1978-06-09

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43,1 raise a matter that is of continuing urgency. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the government to introduce before this session ends an amendment to the Old Age Security Act to end the discrimination therein against persons of single status between the ages of 60 and 65 by providing for the equivalent of the spouse's allowance to be available to all persons between the ages of 60 and 65 regardless of marital status, provided they are out of the labour market.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere project in Hull. As the Minister of Public Works has been absent from his place during the question period for the last three days, I was going to direct my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister,
Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of Public Works, in reply to my colleague, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, as reported at page 6045 of Hansard for June 5, misled the House when he said:
Let us make it clear, however, that there were reasons why this arrangement was entered into. The land in question was partially owned by Mr. Campeau's corporation. The question really is, are you going to expropriate the land of a developer and then offer it to other developers? There was some question of ethics involved in the matter as well, since he owned part of the land which is in play and which is, in fact, being used for this development.
In light of the fact that the land was not owned by Mr. Campeau or the Campeau corporation-it was only under option and was not purchased until February 13, 1975-could the Prime Minister give some kind of explanation, that would be credible, for the statement of the Minister of Public Works?


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to correct the false impression which the hon. member left in his question, that the Minister of Public Works was absent. In fact, he was here yesterday, when the Leader of the Opposition was not. The statement which the minister made last week is essentially correct, in that the land was privately owned and, therefore, had a different aspect so far as the negotiations were concerned.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The facts do not bear out that answer, Mr. Speaker. Still pertaining to the land assembly problem surrounding the Les Terrasses project, perhaps the parliamentary secretary could explain the $600,000 overpayment to Hydro Quebec, particularly in light of the fact that the National Capital Commission went to the expense of having three independent appraisals made proving its worth below $1,700,000.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the statement made by the hon. gentleman, but I will certainly consult with the departmental officials and get back to him at a later date.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the acting minister, whoever that may be. If the facts surrounding Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere project are as tidy as the Minister of Public Works would have us believe, can the minister give us a believable explanation for the total rejection of the Campeau project by loyal, hardworking public servants involved in both the Department of Public Works and the National Capital Commission who were overruled by ministers acting politically?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.

June 9, 1978
Oral Questions


LES TERRASSES DE LA CHAUDIERE PROJECT, HULL, QUEBEC- METHOD OF CALLING FOR TENDERS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister having to do with this matter. As well, it deals with statements which were made outside the House by the Minister of Public Works some time ago expressing misgivings about how this project went forward without tender and without the usual competitive aspect which should prevail. The Minister of Public Works said publicly that if he had been in charge, that kind of thing would not have occurred.
Given that set of circumstances, the fact that this project, which was worth, initially, $160 million, will eventually cost the Canadian public $600 million, and in view of the allegations which have been made by Mr. Fullerton-who is not known for an idle tongue-would the Prime Minister inform us whether he has had this matter under investigation? Can he assure the House that projects of this proportion are not cleared politically with certain ministers?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the series of allegations made by the hon. member in his question are not all according to the facts. I am sure he would want to have some of his impressions corrected. The Minister of Public Works was in the House yesterday. He will be in the House next week. 1 will take notice of these questions, and I am sure he will be able to satisfy the hon. member on every aspect.
In so far as allegations are concerned based on what Mr. Fullerton said, I refer the hon. member to a denial made by Senator Marchand in the Senate who has been very incorrectly quoted by Mr. Fullerton. This shows the extent of Mr. Fullerton's ignorance or his lack of memory in this particular matter.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister had read the report correctly, he would find that Senator Marchand referred to the breaking of the height by-law by Place de Ville in the city of Ottawa. The series of questions which 1 am directing to him has nothing to do with that: my questions concern Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere, which is the matter 1 am interested in today. We can explore the other aspect next week.
Relating to Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere, has the Prime Minister had this matter under investigation? Can he assure the House that projects of this proportion and magnitude are not cleared politically; that this one was not cleared politically and that others are not cleared politically with certain ministers? Can he give us that assurance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the confusion is not in my mind; it is in the mind of the hon. member. I just indicated that in his questions concerning Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere, he was quoting as his authority no less a person than Mr. Fullerton whom 1 indicated was proven wrong in his other allegations.


Walter David Baker: Make sure your minister is in the House on Monday.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Make sure your leader is here.


