the cost of fuel and utilities increased by 16.7 per cent over the past year and by 2.6 per cent over the past month, whether the government will now reconsider its extraordinary decision to permit the oil companies to increase their prices of oil once again, eventually going up to world price levels.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No
such decision has been taken.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pursue that point. The minister has said that there has been no decision to permit the oil companies to increase prices of oil. If that is what he said now, I should like him to check the Prime Minister's earlier statements, and I am quite sure statements by the minister himself, in which it was indicated the government is committed to permitting oil companies to increase prices up to world price levels.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If the hon. member would like to go back and check the record, he would see we indicated at the time we were prepared to move over time toward world prices, but no specific decision has been taken at this time to increase the prices of oil and natural gas in Canada. That is a question which, as in previous years, will have to be discussed at the federal-provincial meetings which will be taking place in several weeks at which, I am sure, the western provinces such as Saskatchewan and Alberta will be pressing for higher prices for hydrocarbons. That, of course, is a question to be discussed and decided then. No such decision has yet been taken.


TRANSPORT
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.

In view of the decision taken by the railway companies to increase their ticket prices by 15 per cent, and in view of the fact that this increase affect particularly the oftentimes very poor people almost exclusively served by this means of transportation-and this is the case for the whole northern part of my riding-would the minister tell the House whether this increase which seems to go beyond the guidelines laid down by the Anti-Inflation Board has previously been submitted to the Board?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as I think I indicated in answer to a question from the hon. member for Laprairie, this kind of increase might be looked at by the Canadian Transport Commission but would not ordinarily be looked at by them in advance of the announcement or indication by the railways. The commission would follow guidelines which have been given to it for examining increases in this area.


René Matte: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Would the minister tell the House how come the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways have in fact increased their ticket prices by 15 per cent since February 1, without any prior consultation and without any decision made known by the Transport Commission in this respect?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can assure hon. members that the CTC is aware of increases which occur. There will be a general examination by the CTC of railway operations to determine whether they have offended the 95 per cent margin rule, and in addition they will be looking at specific cases to determine whether other and more specific rules apply to them.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. On February 2 the minister told the House that there were technical problems in the way of signing the contract with Lockheed for LRPA. Would he tell the House what is meant by the phrase "technical problems" and, in the light of the difficulties now being experienced by Lockheed, have these technical problems increased or decreased in the last few days? Has the contract been signed?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: These technical problems relate strictly to longterm financing.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: In view of the fact that the contract has not apparently been signed, when will there be movement of tools and plant to Canadair to begin work on the LRPA? Does the Japanese decision to cancel their pur-
February 12, 1976

chase of the P3-C affect either the cost of the plane to Canada or the amount of work which will fall to Canadian industry?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the contract we intend to sign with Lockheed Aircraft Corporation of Canada has been subject to a long study by an interdepartmental committee, under the direction of the Department of National Defence, and for which the government paid a considerable amount of money to have the program finalized. This contract has finally been negotiated through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to establish what would be the best economic repercussions for Canada.
We thought we had all the possible advantages to meet our needs and our economic objectives. This is why we are considering the possibility of signing the contract with Lockheed Aircraft once the arrangements concerning the long term financing are completed.



CONTRACT WITH LOCKHEED FOR LONG RANGE PATROL AIRCRAFT-ASSURANCE NO COMMISSIONS PAID

Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what questions the Minister of Supply and Services is answering, but they are certainly not the questions I am asking.
My supplementary is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the statement of the Solicitor General to the House on February 10 that the RCMP is not investigating the question of possible Lockheed kickbacks in Canada for the sale of the LRPA, does the minister have anything other than an assurance from the chairman of the board of Lockheed, who is hardly a disinterested party, that commissions have not and will not be paid on the Canadian LRPA contract?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing or bribery related to the LRPA program, and if the hon. member has a specific accusation, I wish he would make it. Otherwise, I do not think we should engage in a witch hunt.


James Aloysius McGrath: Why don't you make a statement and reassure the Canadian people that there is no bribery?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General a question. Last evening the Prime Minister stated that he was going to try to persuade parliament to abolish capital punishment, and if he was not successful, he would resign. I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he had a discussion with the Prime Minister in this regard and whether the Prime Minister was, in fact, indicating a free vote on
Oral Questions
capital punishment would not take place on the Liberal government side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I did not hear all of the question. There was too much noise in the House.


An hon. Member:: Louder, Eldon.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is the greatest compliment I have had for a long time. My hon. friends opposite say I am getting weak, but I will put the question again.
Last evening the Prime Minister stated that he would try to persuade parliament to abolish capital punishment, and that if he was not successful, he would resign. I should like to know whether the Solicitor General had a discussion along these lines with the Prime Minister and whether the Prime Minister was in fact indicating that a free vote on capital punishment would not take place on the government side, but rather a vote on the retention of the Prime Minister.


William Warren Allmand: I cannot accept that the Prime Minister said exactly what was reported by the hon. member. I have not had a chance to talk to the Prime Minister or to read his exact words, and I will have to see him when he comes back.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to quote briefly what the Prime Minister said so that the Solicitor General will have this information.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: "If it's against my conscience to hang ..."


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Solicitor General has given his answer about having to talk to the Prime Minister before making an answer.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I can assure the Solicitor General that the Prime Minister did say that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I can wait. I should like to put this question to the Solicitor General: did he have a discussion with the Prime Minister, and is there an arrangement that certain members of the cabinet would resign if the bill did not pass? Is that the arrangement, and is that the kind of free vote the Solicitor General recommends to the House?


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member knows the policy of the government with respect to the bill in the House, but I believe the government has said there will be a free vote on this issue. There will be a government bill. Again, I must say that I cannot accept a report from a newspaper article as being the exact words of the Prime Minister.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. We can get away from the opinion of the Solicitor General, but I should like to ask him pointblank if he can assure the House on behalf of the government, and particularly members of cabinet, that there will be a free vote in this House on capital punishment when the bill is presented?

February 12, 1976
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it will be similar to the last occasion when we dealt with this. There will be a government bill to which the government will be committed, but members of this House who are not with the government will be free to vote on it as they see fit.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: You have said it all now-no free vote.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and refers to the need of maritime command for an additional 20 multi-purpose intermodal ships in the foreseeable future. Is it a fact that agreement has been reached in principle by the government, and perhaps partly arising out of contractual link talks with our European partners in NATO, that this order and the engineering design work for it will be placed outside Canada?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, it is much too early in the shipbuilding program to have entered into any negotiations either outside Canada or within Canada. Of course, we would all prefer that the contract be completed in this country.


J. Michael Forrestall: I take it from what the minister has said that consideration has not been given to letting this approximately $400 million contract outside Canada as a result of requests from the Prime Minister or members of cabinet. Is that the position or in fact has the matter been considered, is it currently under consideration and is there a possibility that a final determination might be made some time this year? The final determination I am referring to is a decision by the government to let this work go outside Canada.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, that is not being actively considered at the present time. I think it would be a most unlikely result of any studies.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Gilbert Parent (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In the last few days a Mr. Frolick, a Czech defector, testified at a Senate subcommittee hearing in Washington that a former constituent of mine, a Mr. Mrnak, was allegedly murdered while being treated in the Hotel Dieu hospital in St. Catharines. I understand that Mrs. Mrnak has asked for another investigation. In view of the fact that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were involved in the original investiga-

tion, would the minister please tell the House if there are any plans to reopen the case?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, at the time of Mr. Mrnak's death there was an investigation by the local police and the RCMP. They found there was no foul play involved in his death. There is no plan to have another inquiry by the RCMP. If there were to be another investigation it would have to be undertaken by the local police force.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Would the Acting Prime Minister make inquiries into the publication in the Globe and Mail on Tuesday, February 10 of an advertisement which seems clearly to envisage enlistment of Canadians as mercenaries for hostilities in Africa contrary to the provisions of section 11 of the Foreign Enlistment Act? This section forbids any person to recruit or otherwise induce any person to enlist or accept any commission or engagement in the armed forces of any foreign state or other armed forces operating in such a state. Will the minister look into this and take the necessary action of the facts-it is quite clear there is an advertisement-but will he take the necessary action if it appears that someone is breaching the Foreign Enlistment Act.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly shall have inquiries made. I am not quite sure on whose initiative action would be taken but if as the hon. member suggests, this is contrary to the law I shall see that appropriate action is taken.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. I wonder whether the Prime Minister thinks he can have the same success I have had in pushing up popular support for my party by talking about resignation. Has the Acting Prime Minister had time to reflect on my question about the rate of interest the government agency is receiving on the $300 million loan to the Republic of Korea to finance the sale of the reactor? The Acting Prime Minister has said previously he would not refuse but I ask him again because surely he cannot pretend this is an ordinary commercial transaction.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have reflected. I looked back at the words I used and I think I have come to the same conclusion, that it would be inadvisable in transactions made by the Export Development Corporation, to reveal information that could be used to the disadvantage of Canadian indus-
February 12, 1976

try. Essentially, what the Export Development Corporation is doing is promoting the sale of Canadian goods. The rates of interest quoted are competitive. As I pointed out to the hon. gentleman, there has been no loss to the Canadian taxpayer in the operation of the Canadian Export Corporation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether a loan has been made by other corporations in anything like the amount of $300 million. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister or anybody on that side of the House what possible justification there can be for keeping from the Canadian people the rate of interest on such a vast loan which could involve a tremendous subsidy on this sale. Why is the government afraid to let Canadians see the full terms of this transaction?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it has been traditional policy on this, supported by all concerned including the House and businessmen-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: This is state to state.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am grateful to the hon. member, but if he would keep quiet for a moment I was just coming to the fact that it was state to state. It has not been the policy, even on state to state, transactions to disclose interest rates or other specific details on this kind of transaction. If hon. members opposite wish us to increase our export sales they have to realize that this is a highly competitive operation and we must maintain a degree of confidentiality regarding it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT POSITION ON DISCLOSING DETAILS OF SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR TO SOUTH KOREA

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether it is their view that the sale of a nuclear reactor by Canada is simply a commercial transaction and whether the Canadian people are not entitled to know the details of such a sale?


Mr. Lawrence:: There is more than money involved in this.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman and I am sure he knows already that this is one of the most competitive aspects of world business at the present time.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: You are a bunch of
carpetbaggers.
Oral Questions



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Solicitor General arises from an earlier question asked by the hon. member for Calgary North. The Solicitor General has stated that if the House votes in support of capital punishment he would have to resign. Now, he has been followed by the Prime Minister making the same statement. If the Prime Minister made that statement and it is clear that he did-


An hon. Member:: He did not.


John George Diefenbaker: -does the minister not think that if members of parliament can get rid of the Prime Minister only by voting for capital punishment, that is placing a ridiculous temptation before parliament?



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the government considering repealing section 85(1) of the Canada Pension Plan, which gives the minister, supported by a battery of judges, lawyers and the federal treasury, the right to appeal to the Pensions Appeal Board in order to prevent an applicant, one Canadian, from receiving his pension even after the case was decided in the applicant's favour by a review committee, after the applicant had gone through a process of medical examination?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there can be no question of amending this section of the legislation for any reason whatever. This matter was debated last year by the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, when the last amendments were made to the Canada Pension Plan. However, when the government appeals the decision of the board, the government pays the cost of the judicial representation for the person against whom an appeal was made. So I think that the government truly considered the requirements of the persons eligible for pension in such circumstances.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.

February 12, 1976
Oral Questions
Some time ago the government announced the details of its implementation of election promises with regard to grants for modern rapid transit between communities. My question is this: Has the government made a decision with regard to grants relating to rapid transit within municipalities? If not, when is the decision likely to be made? I ask this because the minister's response to me some time ago was delightfully obfuscating, and he sort of put off the question. Will he now tell us if this is to be done now or in the foreseeable future?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the specific question about commuter systems between two communities, certainly the object of the legislation is to tie in communities, and the fact that they may be in the same municipality is no objection. Indeed, as recently as a week ago I spoke with the mayor of Edmonton on this matter. Firm regulations will be drafted shortly. But the object of the exercise is not to pay for systems that were in place or committed previously. The object is to encourage new systems, so that we can deal with the decentralization and growth of great urban centres such as the great city of Edmonton.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Transport is supplementary to the question asked on Monday by the hon. member for Capilano. In view of the criticism of the Air Transport Association regarding the $22 million increase in airport user charges, has the minister conducted or will he conduct and table a cost-benefit study, to ensure that the increase is equitable and in line with the anti-inflation program? My question arises from a report which indicates that the increase will amount to approximately 30 per cent across the board for general terminal charges and landing fees, and there is to be more than a 600 per cent increase for landing fees connected with pilot training. Can the minister answer this question?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, first, it should be recognized that the guidelines have not restricted the opportunity of any government in the country to re-examine programs and priorities and obtain a larger amount of revenue from the user rather than from the taxpayer, as, otherwise, collecting more money could have an interesting and important impact on the economy and the services being offered. We are proposing user charges and the 30 per cent figure is accurate. In some cases a higher increase is proposed because the charge was very low, compared with the real cost of the service being provided.
It is part of our over-all proposition that, in many cases, those who use the services should pay a higher proportion for the benefit they receive rather than that the general taxpayer should be expected to help.



INCREASE IN AIRPORT USER CHARGES-POSSIBILITY OF CONFLICT WITH ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM

Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer the minister gave the hon. member for Lisgar. Would he help those working on the transport committee and answer the following question: Does the minister place a higher priority on implementing the new user pay program than he places on the anti-inflation objectives of his colleague, the Minister of Finance?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the answer is, no. It should be obvious from the first part of my earlier answer that there is an impact on inflation and on Canadians if tax dollars have to be raised from taxpayers generally, thus reducing their take-home pay and money which they can spend, or if the money is raised by borrowing, therefore increasing tax deficit in the economy. The government must balance these items and their impact on the economy. I should add, in answer to part of the question asked a moment ago, that we are doing a careful analysis of real costs and the appropriate portion of those costs to be borne by the people who fly and the various services provided to them. This study will take somewhat longer. We are satisfied that the increased charges we are imposing are well below the total value of the service.



ALLEGATION OF FAULTY CONSTRUCTION ON TRANSCANADA


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources relates to the allegations that the welding done on sections of the TransCanada pipeline running through Manitoba and Ontario is of such poor quality as to represent a hazard. These are allegations made by a former safety inspection contractor. As, on January 28, the secretary of the National Energy Board wrote to the president of CTV to request that CTV present the NEB with all evidence it has, including radiographs of pipeline welds, and as the president of CTV offered to comply with the request and asked for an immediate meeting with the NEB, to turn over the evidence, can the minister tell the House why no meeting has yet been held and, in particular, why the chairman of the National Energy Board would have issued a news release on Tuesday stating that the allegations had been carefully investigated and rejecting outright any claim that the Board's investigation has been superficial?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in my answer to the House that the Chairman of the National Energy Board had said that the Board had investigated claims in the past to the effect that the line was unsafe but had found those claims to be totally unfounded, further, that they were prepared to consider any new evidence from CTV, or, indeed, any other person. I mentioned one par-

ticular man in my last answer. I have not been told that the evidence has been supplied to the National Energy Board. I will be pleased to check with the Board, to learn why the meeting has not been arranged.


Henry Perrin Beatty: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his offer. The president of CTV wrote to the secretary of the National Energy Board. In the letter, a copy of which was sent to the Minister, he said:
CTV certainly wishes to co-operate in a further, and complete, investigation into safety on the TransCanada Pipelines. In that regard, we would request that a representative from the Energy Board arrange to meet with Rudi Carter, W-5 Field Producer. At that time, Mr. Carter will turn over evidence he has received concerning the pipeline.
In view of this, why has the minister not followed up before now, to ensure that the meeting takes place? Will the minister, when he reports back to the House, indicate whether he feels the decision of the chairman of the National Energy Board to issue this news release on Tuesday in which he stated that all allegations had been investigated and found to be completely false was in any way justifiable?
[DOT] (M50)


Alastair William Gillespie: I have already said I will take up this matter.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Postmaster General. I wish to ask whether he is aware that employees of certain post offices which did not receive the ballot during the last strike have since received very abusive and insulting letters from the Postal Workers' Union, letters which really come very close to being the subject of some kind of criminal investigation?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: The hon. member, with his usual courtesy, showed me one of these letters. I hope it did not come from the president of the local because it is a letter which reflects a very sick mind. The letter was unsigned, so I would not want to say that it was written by the president of the local. If it were, I can only say that it is a sad day for labour when any local should fall into the hands of such a sick person. On the positive side, I can assure the hon. member and many people across this country that the workers who crossed the picket lines and went back to work because they had the courage of their convictions and because there was no mechanism by which they could express their opinions democratically, can work secure in the knowledge that their job security, their promotions and their grievances will be processed just as though they were members of the union.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: I thank the Postmaster General for his
response. In cases where post offices did not receive bal-
Oral Questions
lots, is the Post Office Department doing anything to ensure that the postal workers concerned can continue to be members of the union ongoing since a number of them were disenfranchised or had their entitlement removed?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I must remind the hon. member that the constitutions of all unions, including that particular union, provide for an appeal against suspension. It is not automatic. People who are suspended have the right to appeal. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of the members of that union are decent people and the advice I can give to the members who were disenfranchised, either accidentally or intentionally, is to appeal the suspension and let the public see precisely the degree of democracy or lack of democracy that exists in that local.



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
Considering that the report of the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board was tabled in the House on November 21, 1975, and that pursuant to the Official Languages Act, 90 days must elapse between the tabling of the report and the proclamation of bilingual districts, can the President of the Treasury Board tell the House whether he has finished his consultations with the groups concerned and the provinces, and whether he intends to proclaim bilingual districts on February 21, 1976, as the act requires?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the act does not require that we proclaim them after 90 days, it only gives us authority to do so. We do not intend to proceed immediately, because we have not consulted all the persons who want to make representations to us on that matter.



HOUSING


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Can the minister tell the House whether he is aware that the price of lumber, and especially structural lumber, has increased by 40 to 45 per cent since December 1? If so, would he request those in charge of the Anti-Inflation Board to attend to the matter and put an end to it, or at least improve the situation, with a view to achieving the objective he announced to the House, namely the construction of thousands of new homes?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am not in agreement with the precise figures

February 12, 1976
Oral Questions
given, though I do not mean to argue them now with the hon. member. I should like to check them with him. I shall certainly speak to my colleague responsible for the AntiInflation Board. We are watching every area where we can keep costs down believing, basically, that it is a matter of increasing production and keeping expectations and the type of housing down to that which is affordable. We are certainly watching those price rises but the industry indicates to me that even, though increases in prices are expected this year, if they can maintain continuity, of supply and production they should be able to reduce prices. We certainly want to watch to see there is no infraction of those things which come under the responsibility of the Anti-Inflation Board.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I should like to welcome him back from British Columbia where I hope that at least the weather was warm. During the hon. gentleman's absence the hon. gentleman's parliamentary secretary indicated to the House that a recommendation would be made on February 18 with regard to the application of Dome Petroleum for drilling permits offshore in the Beaufort Sea. Dr. Milne, a member of the minister's departmental staff, has indicated that the likelihood of human error makes a blow-out almost a certainty in terms of drilling in that ocean and, also, that new technologies are not available either for clean-up or control. Can the minister advise the House why there is such urgency about making a decision on this question in view of such statements by officials in his own department and also, of course, in the light of the Department of the Environment's report dealing with the environmental impact of drilling in the Beaufort Sea?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The basic decision in principle with regard to drilling in the Beaufort Sea was taken a couple of years ago, but the permits to be issued were to be subjected to environmental restrictions and conditions to be imposed after the tests and the roughly $12 million worth of environmental studies had been carried out. This is a matter which I am currently discussing with my colleague, the Minister of the Environment as to just what these conditions would be. A decision has not yet been taken.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The minister did not answer the question why there should be such urgency. In view of the fact that the public is now paying for the Berger inquiry which is looking into environmental and social conditions in the high Arctic, why is it that the terms of reference with regard to drilling offshore have not been extended clearly to the Berger inquiry? Again, why can the minister not wait for the full facts to be developed and revealed before drilling permits are issued? In other words, why cannot the Berger Commission take this matter fully under its wing and make a report on this aspect as well as on pipelining in the Arctic?