POST OFFICE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that this country is faced with a very real threat of another postal strike, that a lot of tension and the threat arises from the fact that the Post Office Department has put before CUPW and the conciliator the possibility of reopening very sensitive areas of the contract, namely, the technological change clause, casual work and the contracting-out of work, and the seriousness of the situation, is the Prime Minister prepared to intervene and withdraw those proposals which are being put forward now by the Post Office Department over a year after negotiations for a new contract were commenced?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is making a representation on behalf of the union. 1 will make sure the minister is informed of it.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I am not making a representation on behalf of the union; I am making a representation on behalf of the 23 million shareholders of the Post Office Department. Can the Prime Minister give an assurance to this House, instead of participating with the Postmaster General in trying to provoke a strike?
Will the Prime Minister take his responsibility as leader of the government and of this country, remove these clauses and let the Post Office, Treasury Board and the union get on with negotiating a proper contract, instead of dragging in all these red-herrings to force a strike on the Canadian people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be the one who is excited and is drawing in red-herrings. He talks about a strike. We know of no imminent strike in the Post Office. Perhaps the hon. member could save his excitement until a little later; the minister will be back very soon.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this member, myself, is not the one who is provoking a strike, but it is the Postmaster General himself, who is reported in the press as having said that it looks like we are heading on the path of a strike, and in view of the fact that this could be extemely serious to the taxpayers of this country-those who use the postal services, including the aged and small businesses-is the Prime Minister prepared to take action now, and not after the fact? Will he please have the Postmaster General withdraw this controversial proposal at this twelfth hour?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, all I am pointing out is that if the hon. member is talking about a strike and alleging this has something to do, perhaps, with a strike in the autumn, if he will keep his cool until Monday, the minister will be happy to answer.
June 9, 1978


PUBLICATION OF STUDY ON LIQUID FUEL EXTRACTED FROM RENEWABLE RESOURCES IN QUEBEC
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, since my question concerns several government departments, 1 shall put it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
A feasibility study has been conducted recently on liquid fuel extracted from renewable resources. Considering that some regions of our country are faced with a shortage of gas and oil resources and that this report seems to indicate that alternative supplies could be secured through processing certain materials into petroliferous fuel, would the Prime Minister tell the Elouse if his government has been requested to take a closer look at this report and if it intends to implement the necessary policy to carry out the conclusions of that study which might yield an interesting solution to the problems that Canada is likely to face in a few years?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for Abitibi for directing the attention of the House to that report. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has already referred to it but 1 can assure the hon. member that the report is under consideration and that the government, which has already announced several measures in the field of renewable resources, is as much interested as the hon. member in pursuing that line of thought.


POSSIBILITY OF PROCESSING CERTAIN ENERGY PRODUCTS IN EASTERN CANADA
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, as this report was prepared by a Winnipeg firm and seems to have dealt almost exclusively with such possibilities in western Canada, would the right hon. Prime Minister be willing to suggest to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that a similar study be made on the possibilities in eastern Canada for converting various matters into sources of energy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it has already been done. The minister did it on a far broader scale. For instance, with regard to the region the hon. member represents, we have encouraged research in the use of forest by-products as a possible source of renewable energy.


OPERATION OF OIL WELLS IN QUEBEC
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the right hon. Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that, in the province of Quebec, and more specifically in the Lotbiniere riding, an oil company did some exploration the results of which are very positive-oil has been proven to exist there-and the fact that the Quebec govern-
Oral Questions
ment seems to think that the construction of a pipeline from St. Flavien, in the Lotbiniere riding, to Quebec City would be too costly compared with possible supplies outside the province, would the Prime Minister be willing to recommend to his minister that a special study be made on the cost of tapping those oil wells in the province of Quebec as compared with the cost of obtaining supplies from other parts of Canada or foreign countries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to draw the attention of the minister to the matter and 1 am convinced he will take up the matter at least to the extent of giving the hon. member a reply.


TOURISM
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whose department is responsible for the promotion of tourism in this country. As the minister is well aware, tourist operators and the tourist industry as a whole are very worried about the fish war which is still in progress. We are all aware that the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment have categorically stated that sport fishermen are welcome in Canada.
I am wondering if the minister, through his departmental officials, is getting that message across to our neighbours in the south, telling them that they are welcome here, because 1 have had information to the effect that United States Customs and Immigration officials have been spreading rumours that boats will be confiscated if they come across the border. 1 would appreciate the minister's comments on this matter.


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we, too, have heard those rumours and we are attempting to track them down. We are also notifying our agents in the United States that we do not intend to take action against American sport fishermen in Canada. They are welcome to bring their boats, fishing reels and rods. We wish them all the luck in the world and hope all their catches will be big.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate what the minister has stated, that he is passing on this information. But my point is that I think we should be spending some money to get that message across in the media-in the newspapers, on radio and television. If money is spent in that way, it will certainly come back tenfold. Will the minister tell me what they intend to do on that basis?
6228

June 9, 1978
Oral Questions


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, we are advertising tourism in 56 major populated areas of the United States in order to get Americans to come to Canada. In that advertising package we will enhance the idea that sport fishermen are still welcome to do their fishing in Canada and to bring their boats. We will add that, I suppose, to what we are already doing.


INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE CHILD
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister for external affairs and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It is a very important one of which I am sure he is aware.
In 1959, Canada voted for and was a signatory to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Children. To mark the twentieth anniversary of that declaration, the UN has declared 1979 as the International Year of the Child. I ask the Prime Minister, in light of the fact that a meeting is being held in Ottawa today by private groups which are fulfilling the leadership role in this area which has unfortunately been abdicated by the federal government, why the Government of Canada has not acted to set up a national committee to mark the International Year of the Child and make plans for it, as have 70 other countries.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, for a more detailed answer I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare will be in the House next week, I want to tell the hon. member that, far from being inactive, the government has taken many actions within its various departments to ensure that we live up to not only the letter but to the spirit of the International Year of the Child.
Of course, we also encourage the private sector to do the same thing and that is what is happening in Ottawa. People on the other side of this House are generally not too anxious to see the government set up new committees in every area and to create new areas of expenditure. That is why the government is doing its share. But it also expects the private sector and the voluntary organizations to do their share.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, no one would expect the Government of Canada to exercise any degree of restraint in this very important area. The Prime Minister has confirmed what we already know, that the government has set aside a very modest budget for this very important year.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can give the House an undertaking that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, will make a statement to the House, before the adjournment, about the government's intentions with respect to marking the International Year of the Child.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure those ministers will be happy to answer questions. As far as having a modest budget is concerned, of course we have a modest budget. I do not think the hon. member would expect us to have an immodest one. They are always preaching cuts in expenditure, and we are being modest in our expenditure.


ABORTION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that 1979 will be the International Year of the Child, and the government's policy respecting that program, will the Prime Minister review Canada's abortion laws so that children will be given the greatest gift of all, namely, the gift of life?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is not for the government to give the gift of life to children: that is done by God and by the parents.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious subject and I do not want to respond to the Prime Minister in kind. We realize that, but this is a serious topic. The fact is that under our present law, 60,000 children are losing their lives by reason of the system now being established through abortion committees.
Will the government review its abortion system, whereby the spirit of the law that was changed will again come into effect, rather than the situation that obtains at present in some of our hospitals which have become abortion clinics?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, more than a year ago, we set up a committee to report on that very subject. The essence of it is that although the federal government would like to see those laws applied in an even-handed way in every province, as the hon. member knows, the criminal law is administered by the provinces, so prosecutions under and enforcement of the law is up to them. Perhaps the hon. member could talk to his premier and suggest that the spirit of the law be observed.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns a subject I have discussed with him on a number of occasions, namely, the possible conflict of interest of one of his senior public servants, Mr. William Teron.
At this time when the government is going in an entirely new direction in respect of housing, Mr. Teron is taking four months leave of absence to shore-up what he calls his ebbing

June 9, 1978

private fortunes both in Canada and in the United States. Has the Prime Minister consulted Mr. Teron about this latest exploit?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not directly Mr. Teron, Mr. Speaker, but I have been informed of the dispositions he intends to take during his leave of absence. 1 think the government should congratulate itself upon being able to keep men of this high standard and calibre in the service of the government, rather than having them return to the private sector where they could make a hell of a lot more money.