J. Judd Buchanan: The final phrase dealt with pipelining in the Arctic. Mr. Justice Berger's mandate is quite precise. It deals with the application of Canso and subsequently we added to it the aspect of the Foothills application where it deviated from the Canso. That is the limit of Mr. Justice Berger's mandate. As for the time factor, I doubt it will be done by the middle of February. This is something I shall have to pursue with my colleague, the Minister of the Environment.



TRANSPORT


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In the light of the recent federal court decision which found the Dominion Government was in breach of the duty imposed upon it when it allowed the ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland to be interrupted, has the minister anything to report on a solution to prevent further interruptions, or even a contigency plan, which could be brought into use in the event of a situation arising which might cause future interruption?


Otto Emil Lang: I have not, of course, yet had a chance to examine those words. The question of interruptions, particularly as it relates to labour problems, is one which has caused some concern. An attempt is being made to create an atmosphere that may allow for these services to be continued, even when ordinary labour tactics might stop them, with the general co-operation and agreement of all who are concerned. I cannot, of course, indicate that that assures service in all circumstances, but it has improved the likelihood that interruptions can be avoided.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader about the business for this week and next week? While doing so, I should like to ask whether he would report the government's position on the suggestion discussed between the House leaders as to the disposition that the House would make of its time next Thursday and Friday, in light of the very important and dramatic even that will be taking place in the city of Ottawa at that time. I ask him to bear in mind that the New Democratic Party took similar advantage, and it is

February 12, 1976

not impossible that the government party themselves might be interested in a similar arrangement in the not too distant future.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, following today we will be continuing with consideration of Bill C-58. If there is completion of the discussion of motions tomorrow, I hope there would be general agreement that any votes would be deferred until Monday. In any event, Bill C-58 will be continued at the report stage for the time being, and then as soon as possible we will take third reading. When that is disposed of, we will continue second reading of Bill C-68. I should like to express my hope that we can also fit in Bill C-82 and Bill S-10 and complete consideration of them.
As the House leader of the official opposition has reminded us, there is a very dramatic event next week which may or may not elevate one of the members of his party in the House to the position of leader. At any rate, this great event is an important one and I quite agree that the courtesies of the House should be extended to all parties when they enter upon these considerations. There were various adjectives I could have applied, but I will not do so. Therefore, I propose that we should not sit on the evening of Thursday, February 19, and that we should stand adjourned until Monday, February 23. I wonder whether there would be unanimous consent to make the following order:
That the House shall adjourn at five p.m. on Thursday, February 19, 1976, and shall thereupon stand adjourned until Monday, February 23, 1976.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There having been some discussion on this matter, since at this point we are discussing a point of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River, such a motion, if it were to be entertained by the House, could only be presented to the House at this time by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Jones:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There not being unanimous consent, such a motion cannot be considered at this time.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask a supplementary question regarding the House business. There were reports this morning on CBC radio about what I can only call leaks respecting the confidential report now being reviewed by a joint committee of the House and the Senate having to do with employer-employee relations in the public service of Canada. I had originally thought that this might be a question of privilege, but the only action that could be taken in that event would be to have the matter go to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, which would probably be futile.
I think that our anxiety, which I am sure is shared by the Chair, is to establish procedures of some kind where this kind of thing ought not to happen; indeed could not happen. Perhaps it might be better if I asked the government House leader whether he would consider accelerating the formation of the special committee that has been discussed regarding rights and immunities of members of parliament. Rather than have an examination of this par-
Business of the House
ticular matter, I think we ought to have an examination of all the matters affecting the security of documents in so far as this might apply to documents in House of Commons committee reports and other reports. Not doing so could only lead to embarrassment, and on many occasions could only lead to misleading of the public. Since this matter does affect the rights and privileges of members, I would ask whether or not any thought has been given by the government House leader to dealing with the matter in the way I suggest.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, I must say I had not given consideration to that particular aspect of the matter. However, I did view very sympathetically the suggestion made by the House leader of the official opposition, and I hope we can get together to discuss the terms of reference.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order with regard to the business of the House. May I say that when it looked as though the motion for the adjournment for sake of the Progressive Conservative convention would be accepted, I was going to ask whether we should not consider the possibility that the Conservatives might not be able to finish their balloting on Sunday, and that maybe we would have to take Monday off as well. I should like to make that offer, provided, of course, it would get the support of the hon. member for Moncton.
With regard to the business of the House, may I ask the minister two questions? My first question relates to Bill C-208 which, according to notices posted in the lobbies, is to be dealt with at four o'clock tomorrow. In view of the wide support for this bill having to do with Heritage Day, especially on the government side, can the government House leader say whether the government will make additional time available, if necessary, to get this bill through third reading, if that does not happen in the one hour allotted to it tomorrow?
My second question relates to the statement that the Minister of Veterans Affairs was to make today on the proposed legislation regarding Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war. This is a promise that has been made to us on four separate occasions, namely, that we would get such a statement today. May I ask whether we are to have that statement?


Mitchell William Sharp: First of all, with regard to Bill C-208, this is a private bill. The government is also concerned about the matter, and if this particular bill is not approved it is the intention of the government at a later stage to introduce a bill that will deal not only with the subject matter of that bill but other related issues. It is our view that it would be better to put these matters all into a complete package; but, of course, if the House approves this bill, one part of the package would be approved. However, it is not the intention of the government to give any more time to this private bill because it believes that the subject matter can be dealt with better and more expeditiously through a government bill that also deals with related aspects of the subject of the hon. member's private bill.

Business of the House
On the question of the statement that my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs had intended to make today, as I said yesterday in reply to the question, I was not sure whether he would be able to make it. We did have a further extensive discussion in cabinet this morning which was not completed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member knows well-and he has very accurately described his intervention as a most vigorous protest-that his point can scarcely, by any stretch of the rules as we understand them, be accepted as a question of privilege. I am sure the hon. member and others realize the result if I were even to begin to recognize every broken promise as a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Especially by the Liberals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with the balance of routine proceedings, on Friday last questions were raised, particularly by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), about security implications relating to an incident involving the flag on the Peace Tower. I do not propose to make any further statement in the House, but I do want to assure hon. members that I have received a very thorough and detailed report as a result of an investigation into the incident. I have had an opportunity of discussing that report not only with the House leaders but also with the right hon. gentleman who raised the point of order. The advice I have received has been most helpful and perhaps remarkable for this chamber in that the conclusion we reached and the recommendations we considered were unanimous.
I simply want to assure all hon. members who are interested in the subject that they are welcome to discuss it with me privately. I have the report and the recommendations under review and will continue to keep the matter under very careful study. As I say, it will not be the subject matter of any further comment in the House.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, I intended to rise on a question of privilege but I have changed my mind and rise instead on a point of order. It relates to the "no" voiced by someone in response to the request for unanimous consent. While I have been given to understand where that "no" came from, that is not my point. Let me point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members of this House that the motion brought before the House by the government House leader was one that had been anticipated by many people throughout the House, including the protective staff, the cleaning staff, members of the restaurant and others, including hon. members opposite.
Far be it from me to question anyone's motives and our system allows for a dissenting voice. However, we will have many occasions involving leadership conventions and campaigns of one kind or another during which many members of the House belonging to the various parties will not be in a position to be here. While our system allows for a dissenting voice when unanimous consent is requested, I think the system must be changed in order to bring it into line with contemporary thinking. Without making any slurs in the direction of anyone whatsoever, and speaking in terms of co-operation, equity, justice and decency, I would hope that this motion can again be brought foward at eight o'clock this evening after everyone has had the opportunity of looking into the matter, at which time I hope a sense of justice, equity, decency and co-operation will prevail. If the motion is then refused, I would hope-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In all fairness to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and his comment in respect of the withholding of unanimous consent,
February 12, 1976______________________COMMONS DEBATES________________________________________10877
I sympathize with his point of view but I think I ought not to let him continue further. The fact of the matter is that the withholding of unanimous consent today, for whatever motive, really had to do with the introduction of the motion at this particular moment. There is nothing to prevent the introduction of the motion in the ordinary way with proper notice. In that way, the motion does not require unanimous consent and at the appropriate time after the notice period has expired, the House may direct its attention to the matter in the normal way. In that event, the matter will be debatable, but the duration of the debate is then very much in the hands of hon. members of the House and the outcome will depend on the vote on the motion. The question of unanimous consent had only to do with the introduction of the motion today, without notice.
Motions.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, in view of my understanding as to the subject for debate today, I am prepared to wait until the end of routine proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has perhaps anticipated what might become a point of order. The fact is that the order of the day which has been agreed upon is not specifically the hon. member's motion, but is so similar that the debate in respect of the one would certainly be considered a debate in respect of the other. I do not know whether it is necessary to make a disposition of the motion at some time. Perhaps the simple course would be to proceed with that which has been agreed upon as the order of the day when orders of the day are called and, depending on the outcome, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) may wish to withdraw the motion at that time. However, this if something that can be considered then.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am prepared to proceed whenever I am recognized by the Chair.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today:	Nos.	3,292,	3,471,	3,641,	3,653,3,669, 3,750,	3,825,	3,909, 3,922,	3,923,	3,924,	3,925,	3,926,	3,927,3,928, 4,000,	4,001,	4,002, 4,003,	4,004,	4,005,	4,006,	4,007,	4,008,4,009, 4,010,	4,011,	4,012, 4,013,	4,042,	4,043,	4,044,	4,045,	4,046,
4,047, 4,048, 4,049, 4,050, 4,051, 4,056 and 4,058.


Mr. Howie: 1.	How many persons in Canada in 1974 were granted bail and how many defaulted in any way?
2.	For the same year, of the total number of applications for bail, how many were refused?
Order Paper Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: This question deals with the administration of justice which is a matter of provincial jurisdiction.


Mr. Cossitt: What is the stone or concrete sculpture or artifact on the lawn inside the gate at the Prime Minister's offical residence, 24 Sussex Drive (a) what is its purpose (b) who designed it (c) is it considered a work of art (d) what was its cost?


Mitchell William Sharp: The "Pierced Vertical Form" which graces the grounds of the Official Residence of the Prime Minister is on loan from the National Gallery of Canada. It is the work of Dame Barbara Hepworth, D.B.E., whose contribution to twentieth-century sculpture was so significant as to achieve for her early international recognition. In the decades from her first exhibition in London in the year 1928, until her tragic death in a fire at her Cornish studio in St. Ives on May 21 of last year, she had exhibitions in numerous countries including of course the U.S.A. and Canada. Her works can be found in scores of collections and museums around the world. In Canada, the Vancouver Art Gallery and the National Gallery own some of her works. Among many distinctions accorded her are the Commission by the United Nations, in 1963, to make the abstract bronze in memory of Dag Hammarskjold to stand outside the United Nations Secretariat in New York City, and in 1970, the award of Le Grand Prix International de l'Art Feminin. The "Pierced Vertical Form", made of Nebrasina stone, is part of the acquisition program of the National Gallery of Canada aiming at gathering in Canada representative works of outstanding artists. Public funds for this acquisition program are subject to Parliamentary approval in the normal way through the approval of estimates. It is judged preferable not to disclose as a rule the acquisition cost of individual items as it might invite comparisons between artists or their agents or preclude the possibility that items might be acquired at a cost below their market value. The "Pierced Vertical Form" was acquired by the National Gallery of Canada in May 1966.


Mr. Reynolds: What are the names of individual outside consultants and the total amount paid to each by the government in the years 1973 and 1974 and what is the total estimate for expenditures in 1975?


Mitchell William Sharp: Please see replies to the following questions: No. 151 tabled March 26, 1975; No. 396 tabled March 5, 1975; No. 397 tabled March 12, 1975; No. 398 tabled January 22, 1975; No.
399	answered October 20, 1975-Hansard 187, page 8344; No.
400	answered October 20, 1975-Hansard 187, page 8344; No.
401	tabled April 10, 1975; No. 897 tabled March 26, 1975; No. 2,089 tabled October 23, 1975; No. 2,090 tabled July 18, 1975. For expenditures in 1975, please see Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976.

February 12, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: Did William Teron, President of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation place his assets in a blind trust and, if so (a) are the trustees the legal firm of Snipper, Cohen and Murray of 210 Gladstone, Ottawa (b) did this legal firm prior to the setting up of a blind trust by Mr. Teron do any legal business for Mr. Teron or for any firm or company in which Mr. Teron held either a controlling or substantial interest before being appointed President of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Citation 171 (c), (d), (dd).


Mr. Matte: 1.	Do some insurance companies provide form V2C (proof of solvency) in the Province of Quebec and, if so, how many?
2.	Has a company the right to deny a client such form and, if so, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Citation 171 (dd).


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of the Secretary of State during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Insofar as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned: 1. Expenditures made by the Department of the Secretary of State are not identified by constituency.
2.	Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On the day following the recent British Columbia general election did CBC programme "As It Happens" interview the federal NDP leader seeking his views on the results and, if so, what amount of air time was devoted to the item?
2.	Did the programme balance this by also interviewing a representative of the victorious Social Credit Party and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Does the lack of such balance indicate a policy of certain CBC personnel applying their personal political views to the news rather than balanced reporting of the news?
4.	What are the names and job designations of all persons involved in selecting those to appear on the programme on this particular date?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Yes. Approximately five minutes.
2.	No. Urgent messages inviting Mr. Bennett to appear on As It Happens were left at his campaign headquarters in Kelowna, at the Social Credit office in Vancouver, at Mr. Bennett's home, his business address, at the location of a press conference called for the evening, and with Mr. W. A. C. Bennett. CBC's calls were not returned.
3.	The CBC does not agree with the suggestion that its coverage is unbalanced.
4.	It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details about its staff. The background of this custom is explained in detail in the reply to Question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.


Mr. Cossitt: Since April 20, 1968, has Harrington Lake, the official summer residence of the Prime Minister been checked by the RCMP for listening devices of any kind and, if so (a) on how many occasions (b) on what dates (c) was anything discovered by the RCMP (d) what was the nature of the discovery (e) what steps were taken by the RCMP (f) what was the origin of such listening devices?


Mitchell William Sharp: Inspections of premises are carried out as considered necessary to ensure the confidentiality of Cabinet and related discussions. It is not considered to be in the public interest to provide detailed information about these or other security arrangements.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Since April 20, 1968, has the RCMP checked the departmental offices or the House of Commons offices of any members of the Cabinet for electronic listening devices or other methods used for similar purposes and, if so (a) on how many occasions (b) what is the (i) identity of the Minister (ii) date in each case (c) on whose request were such checks made?
2.	Did the RCMP discover any such devices and, if so, what (a) is the name of the Minister (b) is the nature of the device discovered (c) are the details concerning the identity of the person or persons who were responsible for such devices?


Mitchell William Sharp: See answer to question 3,909.


Mr. Cossitt: Since April 20, 1968, have any rooms, where the Cabinet meets, been checked by the RCMP for listening devices of any kind and, if so (a) on how many occasions (b) on what dates (c) what are the dates that any devices of any kind were discovered and what steps were taken by the RCMP (d) where did such listening devices originate?


Mitchell William Sharp: See answer to question 3,309.


Mr. Cossitt: Since April 20, 1968, have any offices occupied by the Prime Minister been checked by the RCMP for listening devices of any kind and, if so (a) on how many occasions (b) on what dates (c) was anything

February 12, 1976

discovered and, if so, what (i) was the nature of the discovery (ii) steps were taken by the RCMP (iii) was the origin of such listening devices?


Mitchell William Sharp: See answer to question 3,909.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. Courtney Tower, Acting Press Secretary to the Prime Minister, state publicly recently that the RCMP had checked the Prime Minister's Office and the Cabinet meeting room in the Parliament Buildings for electronic listening devices and, if so (a) for what reason did he make such information public (b) what was the reason that the check was made and at whose request?
2.	Did Mr. Tower state that such checks will be made more frequently and, if so, what is the reason for the increase?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. (a) In reply to a direct question, Mr. Tower confirmed that the rooms in question had been checked, (b) See answer to question No. 3,909.
2. Mr. Tower stated that checks will be made more regularly. The reason is given in the reply to question No. 3,909.


Mr. Cossitt: Did Major P. A. Lemieux, head of security for the Privy Council Office, recently state publicly that the offices of Cabinet Ministers are checked by the RCMP on request by Ministers for electronic listening devices and, if so, is this service available to all Members of Parliament on request and, if not, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Lemieux made the statement in reply to a direct question. The service is available to Members of both Houses of Parliament through the appropriate Speaker and within the limits of resources.


Mr. Cossitt: Since April 20, 1968, have any listening devices or anything of a similar nature been discovered by the RCMP in any government buildings located in Canada and, if so (a) on how many occasions (b) what was the exact location and date of such discoveries (c) what action was taken by the RCMP (d) what was the origin of such device?


Mitchell William Sharp: See answer to question 3,909.


Mr. Cossitt: Since April 20, 1968, has 24 Sussex Drive, the official residence of the Prime Minister, been checked by the RCMP for listening devices of any kind and, if so (a) on how many occasions (b) on what dates (c) was anything discovered by the RCMP (d) what was the nature of the discovery (e) what steps were taken by the RCMP (f) what was the origin of such listening devices?
Order Paper Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: See answer to question 3,909.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Department of External Affairs make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.


PUBLIC WORKS-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Department of Public Works make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.


TRANSPORT-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Department of Transport make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.


FINANCE-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Department of Finance make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.


TREASURY BOARD-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Treasury Board make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.

Order Paper Questions


POST OFFICE-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Post Office Department make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.


ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.


LABOUR-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Department of Labour make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.


COMMUNICATIONS-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Department of Communications make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.


NATIONAL REVENUE-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Department of National Revenue make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Department of: Regional Economic Expansion make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.


MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Department of Manpower and Immigration make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Department of National Defence make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Department of Supply and Services make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.


NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Department of National Health and Welfare make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.

[Mr. Sharp.)
February 12, 1976


VETERANS AFFAIRS-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Department of Veterans Affairs make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.


AGRICULTURE-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Department of Agriculture make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.


INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.


ENVIRONMENT-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Department of the Environment make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.
Order Paper Questions


SOLICITOR GENERAL-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Department of the Solicitor General make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.


URBAN AFFAIRS-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.


ENVIRONMENT (FISHERIES)-DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Does the Department of the Environment (Fisheries) make direct transfer payments to the provincial governments and, if so, under what programmes?
2.	For each programme, what were the payments to each province for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975.


OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF CANADIAN SECTIONS OF THOUSAND ISLANDS BRIDGE
Mr. Cossitt: Is it the government's intention to take over ownership and operation of the Canadian sections of the Thousand Islands Bridge from the Thousand Islands Bridge Authority as of March 1, 1976 and, if so (a) is it aware that this may result in a municipal property tax loss of approximately $27,000 a year to the Township of the Front of Leeds and Lansdowne, County of Leeds (b) has the government decided to make a grant in lieu of taxes to the municipality to compensate for the tax loss and, if not, will it agree to such an annual payment?

February 12, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes as per Bill C-82 which is now before the House. Since the Bill is slated for early debate and passage, the hon. member shall have the opportunity to raise the above and other questions on this subject.


PRIME MINISTER'S TRIP TO WESTERN CANADA, DECEMBER, 1975
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What means of transportation was used by the Prime Minister for his holiday trip to and from Western Canada at the end of December 1975 (a) who owned and operated such transportation (b) was a regular commercial airline used at any time and, if so (i) which one and what flights (ii) what factors permitted such exemption from the Prime Minister's stated position that he could not use regular airlines for security reasons on the recommendation of the RCMP?
2.	Will the Prime Minister in future use regular commercial airlines for all personal and pleasure trips for purposes of cutting down on government expenditures?


Mitchell William Sharp: According to Beauchesne, questions must not repeat in substance or with slight variations questions already answered, a situation which applies to this inquiry.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 3,596 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that questions Nos. 3,255, 3,257, 3,258 and 3,260 be made orders for returns, and I also ask the consent of the House to table immediately the information which has already been submitted. The balance of the information will follow as soon as it is submitted to me.