Frank Oberle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. According to an article in the Globe and Mail of yesterday, Mr. Teron said that he has been advised by friends, or consulted by friends-and the Prime Minister is one of his personal friends-who are telling him that he must be "an idealist or a fool" to continue what he is doing. Which of these two attributes does the Prime Minister ascribe to Mr. Teron, and which of them is best suited to Mr. Teron carrying on his portfolio?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am a friend of Mr. Teron, but I can assure the hon. member that he did not consult me on this matter. As far as the hon. member is concerned, he is not a friend. If I were to ask myself if he was an idealist or a fool, I would be using one word too many; I know which he is.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. The Vancouver Province of last Wednesday quoted the minister as saying that it was impossible for the federal government to join in a pool which would expedite early payment to dependants of the deceased in the very tragic Cranbrook crash of a few months ago. Can the minister tell the House what the difficulty is, and why his ministry felt it could not take part in that pool?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty is the legal one of not being in a position to pay money in these circumstances, as distinct from circumstances of established liability.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the situation, the first step would be to establish a pool and then to determine the liability of all those entering into the pool. Is the difficulty within federal statutes, or does the difficulty to which the minister alludes lie in the framing of a provincial statute?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I had reference to the federal position, the federal law and lack of authority to pay such
Ora! Questions
money in the circumstances. I have made it clear that we are quite prepared to involve ourselves in a negotiating team in an attempt to resolve the issues of liability and damages as quickly and as effectively as possible. But the advice I have been given is that we could not pay over money in the circumstances which were outlined to us.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House whether the difficulty is in existing federal legislation or does it refer to the regulations? I ask that question seriously, because if it is the regulations, under the circumstances the minister has the right and power to make adjustments to them to suit this case. If it is in federal legislation, even that could be changed, given the seriousness of this particular incident.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if there were a simple change open to me to allow this to happen, it would have been drawn to my attention. The advice is that there is lack of legal authority to make a payment which would require some form of legislative action. I am not sure that the legislative solution would be so simple as to be accomplished in the time we may have available.


FISHERIES
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: My question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, but in his absence, I will put it to his parliamentary secretary. Could he tell the House whether the Department of Fisheries has decided to abandon the excellent policy it had put forward a few years ago to guarantee a reasonable income to fishermen in difficulty, and which provided for a two cents a pound subsidy for groundfish? If so, would the minister be prepared to reconsider his decision, at least until that resource has come back to normal?


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware of the request for a subsidy for groundfish. I understand an announcement will be made shortly regarding such subsidy, and I trust the hon. member will be patient until it is made.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs; it
80045-27)6

June 9, 1978
Oral Questions
relates to a matter we discussed at a recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Of course, at that time he was only able to take my question as notice.
In view of the fact that a veteran on a small disability pension who is also in receipt of war veteran's allowance will have his war veteran's allowance reduced by the amount of the increase in the disability pension because of the operation of the income test as it applies to the war veteran's allowance, has the minister found a way by which the War Veterans Allowance Board can treat as exempt income the increase in the disability pension which is to take place on July 1, so that all veterans who are receiving disability pensions can get the benefit of that increase and not have it given with one hand and taken away with the other?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the act does provide for the exemptions of certain types of income. Each of these exemptions has been granted for a specific reason. To extend these exemptions to include the recent pension increases would be a contradiction of the philosophy underlying the allowance and would result in inequitable treatment of allowance recipients. After careful examination of the factors involved, I am not prepared to consider recommending that the exemptions be extended to include other payments under the Pension Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that on previous occasions when the minister has taken a negative stand, he has been persuaded to reconsider the matter and has done so successfully, may I ask if he will even yet reconsider this matter?
Would he also look at the position of widows who are in receipt of an allowance under the War Veterans Allowance Act to see if there is not some way in which they, too, can get the benefit of the increase which they would be getting if they were receiving a payment under the Pension Act?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have those things under consideration. I might add at this time, for the information of the House, that in respect of recipients of war veterans allowances there is a study under way which is quite comprehensive and which will not be available to my department for some time, probably a number of months. Something may be revealed by this study which will bring these things to light.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: In the absence of various ministers, Mr. Speaker, and as my question overlaps several departments, 1 would address it to the Prime Minister. In view of Statistics Canada's quarterly figures released yesterday which show a deterioration in the seasonally adjusted travel account in Canada, to use their terminology, which has