BUDGET AND PERSONNEL FOR EACH DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For each department and agency, what was the total (a) budget allocation for (b) number of persons employed as (i) casual (ii) term casual (iii) other temporary employees for the fiscal year 1975-76, as of October 1, 1975?
2.	In each case, how much of the budget, in dollars, had been spent as of October 1, 1975?
Return tabled.


BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR CONTRACT EMPLOYEES FOR EACH DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY
Mr. Orlikow: 1. For each department and agency, what was the total budget allocation for contract employees for the fiscal year 1975-76, as of October 1, 1975?

2.	In each case, how much of the budget, in dollars, had been spent as of October 1, 1975?
3.	In each case, what was the total number of persons employed under contract as of October 1, 1975?
Return tabled.


REORGANIZATION OF EACH GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For each department and agency (a) on what date was the most recent reorganization completed (b) what contracts were awarded in connection with the most recent reorganization (c) what was the total cost of such contracts?
2.	In each case (a) what contracts are currently in effect in connection with possible or anticipated reorganization (b) what are the amounts of such contracts?
Return tabled.


SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT PAY PROGRAMME
Mr. Orlikow: In each fiscal year 1970-71 to date (a) how many persons were appointed to departments and agencies under the special assignment pay programme (b) how many were assigned to French language units (c) what was the total cost of the programme?
Return tabled.


TEMPORARY RELEASE PASSES TO DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDERS
Mr. Reynolds: 1. Will the Solicitor General advise for what reason the following inmates who are declared as dangerous sex offenders in the Canadian Penitentiary Services Temporary Absence report were allowed to be released on temporary absences (a) Ferndale Institution (i) inmate No. 3201, number of passes-21 (ii) inmate No. 5838, number of passes-32 (b) Agassiz Correctional, inmate No. 6751, number of passes-40 (c) Mountain Prison (i) inmate No. 7009, number of passes-82 (ii) inmate No. 4374, number of passes-4 (iii) inmate No. 9581, number of passes- 1 (iv) inmate No. 2697, number of passes-10 (v) inmate No. 8474, number of passes-1 (vi) inmate No. 7928, number of passes-5 (vii) inmate No. 3172, number of passes-3 (viii) inmate No. 9768, number of passes-10 (ix) inmate No. 3012, number of passes-8 (x) inmate No. 6244, number of passes-50 (xi) inmate No. 7929, number of passes-3 (xii) inmate No. 4947, number of passes-9 (xiii) inmate No. 2664, number of passes-13 (xiv) inmate No. 3794, number of passes-17 (d) Western Psychiatric Centre, inmate No. 4737, number of passes-2 (e) Matsqui Medium, inmate No. 2712, number of passes-6 (f) William Head Institution (i) inmate No. 5922, number of passes-30 (ii) inmate No. 5918, number of passes-2 (g) Saskatchewan Farm Annex, inmate No. 3997, number of passes-5 (h) Saskatchewan Penitentiary, inmate No. 3141, number of passes-2 (i) Stony Mountain Farm Annex (i) inmate No. 1979, number of passes-27 (ii) inmate No. 1880, number of passes-42 (iii) inmate No. 1258, number of passes-9 (j) Warkworth Institution (i) inmate No. 9043, number of passes-5 (ii) inmate No. 8762, number of passes-2 (iii) inmate No. 0460, number of passes-4 (iv) inmate No. 0415, number of passes-7 (v) inmate No. 9091, number of passes-17 (k) Joyceville Institution (i) inmate No. 9127, number of passes-1 (ii) inmate No. 9036, number of passes-8 (1) Frontenac Institution, inmate No. 4111, number of passes-4 (m) Collins Bay (i) inmate No. 1179, number of passes-5 (ii) inmate No. 7976, number of passes-2 (iii) inmate No. 8167, number of passes-2 (iv) inmate No. 5386, number of passes-2 (n) Millhaven Institution, inmate No. 9988, number of passes-5 (o) Regional Reception Centre, inmate No. 7345, number of passes-3 (p) Ontario Psychiatric Centre (i) inmate No. 6916, number of passes-6 (ii) inmate No. 9514, number of passes-1 (iii) inmate No. 8038, number of passes-2 (q) Leclerc Institution (i)
.

February 12, 1976

inmate No. 3650, number of passes-6 (ii) inmate No. 9257, number of passes-14 (r) Laval Institution (i) inmate No. 0012, number of passes-3 (ii) inmate No. 0044, number of passes-2 (s) Quebec Psychiatric Centre, inmate No. 9299, number of passes-11 (t) Montee Saint-Frangois, inmate No. 9697, number of passes-2 (u) Westmorland Institution (i) inmate No. 7139, number of passes-11 (ii) inmate No. 2506, number of passes-4 (iii) inmate No. 2639, number of passes-2 (iv) inmate No. 5457, number of passes-14 (v) Springhill Institution, inmate No. 2142, number of passes-17?
2.	Will the Minister advise if the releases were contrary to the Commissioners Directive No. 228 of the Canadian Penitentiary Service?
3.	On what date was each inmate sentenced and to what term?
Return tabled.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that the questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary shall be deemed to have been answered.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to reassure hon. members that I will be putting down a notice of motion on the motion that I proposed be adopted, by unanimous consent, today. I will be putting it down today.


Mr. Speaker:: There are one or two minor procedural matters to be clarified before we proceed with orders of the day. A motion stands in the name of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) and it is to be seconded by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson). It is substantially a motion which has remained on the order paper for some time in their respective names. On the other hand, it has been slightly modified.
It has been agreed that this subject matter will be debated today, that an allotted day would be used for the purpose of that debate, and that the motion would come to a vote at 9.45 this evening. However, it is not to be considered as a votable motion upon an allotted day. These are some understandings I have. What has happened is that the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants has been rolled into today's subject and it will therefore dispose of that motion. This is an allotted day that will culminate in a vote, but it is simply the consecration of an allotted day to the vote and discussion of this matter and is not to be considered a vote of confidence in the way a vote on an allotted day would ordinarily be considered. Is that understood and agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Statutory Instruments



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Jardine McCleave: That the Seventh Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Tuesday, December 16, 1975, be concurred in, and that the committee be authorized to examine the matters referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the said report during the balance of this session.
He said: Mr. Speaker, some years ago when I first came to this place I was told one should always make one's speech as if it were one's last speech. Feeling the way I do today that might be more prophetic than otherwise. In any event I can claim to be about as representative of my area of Canada as anyone could be in this regard. My area is ravaged by approximately 30 per cent influenza and I think that after I have battled it for a week I probably have at least 30 per cent influenza. In any event, Sir, I will try to do the best I can on a subject which I regard as important and on which the House has given certain of us special responsibilities for more than a year. I hope we can persuade the House that the motion which stands before the House today amended somewhat should receive the favour of the House.
Perhaps my main job will be to outline more or less what we have attempted to do in respect of the task that was set before us, and how we have handled it in the last year or so. The task originally started in the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. In addition to the multitude of orders in council, regulations and other directives from government or government departments that could be considered to be statutory instruments, all of which amounted to at least 1,000 documents a year, it was also considered that this particular committee, which was a joint committee of both Houses, should look into two other matters. One concerned the guidelines the government uses in dealing with notices of motions for the production of papers. The second reference to the steering committee concerned the subject matter of a bill that has been dear to the heart of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the House leader for the Conservative party, for a good number of years.
I think it can be said, without paying exceptional favour to one member, that to consider the matter of freedom of information, which is what we are dealing with, without knowing the role of the hon. member for Peace River would be like staging Romeo and Juliet without at least one balcony. The hon. member for Peace River has over the years, going back at least a decade in my recollection, and surely for most of his parliamentary career, concerned himself with the subject of freedom of information. I hope he will be taking part in the debate later today, so I shall not dare to anticipate the wisdom he will give the House.
We had these two references to the committee: first, the guidelines which should govern us in dealing with notices of motions for the production of papers and, second, the subject matter of the freedom of information bill. How have we responded thereto? I think we have responded in

February 12, 1976
Statutory Instruments
a pretty reasonable way. We held 15 or 20 meetings to deal with those two topics. I should like to acquaint the House with the witnesses who appeared before the committee. We had the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp); we had Professor Donald C. Rowat of the academic community; we had Dr. Davidson Dunton who is now president of the Ontario Press Council. Dr. Dunton, as many of us will realize, was president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a noted academic as president of Carle-ton University and one very familiar with the intricate relations, if I may use that term, between government, government departments and the public.
We also had before the committee the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) in his then capacity as parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council. We had before us Miss Lise Paquette, who had an official position in the Privy Council office, I believe, with regard to the answering of members' questions, and we had the hon. member for Peace River. We had such distinguished public servants as the former Clerk of the Privy Council, Gordon Robertson, Dr. Gordon Smith and Mr. D. F. Wall. We had some young civil libertarians from the Ottawa community. We had that well known intellectual public servant, private servant and university servant, Dr. Maxwell Cohen, and we had the awesome figure of Robert Cooper who is the ombudsman for CBC. Those were our witnesses in addition, I might say-and I will refer to this again in a few moments-to people of the committee itself.
We arranged a trip to the U.S.A., to Washington, where we studied the freedom of information act which came out originally in an early Kennedy year and then was amended in a Nixon year-quite a remarkable piece of legislation, more particularly as it was amended in the post-Watergate situation. We dealt there with members of the executive and members of the Senate and the House who were responsible in large measure for bringing this act about. We dealt there with what I would call the Nader group for short, but I would identify them as those who espoused particularly the interests of special or general consumer groups. We had the advantage of all those people in dealing with how a freedom of information act should operate. We heard from the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River on their impressions of the operation of the acts dealing with freedom of information in Sweden, in Finland, in Russia and in other countries: we had the advantage of all their thinking. After hearing all this evidence, we have found ourselves probably with more questions to be answered than when we started out-very important questions as to whether a freedom of information set-up can properly be advanced in Canada.
I will not argue this afternoon for any particular school of thought with regard to freedom of information, but I might well venture one or two of my personal prejudices on this subject. What I am doing, on behalf of the members of the committee, Mr. Speaker and members of the House, is asking that the study be extended. I think we have to hear, for example, from people such as the dominion archivists about the release of information in its time.
I think we should have the parliamentary librarian, and other witnesses probably from the academic community.
I suspect that as a result of what we have heard from the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States we must have before us either the RCMP or at least representatives of police associations to deal with the matter of freedom of information. I hope I will be allowed to beg off these particular specialties as to police information, because I am confident that my parliamentary colleagues will rush to a rather fading voice and tell us something about what was heard in Washington when we talked to members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to find out the problems they have encountered under the freedom of information act.
I should like to put a couple of quotations on the record. The first is an excerpt from a hearing which the committee held on Tuesday, February 25, 1975-almost a year ago-when we had before us Professor Donald C. Rowat who was then, and perhaps is now, president of the Canadian Political Science Association. He made the following point about going to Sweden to study the openness of the Swedish system with regard to the provision of information. At page 15:9 of our proceedings of that day he is recorded as having said the following. He is referring to a reporter of the Swedish equivalent of the Canadian Press, that is, the big, national press agency in Stockholm. He had discussions with them and they asked him to accompany one of the reporters who was going on his rounds to government departments the next day. That was arranged, and he went with the reporter. This is the eye-opener, and I hope that the following words will be remembered by everybody when they make up their minds tonight on this debate. Professor Rowat said:
So I went with him and, to my amazement, I found that in every government ministry and department there was a press room where the incoming and outgoing mail was laid out each morning for an hour. Now, this did interfere a little bit with government work as these documents and files were not available to the civil servants while they were laid out in the press room.
In other words, there was an opportunity for members of the press, at least on behalf of the public, to go into these government departments and find out what was in the mind of the citizens of Sweden. To me that was an eye-opener. Even the prime minister's office in that country could be held open to inspection as to what occupied people's minds. We simply do not have that sort of system here. Whether we want it here is another question. It may be that members would think that this is going a little too far, or they may think it goes very much too far-I do not know that-but I would think that, at first blush at least, it is a recognition that a more candid view of the operations of government should be available to the public.
The other quotation I would like to put on the record is from Dr. Davidson Dunton who gave evidence to the committee on Tuesday, March 4. There is a lot of material that should be read and studied by hon. members with regard to this important topic, but I will not attempt to read much more. I thought that Dr. Dunton put it as well as anybody when he said, as recorded at page 17:5 of that issue:
It is our view that in a situation like this, government should be much more open than it is. Citizens-not just people in the government-should have a right to the greatest possible amount of information about things the government is doing or will do and therefore will affect the lives of citizens and which, incidentally, citizens are paying for.

February 12, 1976

Over and over again we had, in the deliberations of the committee, in the correspondence that each of us received and, I dare say, in the correspondence that members of the public sent to us for our attention, the question as to why they cannot find out about this or that. They say that the government commissioned a study on, let us say, the safety of snowmobiles, and why should all that be stuck away behind some departmental privilege? Should it not be out in the open? When people are paid through our taxes to carry out studies which involve the health and well-being of the citizens of Canada, why cannot everyone know about it?
These complaints have come in. Mr. Cooper, the CBC ombudsman, gave us half a dozen. One of the reasons I hope the House will accept the motion today is that we are now getting answers from government departments, but because we referred the subject matter to the House, as we did just before Christmas, it is felt that these answers really cannot be studied or made public until we have our terms of reference back again. That may seem like a very technical point, but in this business where technicalities sometimes are very important we have to consider that sort of thing. I have tried to give my remarks some flavour; I realize not perfectly, but others will make up for my deficiencies with hearts, spades and more pizzazz that I am able to muster.
With regard to the future of the operations of the committee, there is at least one group which would like to come before us to make its presentation. The members of the Canadian Bar are starting to assemble some thoughts on the matter of freedom of information. From time to time overtures have been made to the parliamentary press gallery, the lone representation of which today is certainly a fighter for freedom of information. He is the man who took on the Nova Scotia censor board singlehandedly and has done rather well for himself. In any event, we hope the parliamentary press gallery will concern itself with a topic which must bother its representatives in their day-to-day activities in Ottawa.
I said I would not give very many thoughts of my own on this topic, and I will not, except that I hope two things will happen. First, I hope that the whole matter can be turned around and the basis will be that there should be such a policy of openness that departments, bureaucrats, ministers and the like who want to keep something back would have to establish why information should be withheld. That is just a personal feeling. The second thing is that from the moment of inception of a freedom of information act it would be regarded as essential by all ministries that from the moment a file is opened the material in that file should see the light of public scrutiny at the request of any reasonable person who comes, without any special animus, to see it.
While I have not presented the matter with any great nerve-and I cannot-I hope that with those two thoughts in mind the House will give consideration to the motion which stands in the name of myself, seconded by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore, and that we will be given back the mandate to carry on the studies. I think the House would indeed be pleased with what we come up with in, say, several months' time.
Statutory Instruments


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, and also his co-chairman, Senator Forsey from the other place, for the job they have done in leading the committee and trying to keep the committee on the rails in spite of its particular desire to go off and follow its own hobby horses. It would be remiss of me, also, if I did not congratulate the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who should be feeling quite happy today-a man who has fought to have this subject aired before the House of Commons. He has had some notable accomplishments and has seen some progress being made with regard to resolving the problems which he has been prominent in bringing to the attention of the House.
I believe this is an important debate because to some extent it will dictate the kind of government we will have in the future. The kinds of solutions to the problems the government faces are largely wrapped up in the amount of information which is made available to citizens in the complex world in which we live.
I come to the matter of dealing with freedom of information, not out of any ideological bent but from a practical point of view after having served for 2'A years as parliamentary secretary to presidents of the privy council. One of the things which has sparked my attention has been the fact that the person or the group which is hurt most by the secrecy of government is the government itself. One of the difficulties we have is that in a complex society there is a tendency for governments and others to think that they, indeed, have all the information required to make a particular set of decisions. In point of fact, when one looks at those decisions and when one looks at the supporting information behind those decisions, it becomes perfectly clear that the greatest victims of secrecy are governments themselves.
I do not think it is necessary to give many examples: two will be sufficient. The first example is that since we have entered into the anti-inflation program nowhere have I seen, in any of the documents the government has provided, a reasonable, full and complete explanation of why the government changed its mind at the time it did and went into the program. In view of the fact that there are some sectors of our society opposed to the program, it seems this is a rather unfortunate omission, particularly since most of the statistical information and other arguments are readily available. Here is an example of how the government has managed to hurt itself.
Let me give another example of the limitations the government automatically imposes upon itself by not making available to citizens the data bases on which it bases its decisions. When we went into the anti-inflation program, the government in its wisdom considered that there were approximately 1,500 firms in Canada which fitted under the guidelines, that is, those which had more than 500 employees. Now that we are into the program, what do we find? We find that the number now is approximately 6,500, and still rising. Out of a desire to protect itself and its own deliberations, the government has made decisions and has hurt itself in trying to convince Canadians of the adequacy of the course it is following, and it has

February 12, 1976
Statutory Instruments
made decisions which seem to be incorrect on the basis of the information that was its own data basis.
It seems to me that in the complex society in which we live, where the issues are very difficult to comprehend, even for the experts-and there are too many experts-we very often do not have an opportunity to have their discussions and preliminary decisions aired to a wider range of people so that the holes therein can be picked at, discovered and corrected; and the people who suffer most are the Canadian people who elect a government which has a fear of providing this additional information. So I want to say at the onset that I fully support the motion. I hope the House will support it, and I hope the government will take to heart the findings and discoveries which are slowly coming to it, one of them being that the government itself and the party in power often is hurt more by this excessive devotion to secrecy than anyone else.
It seems to me that the function of debate in the country and in the House is to explore in a reasonable way the alternatives available to the country, and for the House and the government to decide just what is best for us all. Nobody wins in the game of politics when we make wrong decisions based on inadequate information, which so often is the case and as we have before us in the current set of circumstances. I want to emphasize my support and the fact that I believe we are on the verge of making some significant progress in this regard. I think credit should be given to the joint committee which has laboured on this matter and provided a focal point for Canadians interested in the subject.
I have noted the dilemma the government faces in terms of the inadequate data base and the assumptions it makes that it has an adequate one. It is difficult to have debate in this country if we do not have some information on the data base. One of the most frustrating things is to see debate in the House of Commons or in the country where participants are using separate bases of fact. In such cases, there can be no meeting of minds. In most cases, however, one can have fruitful debate where there is agreement on the basic facts. It strikes me that the government is the institution most capable of synthesizing the facts. Through a wide variety of sources it has a greater opportunity to make available the information in the bowels of its operations than it now does.
It is extraordinarily difficult to get the information out, and there are two reasons for that. The first is the desire of people within the civil service to protect their position, and the second is to some extent the socialization that goes on. When a person enters the civil service he feels that he must protect his data base and hold it for his superiors and the government. That means that when the ordinary citizen asks for information he is often met with a refusal, mainly because of this socialization. People prefer to protect themselves by not giving out information. It is built into the system, and that built-in bias is one of the things that must be dealt with. I do not deny that it will be difficult.
The second element often is the particular desire of departments or sections within departments to protect information they have obtained. The saying "knowledge is power" applies here. Very often it is difficult for the other
(Mr. Reid.]
sections of government to get that information or research. In my experience of trying to ferret out information for members of parliament I have found this one of the most difficult obstacles to overcome. It is also a psychological problem, and it has to be beaten.
I believe the first thing the committee should do is recommend that the existing guidelines for the production of papers-which is a matter before the committee now as a separate reference-be brought down in the form of legislation. I believe that psychologically that would give a great deal of impetus to breaking down the internal barriers that exist not only within the civil service but also among ministers. I think the very fact of putting those guidelines into legislation and amending them where required, so that the committee could come back with the recommendations and also the precise wording the government might use, would be helpful: it would be a constructive step. We would accomplish the end of putting the guidelines into statute law. If we were to include as a preamble the first sentence of the guidelines to the effect that the basic premise was to be that all information should be freely available, with the exceptions, the premise would override a great deal of the objections hon. members might have.
If we were to make that recommendation, we would also provide a speedy way of resolving the inevitable differences that occur, that is, that the government can choose who can have information and whether it should or should not be released. The system I would recommend, ideally, would be that used in Sweden. The hon. member for Peace River and I were quite surprised to find out that when there was conflict between members of the public for information and the bureaucracy which did not wish to provide it, those cases were settled within one day. If the matter went to the supreme administrative tribunal, it could take two or three days. The settlement of cases under freedom of information was considered a priority issue and was done swiftly, not by the courts but by the administrative tribunal. Perhaps one might want to think of a system that could be incorporated in a bill that would provide speedy resolution of these problems in a manner fair and consistent with our conditions.
My suggestion is to adapt the system used in the Unemployment Insurance Act. Where there is a dispute after the board of referees has made a decision on an appeal, one can appeal to the umpire. The umpire is a federal court judge acting as the final court of appeal under the system set up under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I believe that if one were to put in a proper time limit-say one working week-perhaps the federal court judge might not be available for this, but some other court could be developed and that would provide a speedy resolution to the problem of what was and what was not acceptable. It seems to me the jurisprudence would be relatively simple and there would be a quick way of solving the problem. At the present time, cabinet is the final court of appeal as to whether documents or information requested shall be released. This is, clearly, not satisfactory to all members of the House of Commons. In my experience, it was not always satisfactory to me as the person having some responsibility for the administration of the guidelines. I believe these would be a valuable series of recommendations. I believe the committee should take them and deal
February 12, 1976

with them as its first item of business once the current round of hearings has been completed.
The other problem that comes to mind is quite important, and that is the conflict between privacy and freedom of information. The example given by the chairman, of the Swedish system, whereby incoming mail to the government is exposed to the eyes of the world, and also the replies, strikes me as being a very unique set of circumstances and not one that I should care to see duplicated in Canada. I believe any citizen has the right to write to his member of parliament, his government, and to be sure that information is confidential between him and his government, between him and his member of parliament or, indeed, anybody else. I do not believe that I, as a third person, have the right to look upon anybody's correspondence with the government; that is correspondence that is private between the individual and the government.
I think for any kind of freedom of information we should be looking upon it from the point of view of whether there is conflict between freedom of information and the right to privacy. We should put emphasis on the right of privacy of individuals or organizations communicating with the government. That is fundamental to our kind of society, and I would hate to see it destroyed. This means that what we are doing, unlike the Swedish example, is ensuring that if I write to the Unemployment Insurance Commission or the Canada Pension Plan, my correspondence is private to those government organizations; it is not exposed to the press or to my neighbours. My relationship with my government should be on the same basis as my relationship with anybody else. They are private relations with the government; they are not open to the press and to neighbours.
Mr. Speaker, the other point I want to raise in conjunction with the privacy area is the related dilemma of organizations and individuals who have given information to the government, upon request, on the basis of its confidentiality, or even cases where the government has established programs where people are allowed to go in and participate and the information given to complete the application is also confidential. I believe that kind of confidentiality should continue to be engrained in our system. At the same time, I recognize there are going to be severe difficulties. It seems to me this will be a different question for the committee to work its way through.
There are also some related issues: the right of the government to discuss its policies and alternatives in privacy; the right of civil servants to make recommendations to their superiors and to the cabinet; the right for the internal dialogue in government to continue unabated; and the right of the government itself to reach its own conclusions in its own due course.
I distinguish between the concept of material and information that is factual and material and information based on opinion and conclusion. There must be such distinctions. The former minister of finance, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) said that only about 10 per cent of what is in a cabinet document really has to be secret. The only difficulty is that nobody agrees on which 10 per cent should be secret and which 90 per cent should
211 30-67
Statutory Instruments
be released to become public knowledge. If hon. members look at cabinet documents which have been published basically in the form of green papers, or at other cabinet documents which have been leaked from time to time, they will readily see that even cabinet documents, because of their structure, can give rise to different claims, different conclusions and even different recommendations. Without doubt, many other government documents structured in the same way should be dealt with in the same way. I submit that the result would be more information being made available to the Canadian people.
In the short time available to me I shall suggest a number of matters to the House and the committee which we must deal with as we consider these difficulties. First, there is the cost of the operation. Clearly, if we are to make more open our process of government and release more information, it will be more costly. An information network will need to be created; it will need to span the country; it will have to provide information quickly, and not delay it. Second, the issue of bilingualism arises. With the development of a bilingual capacity in the civil service, and as more and more high level civil servants can read and understand both languages, an inquiry can be brought to the attention of a civil servant in the language of the originator. The question then is, are the documents requested to go out in both languages or only one? Since we are discussing the principle of freedom of information, should not a document provided be in the language of the originator?
Third, we should look at time limits within which documents and material should be provided. Although I do not have any positive information, it strikes me that the ten working days provided in the American legislation is too short in view of the complexity of material being requested. That has been the complaint with regard to the American legislation. Perhaps we should consider a series of graduated times depending on the complexity of the information requested, or we might set a limit of 20 days. The committee should consider this. Fourth, we must remember, as we become more open, that there will be changes in the operation of the bureaucracy. We should consider this seriously and learn if this process will make the bureaucracy more efficient or less efficient, what the cost benefits will be and what the ultimate effects on the bureaucracy itself will be. I have mentioned the psychological impact which I think will take place even if we accept existing guidelines in legislative form. In my opinion, that should be counted as a considerable plus.
Fifth, we must consider the possible abuses which could arise under the legislation. It was clear, from the experience the hon. member for Peace River and I had in the Scandinavian countries, and clear from the experience in the United States, that there is a potential for abuse under the legislation, particularly in connection with regulatory bodies- and regulatory functions. In that area there is tremendous potential for abuse. Sixth, I should like to see a more precise definition as to what information is to be released if indeed we go beyond the guidelines. Information I touched on previously, such as that dealing with privacy, personal records and references to individuals within documents, should be considered as well.

February 12, 1976
Statutory Instruments
I know my time has almost ended. Let me make one more suggestion. Now that the committee is reaching the end of its work and has come to the end of its hearing of witnesses, the time has come for the government to come before us and present its position in clear terms. This would be most helpful. I invite the government to come before the committee and put forward a position which can be put into legislative form. It is time to do this. We can develop such ideas together in partnership and produce thereby a much better piece of legislation and a much better system of practice than we now have.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I begin by commenting on the last suggestion of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). Of course the government will have to be consulted. We must know what they want to do. I hope the committee will formulate its own recommendations. If the government approves, very well; but the committee should tell the government what it thinks should be done in this area: the government should not tell the committee, as my hon. friend suggested. I do not object to consulting the government. If they have plans, I am sure we shall be glad to learn from them about those plans.
The core of the report we are considering has to do with support in principle for freedom of information legislation, which I regard as highly important. The committee's very name deters any great interest in what it does; its very title, "Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments", is calculated to keep people disinterested in the discussion in the committee. The freedom of information aspect of the committee's work affects every citizen, the operation of parliament and government generally. We should seek to destroy secrecy in government and its agencies. There is too much secrecy. Therefore, I personally approve the motion before the House. At least we can debate the principle or the idea that legislation dealing with this subject is necessary.
Without doubt, the events summed up in the word "Watergate" interest and concern the people and legislators of the United States. But Watergate does not affect them only. There is a widespread need for fuller information. We need to have an open, instead of a closed, society. Ralph Nader put it well when said:
A well informed citizenry is the lifeblood of democracy ...
In our policy, where the ultimate power is said to rest with the people, a free and prompt flow of information from government to people is essential to achieve the reality of citizen access to a more just governmental process.
What Ralph Nader said applies to Canada and other countries. We must consider two aspects of this matter: the right of parliament and members of parliament to secure information through the giving of notice and asking for disclosure of documents, and the right of the general public to secure information. Both aspects are highly important. Almost every member of parliament can think of matters on which he or she wished to obtain information but with respect to which the government, or an agency of government, refused to disclose information. This has happened to me in matters in which I take special interest, and no doubt almost every other member has had experience similar to mine when trying to secure information concerning various spheres of government.

I am thinking, for example, of external affairs. We have an agency known as CIDA, and this agency spends- rightly, in my judgment-a very substantial sum of money. I believe it is essential to the proper operation of CIDA that it should provide public access to information concerning its affairs. Yet a situation developed last session in which a document was prepared, at public expense, by chartered accountants dealing with the subject of the turnover of personnel employed by CIDA. Information contained in this document was refused us, initially by the president of CIDA but later by the then secretary of state for external affairs, now President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). The matter was since raised once in the House and I know that the government used its majority to prevent disclosure of the document in question.
I think of another item which is very recent. We were told by the newspapers in the last day or two that a conference has taken place in London between representatives of seven countries able to produce nuclear reactors and nuclear materials. The conference related to safeguards and agreements as to safeguards so that those materials, when sold, could not be converted into nuclear weapons or, at least, that there was a better prospective of their not being so converted. This conference, Mr. Speaker, was supposed to be secret; no one was supposed to know about it. Here we find the people of the world, whose survival may depend upon effective safeguards, being told, "These matters are being discussed, but you cannot be told anything about what is taking place." I agree there are scientific details which perhaps ought not to be disclosed, but the substance of the discussions is something with which the world as a whole is concerned. Yet, as I say, the public in all countries was denied access to this information.
Again, most people who are interested in the environment know of reports on this subject which have been kept secret, perhaps because they do not suit the particular views of certain elements in bureaucracy, or else disclosed only under great pressure. The fact that they have been made, very often at great public expense, has little bearing on the attitude taken toward publication. In the field of immigration, for example, I know that material of great importance to the immigrant affecting the right to a hearing, review proceedings, and so on, are kept secret, sometimes in the form of guidelines which are never disclosed-not even in the Canada Gazette where one can sometimes find these things if one knows enough and looks long enough. Some of these documents which are relevant to the rights people have to a proper hearing are not disclosed, and the Department of Immigration says it has no intention of disclosing them. Indeed, in the special committee only after considerable effort were we able to obtain these documents. Many members of parliament could give similar illustrations of material which could be disclosed without the state being endangered in any way or without harm resulting to anybody. It is time this sort of secrecy became a thing of the past.
I commend the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) upon his bill-it is a pioneer measure in this field- and for the fight he is putting up on this subject. He will probably agree with me that the bill he put forward is
February 12, 1976

capable of improvement. Nevertheless, the fact that he has brought it forward is an important link in the chain by which we are seeking, through the committee and through the work of parliament, to open the door a little upon what goes on in government. I believe this constitutes a great service to Canadians.
Of course there must be exceptions: nobody doubts this. There are matters of secrecy and there are certain types of confidentiality which require exceptions to be made. We should be careful, though, to ensure that those exceptions are carefully scrutinized to see that they are not a cover for the refusal of information which could perfectly well be disclosed. The framework should not be so loosely drawn as to enable anybody who felt so inclined to say that a particular document or piece of information fell within one category or another of exempted material and thus could be withheld.
I went, with other members, to Washington where we spent an extremely useful day discussing with officials there the United States freedom of information act. This is one field where they are ahead of us, Mr. Speaker. We do not like to think that in a political matter the United States is ahead of us, but in this particular area they are well ahead of us. They have had a form of information act for some time, but they found it to be defective and replaced it with a new one.
We spoke with people responsible for enforcing the act, and we spoke with people on the other side of the fence seeking to obtain information. We found that all parties agreed, in general terms, on the value and importance of the act and their appreciation of an open, as opposed to a secret, society. The 1974 amendments conferred upon every person the right to apply for information. Another thing they did was to provide for tribunals, with a right of appeal, of course, capable of enforcing disclosure and judging whether a claim for exemption was sound or not. This is absolutely essential.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is not in the House at the moment, but he mentioned that under our system-and this was confirmed by the President of the Privy Council when he gave evidence in the committee- when there is a dispute as to whether something should be disclosed or not, the issue is always decided by the government. Members of the House who are learned in the law know there is an ancient Latin maxim which says that no one should be a judge of his own case. Until there is a tribunal to enforce a decision, to interpret and apply it, we are left with paper which is really not worth too much. There must be provision for judicial or quasi-judicial review.
There are bound, of course, to be difficulties in working out the act, but those difficulties are in no way insuperable. I am sure there might be some nuisance applications for information, but I suppose procedures could be developed to deal with them. We should look to providing applicants with what they have in the United States through the activity of a sort of public interest agency, as they call it there. It is headed by Ralph Nader. I have in mind a body which would assist citizens who are seeking information and would advise them about the legal steps which may be necessary, including the filling in of required forms. I think that is absolutely essential.
Statutory Instruments
Then we must study any proposed freedom of information act in relation to rights to privacy. I would take issue, to a certain extent, with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. I do not think it is a case of "either/or". I think on some matters the right to privacy should prevail; on other matters freedom of information on matters of public interest should prevail. I should not like to be categoric and say that the right to privacy always takes priority over the rights of the public.
As I said some time ago, the President of the Privy Council produced a series of guidelines which were supposed to be binding on parliament regarding production of papers, and suggest that we should legislate to make them effective. I think they are so defective that it would be better if we started at the beginning rather than copied them. There are all sorts of very vague exceptions. There is no adequate enforcement procedure. Indeed, the President of the Privy Council said that the decision whether something should actually be produced should always be left with the government. Be that as it may, I guess it was a step forward when these guidelines were produced.
There has been ample British precedent on this matter. We are supposed to have inherited our tendency toward secrecy in government from the British, but they have moved forward. The Franks commission, which made a report in 1972 on the Official Secrets Act, suggested there was a necessity to repeal the Official Secrets Act and replace it with another act that was far more limited in the exceptions it made in regard to publication of material. Here, again, I think we find a useful precedent. As has been mentioned, Sweden has had long experience in this regard. If we are inclined to think that it is a sort of easy option to make information available, that it will somehow damage the state or the security of the state, then I would remind hon. members that Sweden is a nation outstanding in many respects for its good government, lawfulness and the way in which it manages its own affairs.
I join with my colleagues in hoping that this motion will be passed and that it will give the committee the green light to proceed by taking the general principle that is already approved and putting it into some sort of detailed proposals or legislative form, as the case may be, so that a blow can be struck for freedom and for real democracy in Canada.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for the words they have spoken in connection with any slight participation I have had in this matter. Once again I would extend my thanks to the members of the committee for the objective and useful way in which the subject matter has been dealt with. When one looks back at the history of this particular project and other projects, one realizes that what we do today is simply the result of things that have been done before. While walking this morning through the corridors of this building, I met Mr. Barry Mather, formerly a distinguished member of the New Democratic Party in this House. Both Mr. Mather and I had bills along this same line of subject matter, at the same time, for two sessions. What has happened? We carried forward this idea for a while and today the idea has been merged into
211 30-6714

February 12, 1976
Statutory Instruments
the report of the committee. I hope that when this day is over the proposal will be merged into a report from the committee to the House on which the House will have pronounced itself. The torch will then go to the government in due course and the government will have some decisions to make.
There is a broader attitude to take toward this issue. For the last month or so, we in this House have been debating issues dealing with economics, inflation, employment and unemployment, law and order, stability, and social benefits for the people of this country. From what I have read of history, parliament in this country and parliaments in other parts of the world were debating issues like those 100 and 200 years ago. If I do not miss my guess, parliaments which succeed us-if parliaments still exist, as I hope they will-will be debating the same issues 200 years from this date.
It is very important to remember that these subject matters are not going to vanish. We are not going to pass laws to make all things good for all people. However, it is very important to make certain that the mechanisms and means that we adopt in this parliament for dealing with these problems are improved. This is something that lies squarely within our competence. There are some problems that we cannot solve, but we can solve the question of our ability as members and our capacity as a House to deal more effectively with these issues. I submit that to do so we have to bring into the decision on these issues the people of the country. We represent the people of Canada in a democracy, but in actual fact people in general participate only to a very slight extent in the decisions that are made. I think this is not because governments and civil servants are vicious or corrupt or bad; it is because they are remote and removed from the impact of the decisions that are made and from policies and spending programs.
When we pass an act that provides that parliament acts by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons, it is not really the case. Formally it is, but in actual practice it is not. I think the mechanisms and means by which we in parliament operate have to be altered and improved so that the people come into the picture as partners, even if only as junior partners, and feel that they are playing a real part in the decisions that are taken.
There is no doubt that in the few democracies that still exist in the world there is a growing gap between the governed and the governors. This is due to a number of factors. There has been cynicism, distrust, doubt, wonder and a feeling that the people are both helpless and hopeless. They have no means of knowing what the government is doing and why it is doing it. I think Watergate was a typical illustration of this. If you remember, Mr. Speaker, Watergate was only a fourth-rate burglary; but it was an attempt by people in authority to cover up problems that ultimately led to the downfall of a president of the United States. It is in that light that I think we should approach this matter as well as the more detailed issues that were raised by hon. members of the House who preceded me. I hope we will get the unanimous approval of members of all parties in the House, and that when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) speaks he will indicate that the government accepts the views set out in
the committee report calling for acceptance in principle of freedom of information legislation and for reference back to the committee of certain terms of reference that they have felt essential. In that sense, it may not then be necessary to call for a vote, as Mr. Speaker indicated was possible.
I say that because a unanimous decision of this House to support the view set out by the committee will have a very considerable effect on people in the civil service regarding the question of freedom of information. When they find they cannot beat us, maybe they will join us. Then, subject to the exceptions which I know must exist and to which the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and others have referred, there will in due course be put into place in this House, in this parliament and in this country, a method by which information will be made available. In 1972 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in this House that the-
-democratic process requires the ready availability of true and complete information. In this way people can objectively evaluate government policies. To act otherwise is to give way to despotic secrecy.
I should like to think the Prime Minister meant those words when he spoke them in 1972 at the time of the debate on and presentation of the task force on information. However, the conduct of the Prime Minister and the government since that time certainly has not given effect to what the Prime Minister said in 1972. I have the suspicion that he was persuaded by his advisers that there had to be a gap between what he said then and actual practice. His principal advisers were quite reluctant in respect of providing information, for a number of reasons, some of which were put forward quite persuasively by the civil servants who appeared before the committee. I think most people who ascend, collectively, the steps of government to the throne feel the same way. I suspect that if I were ever a member of the government-which does not seem very likely at my stage of political life-I would probably feel the same way.
It is essential for us to put into place in this House mechanisms and means by which it will not be possible from this time on for people in the bureaucracy and in the government to refuse to provide in a reasonable way the facts on which parliament must operate. The right to know and to be told the true facts is essential to government.
Today the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) asked about the details of certain agreements in respect of the sale of a CANDU project. He is entitled to that information on his own behalf, and on behalf of members of this House, just as the residents of the Port Hope area are entitled to be told the degree of radioactivity of the waste being poured into the lake and dumped in the vicinity of their homes. This matter is as important to the Leader of the Opposition, in his position, as it is to the people in the community of Port Hope. This principle is important to the members of this House who were inquiring a year ago about reports of bad meat being sold in the province of Quebec, and just as important to the native people living in the Yellowknife area who wanted to know the details of a report about arsenic poisoning in waters near the city of Yellowknife.

February 12, 1976

February 12, 1976
Statutory Instruments
Mr. Speaker, I shall not take up too much more of the time of the House because other members wish to participate. I suggest we have a responsibility in the committee and in the House to press ahead to secure a workable bill, not only for the specific purpose of providing information for the public, who should have it, to the members of parliament, who need it, and to the press or the media who, in the course of their function of informing the public have a right to it, but also in an attempt to restore some measure of confidence and trust in the processes of government. I say, with all solemnity, that the passage by this government, with the full approval of the House first of this motion and second of a workable bill, will go a long way toward rectifying the distrust and lack of confidence which now exists.
All we ask is the right to seek the truth. We cannot wait. Time is not on our side. I ask for the support of all members of the House, and of the government in particular. I ask the government to indicate specifically that it accepts the principles involved in the motion. In fact, I would like to see my friend, the President of the Privy council, indicate his position with regard to the passage of legislation. I do not ask him to agree to terms-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have finished, Mr. Speaker. I pass the torch to the President of the Privy Council.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion before us which would continue and, indeed, expand the terms of reference of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. This is an additional duty we are imposing on the committee, but I think members of the House generally would agree this is the most appropriate committee to deal with the matter of freedom of information.
It would be easy to take an extreme position on access to government information. The libertarian extreme would be to say that all government reports, papers and correspondence should be available to the people all the time without regard to context or circumstances. The closed-door extreme would be to insist that, because of the collective cabinet responsibility imposed by our system of responsible government, the only information which should be made known to the public would be statements formally released by the government. Most Canadians will find one extreme as unconvincing as the other.
If all government operations, without exception, were carried out in the public eye, the first casualty would be honest differences of opinion in the public service. Public servants would put in writing only what they thought the public was prepared to hear. In Sweden, for example, in every government department there is a press room where incoming and outgoing mail is laid out every morning for an hour for press and public inspection. Even such personal matters as income tax returns are open to public scrutiny. Consequently, what has happened is that paper has become much less important in government, and everything that really matters tends to be dealt with orally. Taken to the extreme, complete disclosure would seriously

impair the effectiveness of government. On the other hand, to limit public knowledge of government to what the government wanted the people to know would amount to a system of managed news and would be a step toward the horrors George Orwell saw for 1984.
Most Canadians would probably agree that the solution has to be a compromise, with a presumption in favour of disclosure, so that the people's right to information should receive maximum possible respect and attention. The thorny question is, what ought to be published? The exceptions allowed cannot be so extensive as to swallow up the rule of disclosure. Since the policy of making available as much information as possible must be balanced against such considerations as effective public administration, protection of the security of the state and rights of third parties to privacy, even the best-inten-tioned government finds it all too easy to resolve doubtful cases in the direction of secrecy.
The criteria to be applied might well be generally agreed. Security documents, personal correspondence, records and tax returns, legal opinions and matters relating to possible prosecutions should probably not be disclosed. Our system of responsible government also makes the disclosure of proceedings of cabinet meetings and draft government bills inappropriate. On the other hand, government green and white papers and royal commission reports should clearly be published, subject to the withholding of information on possible prosecutions. There should also be no question about the release of task force reports, studies by consultants or, generally, any government report or departmental document on a matter on which work has been completed. The grey area will probably lie in the determination of when work has been finished.
Given the natural inclination of any government to favour its own interest, and the fact that borderline areas do exist, what is needed is a device to strengthen the resolve of a well-intentioned government to disclose and to punish politically a government wishing to conceal. Canada needs an independent information authority which would be able to participate in the decision-making process-to decide what ought to be released and what ought to be withheld. Some suggest the judiciary as an outside authority with the public credibility to do the job. But the task, as I see it, is not of the odd-job variety-to scrutinize documents now and again. It would be an onerous daily task. In order to cope, I believe that the authority involved has to be close to the government process itself.
On the other hand, it would not do to confer the responsibility on an existing minister or department as, for example, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has been assigned the duty of reporting to parliament on federal laws which infringe upon the Canadian Bill of Rights. There is too much scope for conflict of interest to allow the government to be responsible for its own self-examination in so fundamental an area.
My proposal is for the establishment of an independent information advocate. This new office would be answerable to parliament rather than to the government itself. It would recommend what government information should
February 12, 1976

be made public and what should not. As an agency within government, the office of the information advocate could, if necessary, pry open every filing cabinet in the government service. In status and independence I would compare the information advocate with the Auditor General, who also exercises a supervisory authority, by parliamentary appointment, for the benefit of the public. In order to assure the advocate's public credibility, the government should propose to parliament, for appointment, a man or woman of unimpeachable independence and integrity. Perhaps he or she could be drawn from a panel recommended by the information media across the country. The advocate's tenure should be either indefinite or for a substantial length of time such as ten years. Within whatever term is adopted, tenure should be on the same basis as a judge's to ensure independence.
Because of the government's collective responsibility to govern, I would leave the ultimate decision whether to release information or not to the cabinet, but I would require the information advocate to report to parliament any instances in which his or her recommendations were not followed by the government. The government would then have to make a public defence. I believe that such a system would create a healthy tension between the cabinet and the advocate in which the government would be publicly challenged when it tried to withhold information which he or she deemed ought to be released. The information advocate, like the Auditor General, would be able to inform the public about things which might otherwise have been swept under the carpet and to require the government to reveal and defend its information practices when necessary.
It seems to me that such a system would preserve both the integrity of the government process-because the review would be from within-and the public's right to know what the government is doing so as to be able to judge it-because of the review itself. It would provide a necessary check on the government, but through a political rather than a legalistic remedy. Ultimately, the failure to disclose would itself be disclosed and that information would be put into the hands of the people for their decision.
It has been objected that, if the advocate made a report indicating reasons why a certain document ought to be disclosed, the content of the document would then be compromised. If reasons were not stated, I agree that public credibility would be lost. Obviously, at least general reasons would have to be advanced and the advocate's discretion as to the degree of disclosure trusted. We can do no better than to rely on the usual political processes and safeguards in such cases.
A freedom of information act enshrining the principle of public access to information would be a useful beginning, but in the absence of an independent authority to interpret it, it would not be a giant step forward. A belief that every government needs independently applied restraints is basic to democracy. As Francis Bacon wrote in a different context centuries ago, knowledge is power. The special committee on statutory instruments, which I had the honour to chair, put it this way in 1969:
There can be neither responsibility nor accountability when there is
no knowledge of what has been done. In political matters knowledge is
the beginning of power, and its lack, impotence.
Statutory Instruments
In a democracy, the people can have only as much power as they have knowledge; and an open government will want to ensure that as much power as possible remains with the people, because identification with the people provides a government with the best possible source of power. In conclusion, I might again say that I am pleased to support the motion which is before us today.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, this issue is one which will not go away. I feel somewhat as if I had been around the track several times, because it is the third debate in my time here on the matter of accessibility, accountability and openness in government. I recall very well the time when a person who is now on the treasury benches, the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey), years ago took part in a debate. Of course, he was then supporting the concept of openness.
I think the issue was put very well, if I may paraphrase the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), when he said that it is time for the government to state its intention on the issue of public information. I think that is what the resolution proposes, that the committee will continue its deliberations and consider this question. But I had always hoped that Canada would be the bellwether country in the world. Perhaps other countries have long since made it difficult for us to catch up to them in the matter of openness, but I thought some years ago, when the Pearson government took a look at the whole matter of the Official Secrets Act, that there at least would be a rather forthright report. It turned out, rather sadly, that, through no fault of the then prime minister, it was a rather orthodox document, very much looking backward instead of forward, and very few changes were made in the Official Secrets Act. Now, as a result of the Franks Report in Great Britain and the commitments made by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, fundamental changes will be made to the Official Secrets Act in England. This, of course, was an opportunity that Canada once again missed. We could have led the western democracies. Instead of that we are stumbling along and still have not made a commitment.
I think it is right that we recall another important report that was made by a couple of excellent, dwas never allowed the free rein that the commission report recommended for it.
In the few minutes which I have, I propose to deal with the matter of ministerial responsibility and administrative secrecy and suggest several things dealing with government and the bureaucracy which have worshipped far too long at the altar of secrecy and anonymity. The attainment of greater freedom of information and openness in government will not come easily. We have seen that. It is 1976, and many of us are still worshipping at this altar. Several times over the past years I have spoken in the House about the need to, as Professor J. A. G. Griffith has stated-
-take the lid off the machinery of government, to see how it works, who says what to whom, at what level decisions are taken, what private criteria are used, how far politics is allowed to override those criteria, on what statistical and other facts the decisions are based: this wish does not derive only from curiosity or from party animosity but also from self-interest, from quis custodiet, and from a feeling that government represents another group interest.

February 12, 1976
Statutory Instruments
Perhaps I should identify the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) as being one of the few who might recognize that Latin phrase. I want his children and grandchildren, when they read this debate, to know that at least there was one. However, experience has demonstrated that there exists both in government and the bureaucracy tremendous resistance to scrutiny, openness and accountability. Such candour affronts ministerial and bureaucratic sensitivities. Douglas Fisher described this environment rather well when last December he wrote the following:
The bureaucrats will appeal-
As they have to the committee.
... to the principles of ministerial responsibility and their own anonymity. The politicians in power shiver over any eclipse of official secrecy. They fear the lot of the emperor without clothes.
We are confronted here with ministers clothed in secrecy, private dealings and anonymity. When I speak of private dealings, I do not mean the word "deal" in any pejorative or evil connotation. I mean that a deal has been made or an arrangement has been made, within the process, clothed with secrecy and probably if the arrangement was open to the public, the natural suspicions of the public would be sated. Just this past week we saw the example of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) reaching a private accommodation with Reader's Digest. I read a somewhat mysterious press release. The newspapers and political commentators spoke about it, and then we heard ministerial statements. The difference between what we are told by unofficial and by official sources makes us conscious of the existence of another hidden world. Many of us, even though we resist this tendency, become cynical. The evasions, the half truths and the falsities shine through the words and we are angered because we are treated somewhat like children. I submit to the treasury benches that only if politicians trust the public can they expect to deserve trust.
An editorial appeared in the Australian Federal Law Review and clearly stated the case when it said:
Unnecessary secrecy . . . has demonstrated an unfortunate pessimism as to the worth of the democratic process.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) makes statements, as he has been doing, calling into question the system and asking Canadians to join in the public debate about our institutions, I suggest-with much sincerity- that the very issue we are debating today is one of the reasons the public is profoundly cynical about the government. Ministerial responsibility is only possible in an open system where parliament-government and opposition- together with citizens gain knowledge of and access to greater information. "It is not that democracy functions better when there is open administration-until this exists, it is doubtful whether there is any democracy at all." So ends the editorial in the Australian Federal Law Review.
The truth is that if anything useful and significant is to be done in a free society, it must be done publicly and in such a way as to consult, involve and carry with it those affected. We are in an age where the legislator has assumed, I submit, a new role-that of building acceptance of government policy. It is not a role many people believe the opposition should have to carry, but in fact it is very

much a part of our role because a good deal of the legislation here, and a good many of the decisions of modern government, of course, have no ideological or partisan overtones. Therefore, we who believe in this institution are left with a responsibility to try to build public acceptance. But understanding and consent do not spring from some previous interaction of government and voter at a general election. Rather, it is the constantly renewed product of a continual exchange of information. In his book "Secrecy and Publicity", Francis Rourke observes:
-in so far as secrecy in government seriously impedes the free flow of communication among citizens, it constitutes a real threat to the informed public discussion that is at the core of democracy. Where this occurs, it is not at all certain that a community should not choose, from the point of view of its own value system, to tolerate some measure of insecurity in order to gain access to information it needs in order to exercise influence over decisions on vital matters of public policy.
I think that the public is mature enough-indeed, backbenchers opposite have shoulders broad enough-to deal with great issues such as the about-face of the Minister of National Revenue on Reader's Digest or a broader national debate prior to this government's agreement, for example, to sell nuclear reactors to South Korea and Argentina. I am not now debating whether that is right or wrong; I am debating the fact that we had information after the fact. Now, apparently, even the matter of interest is not to be disclosed. As the Globe and Mail's lead editorial of Tuesday, February 10, 1976 stated:
It is hard to conceive of a case when it should be more necessary that the government should act, not by executive, but by parliamentary decision. What is at stake is enormous ... It has almost reached the point of cliche to call this government arrogant. Unfortunately, it is a cliche full of truth.
A third example of where this government in recent weeks has demonstrated a gross lack of candour, openness and confidence in the ability of the public to examine the decision-making process in the bureaucracy is the stonewalling by the government of the efforts of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments to gain information from the Department of Justice necessary for its deliberations. I feel genuinely concerned about the former minister of finance, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner), and the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) who spoke so eloquently just now-who have made the statutory instruments committee such an integral part of their contribution to the House over the past few years. Here we are, with the statutory instruments committee set up, the legislation in place, and we are being thwarted in our work by the Department of Justice because it takes a much too narrow and legalistic view of statutory instruments themselves. I really deplore this, and I deplore it doubly because the stonewalling comes from the Department of Justice of Canada.
In this regard I want to share with hon. members an eloquent statement made by the former minister of finance when he was minister of justice. In a speech at, I think, Harrison Hot Springs, when the Liberals were trying to give policy delineation for the years ahead, he said:
We have allowed, by enabling powers and statutes, legislation to be delegated to the cabinet, to ministers, to boards, to commissions by way of regulation ... beyond the control of parliament, beyond the power of parliament to review and revise, and thereby beyond the power of the people to challenge.
February 12, 1976

Now we have a committee which is attempting to make such regulations and administrative instruments accountable; in other words, to do what the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton wanted and give a major part of the government's policy initiatives to the Department of Justice. The government and its supporting bureaucracy continue to place roadblocks in the way of the efforts of this committee to do its job effectively. I think it is time these roadblocks were noticed by the public.
I, for one, deplore the fact that we have reached the unfortunate situation where governmental decisions affecting entire populations seem to be made by a few individuals operating on the basis of information with which they alone are familiar. Mr. Speaker, this is an intolerable situation. What can be done to combat this resistance to scrutiny, openness and candour? First, we should be told much more about the background against which decisions are made. Second, there is a vast, shaded area about which most of us know nothing and generally suspect the worst. Flitting in and out of the shadows are those "in the know" and those who wish to appear to be of that number. Goodness knows, in this city there are a lot of the latter. The nearer we are to the source of truth, the more we will hear-though not necessarily the more truths. Foreign affairs and defence are deepest in the shadow. We accept the necessity for some of this, but surely it is much overdone.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) reminded us that no rational member of parliament would ever think there should be disclosure of matters affecting the real, the genuine matter of national security. Nobody would expect such secrets to be open. But there is a huge, other area-up into the 90 per cent bracket-which has no possible bearing upon the security of the state. Third, when the government consults with private interests before finally taking decisions, could we not be told something of the bargains struck, the compromises reached, the promises given? I do not indict the compromises. Compromises are part of modern government. What I indict is the fact that nobody knows, except those intimately involved, what the options are.
Fourth-and not generally, I hope-the cabinet, its individual members and its supporting bureaucracy could afford to be much more open about policy objectives and national goals. Ministers seem to be genuinely fearful of being specific even about the ends they are seeking to achieve. Here is another caveat. If the Prime Minister hopes to enlist the public of this country in discussion- discussion with all of us in the new society-there have to be more slogans. The public is entitled to some declaration of the path the Prime Minister wishes to take us on behalf of his party.
I have to think that the reaction to the speech the Prime Minister made over Christmas was hilarious. If I have an objection to the speech, it is that it was so unclear-not that he made it. I think had such declarations been made in England, where there is a national press and a good differing of views and all the spectrum of political thought, they would have been scrutinized and recognized for what they were before the weekend was over. Instead of that, a good number of people in the Canadian Manufacturers' Association had cardiac arrests.
21 1 30-68
Statutory Instruments
Mr. Speaker, the problem we debate today is crucial to the creation of an environment in which our society can deal with the pressing economic and social issues which confront us daily. It seems apparent that we will have to deal increasingly with active government. In this milieu, the central question was put in a most interesting book written by Andrew Shonfield in 1965, wherein he asked:
The central question is how far an active government wielding great and varied economic power, intervening in the detailed conduct of private business affairs, discriminating between one citizen and another on the basis of subtle and complex judgments of the community's needs 10 or 20 years ahead, driving bargains with particular interest groups as administrative convenience dictates, can be subjected to effective democratic control.
That is the core of the debate in which we are engaged. I have not noticed very much partisanship here. This is surely the basis upon which the motion is put. It is surely the basis upon which the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments was brought to life by people who have honoured places in this House. On this issue we can agree that in eloquence nobody seeking this openness can match the hon. member for Peace River who has almost made a career of the subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of a better place at which to stop.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate in support of the motion of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) whom we all know as co-chairman of the committee. His enduring efforts in the committee went a long way toward helping the committee function as well as it did. I was most impressed by his speech today in spite of his influenza. A lesser man would no doubt not have shone as he did today.
I should like to discuss the seventh report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments in terms of my views and impressions of the progress made by the committee and on the general subject of freedom of information and the closely related subject of the protection of privacy. Mr. Speaker, your committee's report was tabled together with more than a dozen issues of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence containing testimony from a wide range of witnesses including high ranking public servants, academics, citizens' groups and media representatives. These witnesses provided opinions, criticisms and suggestions and presented briefs or reports on the general subject at hand. In addition, the committee travelled to Washington, D.C., to interview officials and congressmen on their freedom of information act to try to ascertain how it was working. Also, some members visited England and Sweden and other countries to observe how their systems of providing information were operating.
In short, the joint committee has for over a year spent a
great amount of time and effort on this subject of availa-

February 12, 1976
Statutory Instruments
bility of information. In reviewing the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, the briefs, the reports, the studies and my own notes, I was at first somewhat struck by the lack of unanimity among those who made a contribution to the committee. While everyone agrees on the importance of finding an acceptable system to distribute information, and the difficulties and complications in attempting such a task, and while everyone to a greater or lesser degree is dissatisfied with the present system operating in this country, there appears to be little agreement on what exactly the solutions should be, at least in terms of degree and emphasis. However, this apparent lack of unanimity really stems from the general agreement which I have just mentioned, that is, recognition of the very real importance of information and the complex, complicated, many-sided nature in which it presents itself.
In reviewing this subject, one continually comes across such statements as "to govern is to inform, to be well informed is to be well governed", "secrecy is within the centre of power itself", and other such statements which equate knowledge with power. While the statements reflect what the availability of information can mean, different individuals view this meaning from different angles. A senior public servant's perspective is considerably different from that of, let us say, Ralph Nader or someone associated with his group. This also applies to ministers and opposition members of parliament.
This is not necessarily to say that the question of information and its availability or access is one of confrontation between those who have and those who want. Rather, it is a question of degree. It is difficult for even those who are reasonably well acquainted with the general subject to have an objective view of it. An individual's situation, quite naturally, colours his approach to how, what and when information should be made available.
I found that in most cases witnesses and committee members themselves, although holding differing views on what were considered basic points, were able to embrace many of the ideas put forward by the other person and generally show respect and understanding for that person's differing views. This was not done merely to be non-partisan, diplomatic or even polite; rather, I feel it was done because there is a realization that there are no easy, ready or absolute solutions to the problem.
When we talk about access to and availability of information, we are talking about a subject which is a manyheaded monster that can be debated and viewed from a number of levels and angles. Perhaps I can mention some of the issues which arise when dealing with this subject. The seventh report of the joint committee suggests a few such areas. One of the most important, I feel, is the relationship between freedom of information and the protection of privacy. The two must be considered together if we are to avoid some of the difficulties which the Americans have run into in regard to their protection of privacy act and freedom of information act. In the United States case there was apparently little communication between the groups who were working on the legislation in question.

The report which we are considering today also points to the question of automatic data processing. While I must confess to only a rudimentary knowledge of the subject, I believe it is obvious to most observers that this is becoming an increasingly important forum for collecting information. Without controls, there could possibly be serious abuse of an individual's privacy.
I have already mentioned that it is difficult to get agreement on change in our system partly owing to the different situations from which individuals view the freedom of information question. One witness who appeared before the joint committee, Dr. Maxwell Cohen, Macdonald professor of law at McGill University, described this as the forum within which debates between the individual and the state over confidentiality take place. Dr. Cohen named four such forums: first, the citizen versus the state; second, the parliamentarian and the state; third, the scholar and the state; and, fourth, the media and the state.
I do not want to take too much of the time of the House, for I know a number of members wish to contribute to the debate today. But I should like to put on the record some of the questions concerning confidentiality, for I believe it helps to show the complexity of this matter. There is the question of "leaks", the question of cost, the whole field of classifying documents, and the problem of deciding how long information should be withheld. There is also the broad technical or functional area of providing information, which includes information personnel and their attitude to the public, ways and means of gathering and distributing information, regular flow and access to information, its quality and selectivity, and the direction and form of government information.
After all this we are still left with the most difficult questions of legislation or policy and the criteria for exclusion. I am beginning to wonder if, in asking the House to concur in the joint committee's seventh report, we are asking for a task which will bury us up to our eyeballs in work. Nevertheless, I know that committee members, and I think all members sincerely want to see some real progress on this issue.
So far I have given an overview, attempting to show how, by its very importance and complexity, unanimity on the question of information was difficult to obtain. This is not to suggest that there exist no areas of agreement. That would be far from the truth. For example, I believe it is generally accepted that there is often a legitimate need for confidentiality in matters involving finance, foreign relations and defence-that is to say, a willingness to accept the status quo as the criterion for exclusion in these areas. Conversely, I see agreement on a number of areas where change is needed. Perhaps I could comment on four such areas.
First, there is the government's attitude toward information. Not only must the government attempt to do a better job of explaining its actions and initiatives, but it must provide information to the public in order for it to have greater participation in the formulation of policies and programs, even if this information contradicts or conflicts with the government's approach. The onus is on the government to prove the sincerity of its commitment, as expressed in the first recommendation of the task force on
February 12, 1976

information. In its report to the government on August 29, 1969, it recommended:
The right of Canadians to full, objective and timely information and the obligation of the state to provide that such information about its programs and policies be publicly declared and stand as the foundation for the development of new government policies in this field-
Second, an area in which I think it was generally agreed changes are needed has to do with stating reasons for not providing requested information; that is to say, this kind of reply, "The information cannot be made available because it cannot be made available and is not available" is totally unacceptable. Members of parliament and the public must be given satisfactory explanations as to why their requests for information have been denied. Perhaps this is even more important in dealing with the public, for in a few cases which came before the joint committee the individuals concerned must have been left completely dazzled and frustrated with the kind of "No you can't have it because you can't have it" reply which was given. I believe there is a lot of room and need for improvement on this point.
Third, an area of change where I feel there is a certain degree of unanimity concerns how long information should be considered confidential. Obviously, the 30-year-old rule is too all-encompassing in many instances. Uften after the government decides on its course of action, reports and studies the government used as a basis for action could be made available to the public. The Pickering situation is, I feel, one such instance.
The fourth area in which I feel most will agree change is required is in what I would call the functional area of providing information. By this I mean information personnel, their training and attitude, the distribution of information and its selectivity. I believe we have to start trying different approaches and techniques in the whole field of information. We must experiment with some of the suggestions and ideas which have been put forward. I am not calling for radical or drastic changes but, rather, for gradual changes which will permit us to observe how some of these ideas are working in practice. While I cannot claim to have a great many years of experience as a member of parliament-perhaps this would rule me out as a possible contender for the Tory leadership-


Mr. Peters:: That is about the only reason.


William Kenneth Robinson: -nevertheless, I have noticed, as I am sure most members have, a tremendous increase over the past few years in the amount of correspondence from constituents. I feel this is due to two things: first, an increasing desire to participate in, or at least play a larger role or have more influence in the formulation of policy; second, the increased number of services and programs coming from the government which directly affect individuals. In both these cases, information plays a vital role. Without information, or the proper kind of information, my constituents are at a serious disadvantage in influencing policy, participating in programs and taking advantage of services which are offered.
Constituency offices having been established in our constituencies during the past couple of years and we now have what I consider an ideal vehicle for distributing information directly to the public. The potential of the constituency office in this information role has been badly

Statutory Instruments
neglected up to now, I feel. Information Canada having been phased out, I feel there is an even greater need to utilize the information service potential of the constituency office.
I hope that all hon. members will be able to support the motion presented today. Specifically, I hope that the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments will be authorized to examine the subject matter of Bill C-225 introduced by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who has over the years demonstrated both his concern for and knowledge of the right of the public to information concerning public business. Second, I hope that the joint committee's terms of reference will be expanded to include consideration of other laws relating to freedom of information and the protection of privacy. I hope, third, that the committee will examine the question of automatic data processing and its effects on the privacy of people.
In conclusion, if this House should decide to give the committee the authorization requested, I feel the second session of the thirtieth parliament will produce legislation which will enable real progress to be made in the fields of freedom of information and the protection of privacy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will there ever be a second session?


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate. I feel that possibly, in view of the fact there has been evidence from both sides that there is no dissent from this resolution, I should not try to promote the cause and thereby raise issues which might cause someone to vote against it. Since there is such uniformity of thought I want to lend my support to the report and to the recommendations made in it, and to pay my tribute to my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who has, over a long period of time, supported the concept of freedom of information. The hon. member indicates that the publicity may be coming to him late rather than early, in his career, but I pay him this tribute now in the hope that if we keep praising him now he may be persuaded at the last minute to let his name stand for leadership at the convention when it comes up next week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Having been elected at the last general election I mentioned this in debate earlier this week when it was first indicated I was going to be placed on the committee I thought it was a form of punishment. I have some knowledge of regulations through the practice of law and the statutory instruments one comes across in the day to day activities of a law office, and I thought this was something the party whip or the people in charge of assigning duties had chosen to demonstrate to me, so I would not get too big for my breeches "We are going to put you in a small room looking over these regulations and considering them."
To a certain degree the fact is I have suffered with my
colleagues on that committee looking over mounds and
mounds of regulations. As one wag put it, one finds out
2 11 30- 68V2

February 12, 1976
Statutory Instruments
more about regulations than one would ever care to know. It has been, in fact, a rewarding and challenging experience, certainly in respect of the discussions covering the freedom of information bill which has been brought forward by the hon. member for Peace River, and with respect to the reference to the committee of the guidelines for the production of papers presented by the former President of the Privy Council. I want to deal with both those elements of the report, that is to say, the guidelines for the production of papers and also the freedom of information act, because they seem to me to be logical steps in the direction in which we are moving in this debate.
I would say at the outset that I support wholeheartedly, as all hon. members have indicated up to this point, the concept of some type of legislation which in fact would mean there would be some freedom of information not only to members of parliament but also to the average citizen. The hon. member for Peace River in his remarks mentioned the fact there had been much discussion recently of economic matters in the House of Commons, and certainly we have been wrapped up in economic issues. It seems to me that in Canada we are moving, as in the case among other democracies, toward greater centralization of power in the hands of the executive branch. Coupled with this trend has been a growing reluctance on the part of all bureaucratic institutions to divulge any information throwing light on the reasoning involved in their decision-making.
I should like to quote from the Administrative Law Review of 1968, a paragraph citing the Attorney-General's memorandum on public information:
If government is to be truly of, by and for the people, the people must know in detail the activities of government. Nothing so diminishes democracy as secrecy. Self-government, the maximum participation of the citizenry in affairs of state, is meaningful only with an informed public. How can we govern ourselves if we do not know how we govern?
In view of the growth of government and the fact that we are getting to be a complicated society today, the right of people to obtain information about the actions of their government must be secured especially in the light of reversing the tendency to isolate power in the hands of an executive body. The idea of government possessing a cloak of secrecy must be taken away and we must have, in effect, as has been pointed out in other jurisdictions, a sunshine law which will allow people the fullest information as to the activities of the government and the bureaucracies supporting that government.
It seems to me there has developed in our own country, unfortunately, a spill-over of developments south of the border, in essence a distrust of government, so it is essential that we in this parliament deal seriously with the recommendations made in the report with respect to legislation on the freedom of information. I have indicated there are two aspects to the consideration the committee has made over the past year and a half or two years.
The first part of our consideration in the committee was with respect to the guidelines brought down by the President of the Privy Council affecting the production of government papers in parliament. My observation since since I have been in parliament has been that the pragmatic rule with respect to the production of papers is that the government can refuse to produce any document it deems

appropriate. This is particularly evident in times of majority government where there is a degree of support, where there is majority support, for the government's decision with respect to the production of particular papers. So when we look at the guidelines which have been brought down and presented to us setting out the rules the government says it will follow with respect to the production of papers, one is inclined to be encouraged but one must express a caveat with respect to the optimistic view taken by the government in bringing forward these guidelines. This is because of the fact that the interpretation is left in the hands of the government.
In other words, one of the serious shortcomings of these guidelines is that there is no provision for an independent assessment as to whether or not the refusal of the government to bring forward legislation in any instance is justifiable. I maintain the whole climate of the obligation of the government has been affected by the so-called Watergate situation south of the border and the question arises here, as it arose down in the United States, whether refusal on the part of the government to publish certain information is in fact based upon the national security, or whatever, or whether the decision to refuse information has, rather, been taken in the government's own interest. So it seems to me one of the serious shortcomings of the guidelines brought down for our consideration is that decisions in the final analysis are reserved to the government. In other words, parliament is at the behest of a majority government in regard to that particular decision and does not determine its own course either in actual fact or in practical terms.
The suggestion was made, which I fully support, that if we are to have these guidelines, at least in the initial stage some provision should be made for an independent tribunal to assess whether or not there is justification for the government to refuse disclosure. I suggest that some official could be appointed similar to the Auditor General who, as we know, in connection with reviewing the books of government has been given under statute some fairly broad powers, and hopefully will be given broader powers in future legislation.
The fact of the matter is that if we had someone similar to that official dealing with requests, who was sworn to secrecy, to assess the individual request and the response given by the government, and make a decision based on representations made by the cabinet minister in question, this would ensure that, in part at least, an independent review of the request and of the reasons given by government for refusing to disclose the information to parliament would be made.
Moving on to the matter of a freedom of information act, the foregoing would all be somewhat academic if in fact we do bring forward a realistic and reasonable piece of legislation concerning freedom of information not only for parliamentarians but for the citizenry at large. In this connection I think that the terms of the bill put forward by the hon. member for Peace River provide for an independent assessment of whether or not information should be given out to the general public. I think his bill provides for reference of the matter to a court. I do not think it makes much difference whether there is a refer-
February 12, 1976

ence to a court or to an administrative tribunal so long as there is an independent review that enables people to know that they are receiving fair and reasonable treatment with respect to any request for information.
As a member of the opposition it seems to me that I am at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to obtaining information. I have always felt that members on the government side may have some advantage. I suppose there should be some "perks" in supporting the government or in being part of the government, but it is my observation that members on the government side often have better access to the resources of the bureaucracy. Certainly in the case of members of the cabinet and the executive, they have full access to the resources of the public service in research and investigation for the determination of government policy.
It has been estimated that something in the vicinity of $1 billion at least is spent by the federal government on research programs, which is more than the budget of some provinces. This kind of expertise is working for the government in the determination of policy. Much of this research that has taken place is of a technical or factual nature and I think should be available to the general public to assist the general public in the formulation of decisions respecting general policy. If we are to have, as some politician has said, participatory democracy in this country, the benefit of this technical and factual information that is received by the government should be made available to the electorate as well.
I think the public should also have the fullest knowledge of government expenditure and that of its agencies. There are instances that all of us can bring to mind of failure to obtain, on request through the order paper or through requesting documents, this kind of information. One instance that occurs to me is that when I first arrived here I received information that the CBC had spent a quite incredible amount of money on the development of their new logo. This is an example of the kind of information that is withheld from members of parliament, let alone the public. There was no question of policy of the CBC involved; I was simply asking for financial information that I felt it was important to know, requiring some inquiry which would ascertain whether or not there had been reasonable expenditure in regard to part of the CBC's operation.
The answer I received from the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) was simply that this was not the type of information that it is customary for the CBC to disclose. That struck me as being an incredible answer to what I thought was a rather straightforward question asking for information of a factual nature from the government or a government agency. I think that if I were a shareholder of the CTV, for example, and I wanted to know how much they had spent on developing a logo for that network, it would be a matter of a very few minutes before the accountant or auditor would have the information for me. So at a very early time in my experience as a member of parliament it was indicated to me that the government and its agencies were actually reluctant to give what I thought was rather straightforward information respecting government expenditure. I bring that example to the attention of the House to show the way in which government agencies tend to be secretive about their expenditure and about
Statutory Instruments
information that, I think, rightfully belongs in the public domain.
Let me give another example. Recently there was some communication with the Department of Transport covering an alleged defect in steering wheels in 1969 Chevrolets. On behalf of a constituent I wrote to the Department of Transport's motor vehicles safety branch and asked them to provide me with some information respecting investigations that had taken place into these defective steering wheels. I was not able to obtain that information. When a man drives along in his automobile and then finds that the steering wheel comes off in his hand, detaching itself from the steering column, then he should be entitled to some information about what the government's investigation had determined in regard to that defect in that particular model, and also that information should be made available generally so that some warning can be given to other people driving that particular model.
I see my time is coming to an end, Mr. Speaker, but during the last few minutes I want to refer to the fact that we as a committee have made an investigation of the freedom of information act in the United States. I think our American neighbours are often much maligned by us in Canada. When one reads the newspapers, listens to the radio or watches television one almost gets the impression that everything that happens in the United States is negative. I think we tend to forget that there are many areas in the United States where there has been progressive legislation and where the Americans have been leaders. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) alluded to this when he said he felt that the freedom of information act in the United States was one example of where the Americans are ahead of us in Canada in regard to obtaining information from government.
I want to say in very general terms that the visit that the committee made to the United States certainly satisfied me that enactment by us of freedom of information legislation would be a worth-while process. I grant you that there are problems in respect of this kind of legislation. There is the question of the increased work load on civil servants to comply with requests. There are questions as to whether the exemption category should be a broad or narrow one. There are questions of abuses that may arise in respect of seeking and obtaining information, and there is the question of cost.
The conclusion I came to is that among the people involved in the public service in the United States, with legislations and with those involved in the seeking and obtaining of information, there was unanimity that this was a worth-while bill, notwithstanding some of the problems which arise by virtue of the legislation. I see you moving toward the edge of your seat, Mr. Speaker, so I will conclude by saying I think this is something in respect of which we in Canada might do well to emulate the United States. I hope hon. members will support the report and the freedom of information legislation.
Vacancy



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
February 12, 1976

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) I wonder if I might just take a moment to inform the House that I have received a communication informing me that a vacancy has occurred, as follows:
The Honourable James Jerome, M.P.,
Speaker,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am writing to you as the member of parliament for the electoral district of Ottawa-Carleton. I hereby resign my seat in the House of Commons, effective immediately.
I have enjoyed every moment in parliament. I shall miss the companionship of the House and the honour of sitting amongst the most distinguished assembly in the country. The give and take of debate was one of the most stimulating experiences of my life as each of us strove to serve the best interests of our country in a meaningful way.
On a personal note, may I thank you for all the courtesies you have shown me. To Mr. Fraser, the Clerk of the House, and all the people who make parliament such a congenial place, I say-a heartfelt thank you.
That is signed by the Hon. John N. Turner and dated Thursday, February 12, 1976. It is witnessed in the proper form by two persons who are members of the staff in Mr. Turner's office.
Accordingly, on verifying the form and content of that letter of resignation, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McCleave:
That the Seventh Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Tuesday, December 16, 1975, be concurred in, and that the committee be authorized to examine the matters referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the said report during the balance of this session.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know whether the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) wants to begin now, or is agreed that we call it six o'clock?


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock?
|Mr. Hnatyshyn.]


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, it being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
William Arnold Peters: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate in which there is so much unanimity among members of the House. I anticipate that the motion by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) will be accepted. I enjoyed the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) in this regard, as well as the remarks of some of the government members who have participated in the debate.
Today is an excellent day for this motion to be brought forth. Earlier today during the question period the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) indicated he could not give the House certain information which obviously should be available to the general public. He said this information could not be made available because it would be detrimental to a government operation.
I think the general public and most members of parliament would be very opposed to the situation if they were given the information concerning the CANDU reactors we are now selling under various methods to countries which perhaps should not have them. Today the minister used the same old argument that this information cannot be divulged because we are dealing in an international market with a commodity that is highly competitive, and if we were to indicate what terms were advanced to some of the countries with which we are dealing this would hurt our position. What a lot of clap-trap!
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is a government agency which deals with other governments. It is not some private corporation. It operates through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The deal in question undoubtedly was financed by the government. It was probably financed without interest. More than that it was financed through the supply of uranium, which itself is in short supply in this country. How short the supply if we do not know because the information has not been released to the public.
It seems to me this is something which should be kept in mind by some of the members on the government side who have said they are in favour of this motion, which really is seeking to make information available to the members of parliament, the press, and the public in general. I am sure many of us think this situation is very marginal in respect of whether or not it should.be morally supported, because we are selling the CANDU reactors to countries like South Korea which is in a precarious circumstance to say the least, economically and politically, and to Argentina where there are considerable difficulties and where, if the executions continue, probably there will be no members of the present government alive in a matter of a few months.
When we sell CANDU reactors our government says we
should allow it exclusively to indicate under what terms
February 12, 1976

they are sold. I do not think there is a country in the world that sells atomic reactors to any other country in a deal that is made between one government and another which does not make the information readily available.
I am sure there are members on the government side who say that they believe in the right to privacy of the individual, and who believe that the dissemination of information by government agencies is highly desirable and even necessary in a democracy. But over the years the government has acted in quite the opposite way. With reference to the Nuremberg trials that took place in Germany, the German public in my opinion was largely responsible for the development in that country of totalitarianism, Nazism, and the abuses of fascism, by curtailing information given to the general public to such an extent that many of those who were on trial in Nuremberg were able to say that they did not know what was going on, and that they were not given information to allow them to make objections if they had wished to make them. I think this is an extreme example of the result of withholding information from the citizens of a country which would allow them, either through the due process of elections or through the establishment of some type of opposition, to put forth their views if they are aware of the facts.
Government members always say that to divulge this information would be detrimental to security and to the safety of the nation. They say it would be detrimental to our international trade. Why then is it not possible for the government, if it had the wish or the ability to divulge such very simple information as an indication of what our gas reserves are, to make this information public?
I am shocked when I find the general public saying that it does not matter if we have big cars or if we waste gas, or if we put on pollution controls which are not effective but which use up more gas, or if we do not insulate our houses sufficiently or turn down the heat, or if we do not conserve our industry resources, simply because they do not believe there is really a shortage of fossil fuel. They do not believe it because the government has never told the people what our reserves are. I do not believe that the civil service is so incompetent that it does not know what our reserves are. I am also of the opinion that the authorities are not so incompetent that they do not know that the oil companies are playing a game with them.
I am sure there are people on the National Energy Board who have a pretty good ballpark figure as to what our resources are. Yet we heard the gas and oil companies saying that our reserves were sufficient to last us for 100 years, but very shortly afterwards a crisis erupted, and then we were told that we have reserves only to last us for the next eight years. In fact our resources may be sufficient to last us for 20 years, but the government has never been able to tell that to the Canadian public.
Yes, I am sure there are people on the National Energy Board and in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources who have a pretty good idea of what our resources are. The government does not tell us what they are because it wants the industry to have an advantage both when there is a shortage and when there is a surplus.
Statutory Instruments
So who is beaten? There are members of the House saying that they are not able to sell oil reserves in their areas and that this is causing lay-offs, and there other people who find that a resource is becoming very scarce in some other areas. All this is to the advantage of the oil industry. Either the government is totally dominated by the industry and by its friends in the establishment or it is totally incompetent.
An incompetent civil servant can put a stamp on a letter or a report saying "confidential", "for eye scrutiny only", and stating that the document must not be taken out of the room. If it is such a bad report the wisest thing may be not to let it out of the room so that nobody will read it, otherwise there will be all kinds of incompetent people making incompetent reports with other people analyzing them at great cost to the country. But if people can look at these reports, they can also make the decisions necessary.
One of the problems we have had in this country is that there have been incompetent people who have got into the habit of stamping every piece of paper confidential. Once these reports can be examined and assessed by the press, by members of parliament, and by the general public, the public will be able to reach a pretty good decision on their worth and can interpret their content.
There are many areas in which there is lack of information, and many reports are written which the government does not release because it says the information should not be divulged because that would not be in the interest of the department concerned. It says this about unemployment insurance, about manpower, and about reports from various other departments of which I have some knowledge.
When I telephone senior officials in these departments any day of any week, I find that they are holding a conference. I telephone the chairman, the deputy chairman, the heads of the departments, but they are all at the same damn meeting, all preparing confidential reports which only they can read, and they spend half their time at meetings discussing matters which they consider to be confidential. These reports might enable me to reach an opinion on the subject, but I am not allowed to see them.
The Liberal party has a new gimmick now which really delays everything. They say that a document cannot be released. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) has this down pat. He says he cannot release any report now until it is prepared in two languages. So if a report cannot be held up for any other reason, one can say it will not be released for two months because of translation. There are all kinds of ways in which information can be kept from the public, but it seems to me that it does not make for a very informed public if these documents are not being released.
There is another factor to be considered. The press in this nation is often highly excited every time one of the cabinet ministers or one of his senior officials leaks a document. That makes it believe that this is an immensely important document, and as a result it is given more publicity than is warranted. If the government wants a document released as a kite, it always leaks it to the media, and the media give it all kinds of precedence which they would not give it otherwise.

February 12, 1976
Statutory Instruments
Not long ago I attended a meeting in Sudbury where the Canadian Transport Commission was holding a hearing, only to find that the day before the hearing took place a report was issued by a senior member of the Department of Transport in Ottawa under the direction of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). That report said that Nordair, which was making an application to land at Sudbury, would not be allowed to land at the airport because the runways would not carry 737's. It was already carrying DC-9's, and DC-9's only weigh about 1,000 pounds less than a 737's, so that they are almost the same size.
It is interesting to note that the district office where the reports and measurements are made, and from where all the information comes, made a report not long before that saying that, if necessary, the largest planes flying in Canada at that time, 747's, could be handled. It was interesting because the manager of the airport, who was not an employee of the Department of Transport but an employee of the city of Sudbury, telephoned the district director in Toronto and asked him what was the state of the runways. He was given a report that they were better than they had been, in excellent condition, able to handle any loadings in the foreseeable future, there was no difficulty for landings, and the underbase was sufficient to carry anything which would be landing.
The airport manager went back and told the hearing about this. Where does that leave the commissioner, who is a former member of this House? He was sitting there with a report saying that no matter what was done with relation to that application, the airport was not going to be certified to handle that type of plane, and whether there was a hearing or not, there was not going to be a licence granted to land at that airport.
I am sure that report was confidential. I am sure if it existed at all it was highly confidential, and for no one else's eyes except a senior official and the minister. This is one of the very great abuses taking place in a particular field.
There have been advances made in the Statutory Instruments Committee. I think it made some excellent recommendations. The people who attend that committee are to be congratulated for the work they have done. They are not out to destroy our form of government, this government, or the operation of our civil service, but they are out to see that the Canadian public is given all the information possible, and I think they should be supported and given a new mandate to continue their discussion.
In all sincerity I ask the government to give very serious consideration before using the lame excuse, every time, that information would be detrimental to Canada if it were released. If each minister looking at information provided by his officials would consider whether he agreed that it should be confidential, he might be able to release much of this information and make members of parliament, members of the press gallery, and the citizens of Canada much better informed. That would considerably strengthen the parliamentary process and democracy in Canada.


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Speaker, this is the first time since the provisional

revision of the Standing Orders regarding the business of supply that advantage has been taken of the device permitting hon. members in the opposition to make use of allotted days to propose motions which must come to a vote but which, if accepted by the House, do not constitute, by definition, a vote of no confidence in the government.
When the rules were altered in 1968 it was provided that opposition motions which were required to come to a vote were, by definition, no confidence motions. Before that time opposition motions on supply had often been affirmative in their wording and at least three times in the previous 20 years such motions have been adopted. At least in part because of the present provisional Standing Orders I am happy to inform hon. members that the government finds the motion today wholly acceptable and commends it to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: For the first time since 1963 a government has been able to accept an opposition member's motion on supply, and not a little credit must go to my friend, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). He has been a firm advocate of a less restricted approach to government information, and yet by avoiding a strident or partisan approach he has been able to bring the matter closer and closer to a positive resolution.
Perhaps I may be permitted a slight digression by observing that the hon. member has applied this honest, constructive, but hardly uncritical or unduly compliant, approach to his role as opposition House leader as well, and I am sure that our fellow House leaders, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin), would agree that this approach has proved invaluable, not only in the daily management of the business of the House but also in making progress toward procedural reform.
I do hope the hon. member will stay long enough so that we can continue to make even greater progress in procedural reform, and I know he links the subject of our discussion tonight with that other matter, and I have some sympathy with him in this respect. I think the two matters do have a relationship.
The Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments has been seized of the question now before us, or matters bearing on it, for almost three years. It has been in the last 13 or 14 months that the greatest progress has been made. It is interesting that nobody's approach, either on the side of the opposition parties or on the government side, has become static. This reflects the constructive manner in which the joint chairmen have conducted the proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I should like to pay tribute to the chairman from the House side, under whom I have given testimony, and who certainly has conducted the proceedings in a very non-partisan and constructive way. If I may also mention the major contribution which has been made by such other interested participants as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), he has taken a very special interest in this subject.
February 12, 1976

As the House knows, I have appeared before the committee, and therefore I will endeavour not to repeat here what already lies on the public record. As I have already indicated the government supports the motion before us, and this is in the hope that the committee can pursue its investigation to a full and comprehensive conclusion. The greatest difficulty for the committee will be in finding a suitable balance between the goal of maximizing, if I may use the word, the amount of information made available and protection of the national interest and the security of the state.
The committee must also take into account the relationship between the principle of freedom of information and the functioning of government or, if hon. members prefer, of effective administration.
In 1973 my predecessor in office, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), tabled guidelines relating to notices of motions for the production of papers. When I succeeded him I referred these guidelines to the Standing Committee of Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments for study and report, and they form one of the documents before that committee. I shall not, as I have already indicated, read those guidelines into the record again, but I should like to read the general principle upon which they are founded. The purpose of the guidelines was stated in the general principle as follows:
To enable members of parliament to secure factual information about the operations of government to carry out their parliamentary duties and to make public as much factual information as possible consistent with effective administration, the protection of the security of the state, rights to privacy and other such matters, government papers, documents and consultant reports should be produced on notice of motion for the production of papers unless falling within the categories outlined below in which case an exemption is to be claimed from production.
When I appeared before the committee I asked for comments on the various criteria to be applied in determining if government papers or documents should be exempt from production. It is fair to say, I think, that there was no substantial dissent as to the criteria proposed for this purpose by the government. There was some comment, and I invited the members of the committee to give us their frank views as to the adequacy of those criteria. Although the list proposed by the hon. member for Peace River was shorter than the bill he put forward, it covers roughly the same area of privileged information and documents.
The essential problem that concerned the committee while I was before it-and I gather which still concerns the committee-the one upon which there are and can be legitimate differences of opinion is this: how can members be sure that documents, access to which is denied, really fall within the exempt categories?
This is also the essential problem in relation to the demands of the public outside parliament for information about the activities of the government. I hope that the committee in its further studies will provide some advice and guidance on this crucial point.
There is a case for having some outside arbitrator or a court to which appeals could be made against the decision of the government not to disclose a particular document, but one should be careful not to impair the principle of
Statutory Instruments
responsibility of the government for the decisions made by ministers or officials.
In the end it is my view that it should be the government that makes the final decision as to the disclosure of documents, because under our system of responsible government it is the government that must accept responsibility for the consequences of disclosure. I have had some discussions with the hon. member for Peace River and I think we agree that this is one of the crucial points. In his bill he has proposed a system of appeals for the public seeking information. I assume this would also relate to members of parliament seeking information. It is an extremely difficult and vital point because I do not think one can transfer the responsibility to whoever is the appeal court for the consequences of the disclosure of documents that the government does not feel it is in the public interest to disclose.
It may be that even though a court takes into account all the factors of which it is cognizant, it may make a mistake and the burden of the mistake must be accepted by the government itself.
May I go to another point raised by the hon. member for Peace River? He referred earlier today to working papers prepared by civil servants. As I recall it, he said something like this: he agreed that there should be no disclosure of working papers until the government had made a decision, but that those papers of a factual nature should be released after the decision had been made. Madam Speaker, I have had the privilege of being on both sides of this issue. I have been a civil servant and I have also been a minister. I have prepared working papers and I have received them. I think I may suggest that if my hon. friend had had the same experience he probably would not have made the suggestion he did.


Gerald William Baldwin: I remained a virgin.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Professional, but still a virgin.


Mitchell William Sharp: If he is in that position he probably did not give good value for his money.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: I would use as an example a report that I signed in 1957 about the economic outlook for that particular year. I suppose it could be considered a factual report. It contained all kinds of statistics and analysis on the basis of which some forecasts were made about the economic outlook for that year. It was one of the documents which was before the government of that day when budgetary policy for the 1957 budget was under consideration.
That particular document was released in 1958 by the new government which assumed office in 1957. It became known as the "hidden report" and was used extensively in the 1958 campaign. At that time I protested the release of that report because it threatened to interfere with relations between the government and its civil service advisers. That report represented the best advice of those civil servants who prepared it. It was provided on a confidential basis for the use of the government. If the civil servants concerned had known that their report was going to be published either then or later, they would have asked their ministers what they should say for publication so as

February 12, 1976
Statutory Instruments
not to be at cross-purposes with their political masters, or they would have given the report orally and not on paper. This is an issue of great complexity and delicacy and I trust the committee will explore it in depth before tendering their advice.
Moreover after many years of experience in government as a civil servant, and more recently as a minister, I am literally appalled at the immensity of the problem of providing access to working papers or even, if I may add, of providing a list of the working papers which would seem to be called for if disclosure were to have any meaning whatever.
It would be a fatal error, in my judgment, to institute a system which compelled civil servants to rely on word of mouth in giving their advice on complex issues, or to resort to devices such as draft memoranda, a device which I gather is resorted to in jurisdictions where full disclosure is the law.
I do not think there would be any difference of view if I were to say that it is of the essence of our system of parliamentary government that ministers make the decisions and take the responsibility for those decisions. They are free to accept or reject the advice of their civil servants, who do not take the responsibility for the decisions. I ask this question: if working papers were to be disclosed at any time would it be expected or permitted for civil servants to go public and defend their advice, or would they be expected to accept the criticism without any opportunity for reply? I make this point because this seems to me to be the essence of the problem we face: either we have a system of responsible government in which ministers make decisions and take responsibility, or we do not. If we bring civil service documents into the argument it seems to me we are altering the very principles upon which we now function.
Another point which seems to cause confusion concerns the classification of information. The system now in use is designed for internal administrative purposes, not for external purposes. The philosophy under which documents are classified in the Canadian government, and I assume it is the same in other governments, is that information should be available to those in government who "need to know."
If a document is marked "secret", it means that it is for the attention of ministers or very senior officials. More junior officers in a properly organized department or agency may require some of the information in a secret document but they are unlikely to require all of it, or perhaps not in the manner in which it is presented.
"Confidential" is the term applied to information required by a wider range of officials, but not necessarily all of them.
There is another classification called "restricted", which really only means "for internal use only."
The problem, as I suggested, is that these terms used for administrative guidance are the same as words used for external purposes. They should not be confused.
In defence or foreign affairs "top secret" means that the disclosure of the information would result in exceptional-
(Mr. Sharp.]
ly grave damage to the safety of the nation; "confidential" refers to information that, if released, would be prejudicial to the interests of the nation.
The system of classification of other internal documents is not really related to whether they should be revealed publicly at all. It relates to how far they shall circulate within the circle of the civil servants, or of the ministers. When it is suggested sometimes that such and such a document has been overclassified, that argument is irrelevant as to whether it should be published. All documents prepared within the civil service are meant for circulation within the government and they are not to be published. The "secret", or "confidential" or "restricted" means that they are to circulate within a certain circle. One could sometimes think, when one hears discussions about information, that, somehow, when the government marks something as secret, it is secret from outside. It is not. All documents are secret from outside. They are intended for internal use only. The "secret" refers to how far they can circulate within the government itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What label do you put on a document that is supposed to be leaked?


Mitchell William Sharp: "Secret."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: I fully support the extension of the mandate of the Statutory Instruments Committee and urge the committee to continue in this thorough manner. As much information as possible should be made available by government. Only the most narrow definitions of national safety and stability, personal privacy, and justice and equity, should serve as restrictions on information. It is to the advantage of government to release as much information as possible. I may add this: I have been in government and connected with it, one way or another, for almost 30 years. When I compare the volume of information that was released when I entered government and the volume of information that was requested with what is done today, I can only say that there has been a vast increase. Indeed I do not think it is too much to say that we are polluted with information.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You mean you are polluting the country?


Mitchell William Sharp: It could be, but information is certainly released. Far more information is released today about government operations and about facts upon which decisions are made than was ever released in the past. For example, I can recall previous ministers of finance preparing the budget.
When I first was in government I worked in the Department of Finance. The then minister of finance presented a budget not quite as long as those which have been presented in more recent years. There were no accompanying documents, except the accounts. There was no analysis of the economic outlook, no white paper, and so on. All this has developed in recent years. This example should be multiplied many times in government.
I think citizens have become more aware of problems
and of actions that governments propose as solutions. I
welcome this. I think it is essential. Citizens, by being
February 12, 1976

made more aware of problems and the activities of government will, no doubt, endeavour more often to contribute criticisms and suggestions. That will lead not only to a more responsive government but to a more effective government as well.
In conclusion may I make a comment about comparisons with other administrations, other countries with differing institutions. Most of these comparisons-


Gerald William Baldwin: You are better than Russia, anyway.


Mitchell William Sharp: -are irrelevant to the problems we face here. We do not have the same system of government as in the United States, or as in Sweden. We do face special problems to do with the parliamentary form of government of this land.


An hon. Member:: You mean, the Liberals?


Mitchell William Sharp: In this country there are special circumstances. I might say to my hon. friend who interrupted that the same principles were followed by the previous Conservative administration as are followed today. I am sure that when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was the premier of Nova Scotia he followed much the same principles as are being followed here. Therefore I suggest that the committee, in looking at solutions, should not be guided too much by the example of other countries but should, rather, seek original solutions suitable to Canada. I say, on behalf of the government, we hope the Committee is successful. The government is anxious to provide all the information which can possibly be provided.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Speaker, may I ask the minister a question? Will the minister accept a question?


Mitchell William Sharp: Certainly.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question which the committee may find useful when it resumes its deliberations. I was going to ask him a question which I need no longer ask, namely, if he accepts all the principles in the motion, including the principle of the enactment of some type of freedom of information legislation. He and I might differ as to what is in it; I understood from his comments that he accepts the principle set out in the motion, that there should be some kind of legislation along those lines. If I am wrong the minister can correct me.
May I ask him a further question? He and I have discussed who should have the final decision, the government, or the court, on whether a document lies outside of documents which can be publicized. Without prejudice to my right to urge the committee, and later the House, to adopt the other end of the argument, namely, that the court should have the final decision, may I ask if the minister will give or has given favourable consideration to an alternative I put before him, at least for purposes of discussion, and it is this: If the government were to have the final decision as to whether a document falls within the excepted class, should not the tribunal at the very least have the right to publicize the fact that it made its decision and that the government saw fit, for its own reasons, not to comply with it?
Statutory Instruments
May I ask another question? Actually, I am asking a double-barrelled question-to give the minister a chance to consider the first part of it. I am raising the matter of working papers. I accept the view that, if a working paper contains informed opinion, it might not be necessary to make it public. But what is the position with regard to a working paper which is entirely statistical and/or factual, and does not contain opinions or recommendations? It seems to me that this is merely a matter of mechanics. It is possible for a civil servant to make a recommendation and attach it to a factual or statistical document, so that there is a plain difference between the two. Would that situation affect the hon. gentleman's approach to this issue as to what working papers, if any, could be publicized after the decision has been made?


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Speaker, the first question the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) directed to me involves one of the most crucial issues we face. I expressed the opinion in my speech that the final decision as to disclosure of documents should be made by the government, so as to retain the principle of responsibility. I agree with this.
There could be a legitimate concern on the part of those who ask questions, or ask for the production of documents-and I am not referring only to this government; I am referring to any government-there could be a legitimate concern that the government may be withholding information for other reasons, information which may not be in the exempt categories. It may be put under that category for purposes of withholding information. I ought to stress that, when I say this, I am speaking personally; I am not speaking on behalf of the government. This is a question to which we have not addressed ourselves in Cabinet.
I feel some sort of ombudsman or official might be given the responsibility of advising whether the document in question does in fact fall within a certain category. This opinion would be made public, and the government could then decide whether it wished to disclose or not. I think it would help those who are asking the questions to know whether in fact the government was justified in its attitude. If the answer from the official was, "Yes, there is information in the document which falls within the category", it would be one thing. But if he said, "There seems to be no information in the document falling within the category referred to", that would be quite another. That might be a direction in which we could move, but as I say it is a personal opinion.
On the question of the working papers I have thought a good deal about what the hon. member for Peace River has suggested and, frankly, I am skeptical. My own feeling is that what would be prepared, if that were the rule, would be documents intended for purposes of publication.
If it were known that documents which contained only factual material were the only documents which could be disclosed, a minister might well be inclined to say, "Prepare a document which contains only factual material and which can be published if necessary." I believe it is vital for good government that ministers should have access to the frank opinions of their advisers, and these will only be

February 12, 1976
Statutory Instruments
given when officials are confident that their advice will not be revealed. Otherwise an official would say, "What is it you want me to tell you, because I cannot be at odds with my political superior; if I were I would be in politics?"


Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of the motion and to offer some observations with regard to the need for legislation with respect to the principle of freedom of information.
I begin with the principle that all government documents, records, and other forms of information should be accessible to the public unless the release of such information is withheld for a good and specific reason supported by provision for a judicial review of any withholding decision made by the government.
I believe it is axiomatic that no government will willingly surrender information that might embarrass it, inconvenience it, or simply make its life more complicated. To expect otherwise would be naive. When governments demonstrate reluctance to provide public access to information they must expect grave suspicion that their motives are impure. It is also true to say that even the most ardent proponent of open government action agrees that there are situations in which official information can properly and legitimately be withheld from the public in order to protect either individual privacy or the national interest. What we are confronted with, therefore, is the need to strike a balance.
While the withholding of information can sometimes be justified, the indisputable fact remains that the people cannot govern themselves in a democracy if agencies of government withhold access to information concerning issues on which the public is expected to form a view. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, once secrecy is legitimized in any area there is a natural tendency for it to spread- secrecy provides an opportunity to conceal mistakes or misbehaviour, to permit officials to shape policy without outside consultation, to permit elected officeholders to avoid accountability for their actions.
Others have spoken, or will speak, of the rather feeble attempts of the government to satisfy demands for freedom of information. I propose to focus my remarks on the steps taken by governments in other countries, notably Sweden and the United States, to provide the citizens of those countries with ready access to government records.
The Swedish system of open information dates back to 1766, and since 1809 the Swedish government has guaranteed the citizen a right of access to government documents. At the present time the freedom of the press act spells this out. Denial of access can only be justified by reference to an omnibus secrecy law which enumerates exceptions on the basis of criteria established in the constitution. And everyone in Sweden has the right to see all official papers not made secret by the 1937 secrecy law.
The procedure for exercise of this right is very simple: the claimant simply demands the paper or file he wishes to see from the civil servant who has it. At his peril the civil servant must decide whether the document is public or whether the paper, or part of it, is secret. He must then make available what is not secret.

When an official refuses delivery, the claimant may appeal to a superior authority. If it is not proven that there is a constitutionally supported basis for denial of access to a specific document, then a custodial official is required to supply the document upon request and without cost, immediately or as soon as possible. A decision not to deliver may be appealed within the agency, to the supreme administrative court, or to the parliamentary ombudsman. The services of the ombudsman are free and he assumes the burden of moving forward once a complaint has been lodged with him.
The exemptions are very carefully and precisely contained in the secrecy act and generally cover the same sort of material as is accepted under the American system and proposed under Bill C-225. National security, defence matters, certain types of criminal investigation, exchange of documents with foreign powers, information which would breach the privacy of individual, all qualify as secret. In addition working papers with one or two exceptions are not made available until the decision in respect to which the papers have been prepared has been made.
In addition to these laws the Swedish parliament has also passed an automatic data processing law. This law makes provision for the registration of all who wish to gather material through computers; the establishment of rules under which the material is gathered and disseminated, and the establishment of an appeal board. Sweden seems to be the only country which has a specific law in this connection.
In Norway and Denmark there are laws which are much more recent in origin and which provide for a statutory right of access to certain documents, again with certain exceptions. One notable addition in the Danish system is that where, in the preparation of material for a policy decision, an oral communication is made, that oral communication should be reduced to writing and is then considered a document.
A common thread in all these countries is the attitude of the public servants. It is quite apparent that over a long period of time there has been a gradual eating away of these rights by the civil servants and the bureaucracy through actions of the government and the parliament from time to time.
Similarly, in Norway and Denmark, where preparations to proceed with legislation came much later, the civil servants made certain they would move very slowly and cautiously.
In the United States the freedom of information act, first passed in 1966 and then amended in 1974, is said to be founded on the principle that access of information to the public is necessary to determine whether the government is protecting the public interest. It recognized that access to such information is the life blood of a democracy and if it does not flow to the citizenry, democracy withers.
A second basis for the legislation is to make it possible for citizens to have access to facts that can be personally helpful to them. Regulatory agencies, for example, possess large amounts of data, such as inspection reports, consumer complaints, and product tests on a broad spectrum of goods and services, the efficacy of drugs, the nutritional
February 12, 1976

content of processed foods, corporate product and merchandising practices, the on-time performance and safety records of airlines, and so forth. The department of health, education and welfare makes inspections of federally supported nursing homes. The department of agriculture has data on pesticides and the purity and quality of meat and poultry. Housing and urban development makes FHA mortgage appraisals and monitors the practices of many large housing developers. The national highway traffic safety administration has safety and efficiency information on all makes of cars. The general services administration tests a wide variety of consumer products that are used by government agencies.
The freedom of information act in the United States provides in essence that any person has the right of access to, and can receive copies of, any document, file or other record in the possession of any federal agency or department subject to nine specific exemptions. Government employees face the possibility of sanctions if they arbitrarily or capriciously withhold information. In addition the act permits agencies to disclose records, even though they fall within an exemption, when there is no compelling public interest for withholding.
I am grateful for the opportunity recently afforded me as a member of the Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments to spend some time in Washington where meetings were held with various government departments and agencies deeply involved in the implementation process of the freedom of information act. The American experience has identified problems and pitfalls which we would do well to avoid. However, even in the short term in which the legislation as amended has been in effect, it has had a salutary effect on bureaucratic practices and abuses previously in existence.
As a result of the freedom of information act there is a fast growing tendency in the United States on the part of the bureaucracy to declassify documents at the time of their genesis, and thus in effect get rid of the documents by consigning them to the archives where they are totally accessible to the public, in the process relieving themselves of future problems in connection with people seeking access to such documents. In one case they point to an example of a body of documents containing some 45,000 pages, all of which had originally been classified as confidential. On re-examination, however, in the face of requests for access, it was found possible almost overnight to declassify 35,000 of the 45,000 pages. That is to say, 78 per cent of what had been considered in the first instance to be confidential was found upon reconsideration not to be confidential at all and was therefore declassified. Ultimately we were told that well over 90 per cent of this particular body of information was declassified.
This demonstrates, I suggest, the tendency of the bureaucracy to treat as confidential a vast body of material that is not really confidential at all and ought to be accessible to the citizens of the country. Let us not forget that it is the taxpayers who support the bureaucracy and for whose benefit the bureaucracy exists.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like simply to reemphasize the need for access to information legislation. As was said by the Attorney General of the United States in 1968:
Statutory Instruments
If government is to be truly of, by and for the people, the people must know in detail the activities of government. Nothing so diminishes democracy as secrecy. Self-government, the maximum participation of the citizenry in affairs of state, is meaningful only with an informed public. How can we govern ourselves if we do not how how we govern?
Now in 1976, when government affects each individual in so many ways, it is more important than ever that the right of the people to know the actions of their governments be secure. As government secrecy grows with the size of its operations, so does public mistrust of that government. Mistrust of government by the Canadian people is seemingly at a high point and it is most important that this trend be reversed. As the situation now stands, there is nothing that guarantees members of parliament access to the information which is needed for us to carry out our responsibilities.
I would like to quote from an article written by Harrison Wellford entitled "Rights of people-the Freedom of Information Act". He wrote:
In a democratic government, information-Especially timely information is the currency of power. The relationship between free access to information and responsible government is direct. Excessive secrecy blocks the citizen's ability to hold officials accountable.
Government must be aware in its decision-making that it is accountable to the people. It is my belief that Bill C-225 would go some distance toward impressing this fact upon cabinet ministers and civil servants alike, and thus improve the quality of our Canadian democracy.


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, about the same time last year, the House discussed and rejected an opposition motion which accused the government of being too secretive. This phrase impressed me from the very first time I was elected because it is one of the usual charges made in the House against the government side, and echoed by political commentators.
Therefore I wondered to what extent this accusation was justified particularly because the public at large and the people who elect us generally, whatever our political affiliation may be, mostly express their frustrations in regard to government departments and agencies by saying that they cannot cut through the red tape, that they get lost in the bureaucratic maze. Government officials are not interested in their problems and concerns. People say: They don't care, and never will: They are too secretive. It remains that-and the previous speaker just said so-we come up against so many barriers when we look for some very basic information, often to answer requests by those same constituents, that I got to accept openly the idea that many data kept under secrecy should be publicized, either at the very time when they mean something to the citizens and their elected members, or directly 20, 30, or 70 years later, according to the regulations of the Canadian Archives.
In this regard, I appreciated the declaration of the member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) who emphasized the continuous process of informing the citizens, as opposed to releasing information during election peaks. In other words, I can summarize this first comment by saying that this information will have a certain value at a certain time, that is when it comes off the press, not six months, three or five years after a parliamentary crisis or election

February 12, 1976
Statutory Instruments
promises. In my opinion, this is not a way to manage the circulation of information.
In a way, this is the conclusion of the seventh report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments on which the House is probably unanimous today. This positive work atmosphere is thus much different from that of February 20, 1975, when, if I remember well, an agency was accused of refusing to release a staff study report. Then, we must admit, we were playing politics and everything was based on the political concept as well as the adversary system derived from the legal milieu.
Before going further, I hope I will be allowed to say clearly what many members thought after some recent elections about this adversary system in politics. Evidently it comes from the newly elected members who are not used to the legal milieu and have no legal training. This political concept applied to the distribution of government information would rather restrict as much as possible the information which could be used by members of the opposition.
While I understand the political aspect of information accessibility, I am often embarrassed, if I may say so, by the scarcity of the information made public-I do not dare add, by the minister. And I speak as a government member. Is it due to a lack of experience? I am sure the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would spontaneously say so, or is it perhaps a new sensitivity to the concept of politics or to forces ratio that exist in the House of Commons, since it now comprises new players- the media. I think that only the future will tell.
About this political dimension of withholding information as much as possible from the "adversary", although not a member of the committee I read the most interesting evidence given by Professor Maxwell Cohen at the November 25 meeting of the Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. He does not hide the problem, he says non-equivocally:
When one thinks of power, then, one should think of it as a kind of centrepiece for the whole political process. And secrecy is within the centre of power itself. It seems to me that no political system operates without some degree of confidentiality.

It is clear, honest and realistic. But on the degree of information that should be standard, I continue to think that, generally, the government could give a lot more and still remain in office.
After the technical and specific statement made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), I cannot and I dare not get into the details of the titles of documents to be held confidential or to be released, but I would like to present tonight the view of an ordinary member of Parliament speaking on behalf of his constituents and anxious to support the principle of free circulation of information. Personally, I cannot understand why cabinet has not yet reversed the present rule that any document, and often any information, be regarded as confidential until further notice. It seems to me that on the contrary any document should be considered as public property,

unless a decision to the contrary has been made, and the burden of proof, if I may use that phrase, lies or should then lie on the cabinet or the minister responsible. But I understand, in this regard, the distinction established by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) about the decisions made in court. I think that the only acceptable reasons should generally be related to a code on national security, the success of industrial, commercial or other negotiations and the respect of the individual, to a code pertaining to the standards of privacy in Canada, for Canadians of course.
Until now, I have spoken without making any distinction between the government and the bureaucracy. I may have done so spontaneously, for I have yet to decide, having been on both side of the fence myself, which of the players mentioned are most guilty of withholding information the public and their elected representatives are entitled to. Who is the most guilty? The minister who does not publish a document, or the deputy minister who failed to advise him even of its existence, or again the civil servant who hid the report received from an expert- department or hired by contract-because the quality of the report would not be acceptable if the taxpayers were ever to suspect that some of the texts we have to accept are paid for with their money. I may sound as if I am joking, but I certainly am not. On the first day of my first session here, one thing struck me to which no one dares refer in public but to which we are all, I believe, subject to various degrees: fear.
All political men, and nearly all civil servants, and particularly senior officials, are afraid. If I had some books by Bernanos here, I am sure he could express better than me this dimension of human nature, which we are able to live, which I do not deny and which I should not want to deal with lightly in this House. Thus it is very realistic to ask that everyone, both hon. members and civil servants, work in a general atmosphere where there is an element of unknown and of stress associated with partisanship, which results in fear and paralyzes many private initiatives.
The proposal before us tonight asks us to approve in principle a piece of legislation concerning wider circulation of information. I am not sure that a piece of legislation will help people better understand what should be made public, or that it will not force these people to protect themselves against possible prosecution, by writing reports for publication or establishing an even more complex system of various communications which could not be published and which would be in fact the real reports. I must say I am worried by this question. A piece of legislation will try to define the criteria for the documents which should be made public. I do not think we can oppose this although I made some reservation on this.
But I do not understand why an effort is not made, well before a legislation is ready, to change by positive guidelines or urgings the atmosphere, the climate that prevails in many government offices. And, of course, this is something for each minister to do because the word is good only if it comes from the boss.
To give a concrete example, all my colleagues who worked for months on a special committee on immigration will know what I am talking about when I recall the hours of energy and efforts wasted trying to unravel the proce-
February 12, 1976

dures and practices followed by officers in the selection of new immigrants. The object of the crime, so to speak, happened to be a miserable manual nearly unreadable to a layman, published every three months, I think, and giving the rating of trades and professions according to their demand in Canada by area. In fact, that material is so confidential that when I wanted to find it in my own office to quote it in exact terms I never found it.
Hundreds of federal employees have been working with that manual in Canada and elsewhere for probably two years, a manual which, incidentally, and I emphasize this, is a key document for anyone wanting to do a good job according to the regulations on immigration.
It is really impossible for me to accept, and I am not the only one who thinks so, that parliamentarians who ask for it and need it for their work do not receive a copy as soon as it comes off the press. Personally I go even further. I do not understand why landed immigrants who sponsor a new applicant, or applicants themselves, are not explained the rules of the game and what their trade corresponds to in terms of the needs of this country. Abuse? The trickery of the system? That is a joke! My working experience with the public in the public service before my election tells me that the percentage of smart guys who would fool the system and lie, for example, about their occupation would be very low, everything considered, and second would be easy to check out.
Anyway, I assume that generally people are rather honest on our side and among the public. That frame of mind, that compulsion to withhold everything rather than release information is an insult to the intelligence of the people and members of parliament.
Here is another example just as commonplace. I cannot begin to understand why certain of our constituents have to take the time to write to us, asking that we get in touch with officials in some departments in order to find out why they were not hired for such or such a job awarded under a public service competition. I cannot see why we should be sent from one official to another, why everybody should lose expensive time, when it would be a simple thing to send a circular letter that would not flatly indicate: "Sir or Madam, you are not accepted". A blank space could be provided for various statements such as: "You have been awarded rank 464 of 5,000 candidates, unfortunately 100 only were hired." People would get a more concrete view, and very few would pursue the matter any further. After all, this is their most basic right.
Mr. Speaker, I would conclude with a renewed suggestion. Since I was first elected to this House three and a half years ago, I have heard it suggested by members from all sides that we should have freedom of information, as the point has been made in a rather moving way by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).
I believe that we would have to be masochists to say that we do not have enough information. Our desks are full of all kinds of papers that are given to us at any moment of the day or evening. However, I prefer the subtle interpretation given by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) who spoke of a continuous process, to which I would add the time dimension of information. Information is a living thing, and is valid, if I may say so, only as soon it is printed.
Statutory Instruments
Some very factual and statistical documents must of course be used afterwards for a very long time, but the information is much more valuable when it is new. I will close with my hobbyhorse, which expresses in a way the fear of many politicians, men and women, and which, in passing, could be the symbol of the freedom of information, that is the wish that all our debates be televised for the public as soon as possible.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that most of the time spent in this Chamber by members in discussion, in debate and so on, is spent on issues of the day, bills, and problems which come up that are important in terms of the circumstances of the day, or a problem which exists today.
Seldom and too infrequently do we have the opportunity to discuss a subject which perhaps does not affect us immediately and does not have an immediate effect on our constituents or the country, but yet which over the long haul may have a profound effect. Today we have that opportunity in discussing the report of the Committee on Regulations and Statutory Instruments by means of the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), which deals with freedom of information. As I have indicated, this is not of immediate importance to the people of Calgary Centre, Peace River, or any other constituency, in the sense that it will affect the way they live tomorrow, next week or next month. However, in terms of Canada and the type of government and society we will have in the future it is of vital importance.
It has been acknowledged by many people that to a great degree knowledge is power. There is, therefore, a very natural tendency on the part of the government to hoard knowledge in order to retain power. The hon. member who preceded me, the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Miss Begin) said, and I think I am quoting her accurately, that the government could give more information than it is giving, and still remain in power. I agree with that statement. Yet that is symbolic of this concept that knowledge is power. There is in that statement a sort of recognition that the giving out of knowledge may in some way result in a weakening of the holding of power. Of course it is that fact which causes the civil service, the government and the cabinet to want to retain as much knowledge as possible and to be reluctant to give out knowledge.
On occasions such as today, when we have the opportunity to debate this subject, it is important to remind ourselves that this is a democracy and that it should be the people of Canada who should have this power. In a survey of the world situation it would appear that democracies as we have known them are diminishing in number. Whether or not they are being threatened may be a subject of debate. However, the people of Canada and the people who live in countries which are fortunate enough to be democracies are firmly convinced this is the best system. Nonetheless it is threatened.
Democracies can be retained in a serious way only if we retain in a serious way the fundamental concept that it is the people in democracies who have power. If they are to

February 12, 1976
Statutory Instruments
have real power they must have knowledge. They must have access to all the knowledge that is accessible. Certainly if any meaning is to be given to the phrase "participatory democracy" it quite clearly is participation by people who are knowledgeable and therefore people who have access to all the knowledge available.
Let me make the observation that the debate today on all sides has been on a very high level, and indeed if the government reflected in its policy in regard to the dissemination of information the opinions expressed by members who spoke today, I suggest there would be no reason for this debate and no reason for the motion of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, which was based on the work conducted for many years by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I do not mean to imply that the hon. member for Peace River is getting old. We should all be so young!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are all
getting younger.


Harvie Andre: I hesitate to throw a partisan note into this very high level debate, but the attitude expressed by government members today is not reflected in the wooli-ness with which they have been dispensing information under their control. That is why this debate is necessary, and so is action on a freedom of information act. If the government were more free with information than it has been and than it is, such an act would be an aid for it, particularly now when the government is endeavouring to introduce a restraint program on the growth of public spending.
It is interesting that in the 1975 review by the C. D. Howe Research Institute, a study which dealt in large measure with inflation and the extent to which government spending contributes to inflation, a document which dealt in an even handed manner with this problem, there is a recognition that one of the major contributors to inflation is government spending. The study also acknowledged that there are tremendous pressures on the government to spend more on health, regional problems, transportation, etc. The document also pointed out that in a democracy there is only one answer to that sort of pressure, that is, full and complete information provided to the public.
I should like to quote from the 1975 review which states:
It is clear that governments will have to impose a new form of spending restraint on themselves because there are not sufficient natural restraints forcing them to assess the productivity of their spending. As a first step in this process of self-discipline the public should be given more and better information on the spending process.
So that far from a purely negative thing, giving out more information being a reduction of power which the government might hold, in fact it would be very beneficial if the government were more forthcoming with information on the spending processes. It would find it far easier to introduce the type of spending restraint that is now required if the anti-inflation program it is attempting to implement is to be successful. So I think it would be of benefit to the government if it divulged more information.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) indicated in his remarks that budgets nowadays are far more elaborate than they were when he was a civil servant in

the Department of Finance. The fact that they are thicker and more elaborate does not mean they contain more information. The C.D. Howe Research Institute study states quite plainly that there is a difference between verbosity and communicating information, and the type of thing the minister was referring to, the production of huge documents on how our dollar is spent, in a green or a white paper, does not constitute freedom of information. What the public needs to know are the facts before the spending process, the facts before the fund raising processes, not opinions put in fancy documents primarily intended to back up the judgment of the minister.
I can give a few examples of where the government is being overly secretive. A press release was issued by the former minister of industry, trade and commerce now the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) stating that Canada sold a CANDU reactor to South Korea for some $300 million. He also indicated that this would be financed by the Export Development Bank. When we asked for the interest rates charged for this money, the minister refused to give us the information. Again today the minister refused to answer questions on this subject put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). Without that information the figure of $300 million is absolutely meaningless.
A small part of the information is sometimes worse than having no information. If my wife came home and said she spent $10,000, I would be ready to faint, but if she told me that she spent that over a period of two or three years on groceries, that would not be so bad. So part of the information is worse than having no information, and that is what we have on this CANDU reactor. Without the figure on the interest rate, the figure on the sale of the reactor is meaningless.
I recall the time when we were discussing the bill to establish Petro-Canada. The minister was asked whether his department had undertaken a study of national petroleum companies in other jurisdictions. He indicated that such a study had been undertaken, but when we asked for that information he said it was an internal document which could not be made public. In the end we were almost forced by closure to pass the bill to set up a national petroleum company which was authorized to spend $1.5 billion of public funds. We had to pass the bill without having the background papers which led the government to conclude that such a company was desirable.
The President of the Privy Council spoke about ministerial responsibility, and said that under our system civil servants must be free to provide frank information and opinions so that the minister can be in the best position to make decisions. We do not argue with that, and perhaps this comes from the fact that the minister has spent too little time in opposition because he forgets that in fact it is parliament which passes bill, and which takes the responsibility for the implementation of legislation. Yet time and time again parliament is asked to make these decisions without information.
If working papers are to be kept secret, this assumes
that working papers are opinion and not fact, or that they
contain more opinion than fact. I would be shocked to *
February 12, 1976

think that the government is making decisions on legislation and policy based entirely on the collective opinions of civil servants rather than facts. If the government has access to facts in its decision-making process and then puts forward to parliament a bill based on its decision, then the government has an obligation, I maintain, to make all the facts associated with that bill-not just the facts which support the government's case-accessible to members of parliament, because it is parliament which is called upon to make decisions.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Give us just a couple of minutes.


Harvie Andre: Don't you have a plane to catch, Joe?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: No, but I want to speak. You are talking it out, and you haven't said anything yet.


Harvie Andre: You have been talking so much that you cannot hear. You cannot listen and talk at the same time, Joe.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Give us a couple of minutes.


Harvie Andre: Keep it up, we are just about finished.
As part of a freedom of information package which would govern the handling of information, I think it is absolutely essential, if we are going to maintain any illusion at all of parliamentary democracy, with parliament enacting laws, that parliament have complete and total access to all information. It is unsatisfactory for a minister of energy, mines and resources to tell a committee, as was the case with regard to a committee I was on, that the committee cannot see a study made by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources on petroleum companies.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I simply wish to inform the hon. gentleman that we are
Statutory Instruments
dealing with a motion which is specified in the order paper, and I should have preferred that he close the debate on the same non-partisan note in which the debate has been conducted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must say that I was listening very carefully to the remarks of the hon. member, and they were quite related to the motion.


Harvie Andre: Just very quickly in conclusion, all background information related to bills must be made available to members of parliament. All consultant studies must be made available and public. All facts in working papers- we are not looking for opinions-must be made available, and committees of this House must have the right to question civil servants on any aspect of public policy which they feel would be relevant and important to members of parliament.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question to dispose of the motion now before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that we call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 9.47 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


Friday, February 13, 1976