risen by one-third to a current deficit of $471 million, would the Prime Minister indicate if he intends to take any steps to co-ordinate the activities of his departments to ensure that this tourism deficit will somehow be corrected in the near future?
Second, has the right hon. gentleman any plans to co-ordinate a federal-provincial approach to try to get a better handle on our tourism and travel deficit?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this matter was discussed at some length at the February conference of first ministers. It was referred to in a communique, which I commend to the hon. member's attention. Since then, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has been working at the federal level and the provinces have been taking various steps to attempt to ensure that the tourism deficit in Canada will be reduced. In due course, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will make the announcements.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. As Statistics Canada's quarterly figures also reveal that the interest on dividend outflow has now hit the staggering figure of $939 million in that one quarter-almost double the level in a comparable quarter two years ago-is the Prime Minister aware, first of all, of this deficit in our interest and dividend payments and, second, to what extent will the new government borrowing of foreign funds contribute in future months and years to an increasing deficit in our interest and dividend account?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should have thought the hon. member would have known for a long time that Canada has a deficit on interest and dividends and that this has been germane to Canada's economy for several decades. The fact that he is quoting a particular figure causes me to think that it is probably because the companies operating in Canada, both domestic and foreign, are making higher profits now than they were a couple of years ago. Perhaps they were paying small dividends then and are now paying higher ones.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture. It pertains to Ontario cheese manufacturers "who at the present time", to quote the Prime Minister, "are making a hell of a lot less money"-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Following the recent meeting between the Minister of Agriculture and the Ontario minister of agriculture, has a solution been reached to provide increased milk quotas to Ontario Cheddar cheese manufacturers who are
June 9, 1978

experiencing a serious shortage of milk in their efforts to supply markets waiting for cheese?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.


PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL AIR SHOW-BENEFITS RESULTING THEREFROM
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Each year, the Abbotsford Air Show Society sponsors an aerospace symposium in Vancouver and the international air show at Abbotsford. Attendance runs in the neighbourhood of 135,000 to 150,000 for the three-day show. Boeing Aircraft and Lockheed participate very willingly in the show.
Will the minister make representations to de Havilland Aircraft alerting them to the possibility of commercial and publicity benefits to Canada as well as to international trade? At the present time, de Havilland has refused to co-operate in plans for the international air show.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I will bring the hon. member's representation to the attention of management and the board of directors of de Havilland and see whether we can convince them to take part in the Abbotsford air show.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Notwithstanding the inevitable and, 1 believe, justified increase in beef prices and the need for a more stable meat market, the increases seem excessive at the retail level.
Is the minister monitoring this sector to see whether the increases are in excess of what is justified by farm price increases? Is there any evidence that the sharp rise in prices is also related to the disappearance of controls on the processing and retail side of the industry?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: As I answered in the House a few days ago, we are monitoring this situation. We are very concerned about it. I intend to have further discussions with other ministers and officials shortly.
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
This morning a daily newspaper reports that the Prime Minister is ready to give Canada a new constitution in 1981. According to an original document, on the basis of reliable sources, it is a 400-page document which has been discussed by the cabinet and is entitled: A Time for Action. Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether this document has been drafted and completed and whether it represents the constitutional proposals? What information could the Prime Minister give us on the veracity of such a document?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not read about the document in the newspapers mentioned by the hon. member, but I announced yesterday and several times in the House and at press conferences that the government would in fact table in the House some proposals on national unity and the constitution before the end of the session. So the hon. member may expect such tablings in the course of next week.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary.
Considering that this document will certainly be of interest to the Canadian people, will it be made available for public consideration or will it be made available only to cabinet ministers or to government members?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the document will have the widest distribution possible.


ALLEGED LEAK OF SECRET DOCUMENT
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Is the Prime Minister in a position to indicate to the House whether this leak was inadvertent, or was it a deliberate leak? If so, has he consulted the Minister of Justice about taking proceedings under the Official Secrets Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it was inadvertent as far as the government is concerned. I would not be surprised if the other side deliberately leaked some secret documents; they often do.

June 9, 1978
Oral Questions


AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. There are press reports concerning the new Quebec auto insurance scheme that became effective March 1, 1978. My understanding is that there is now a combined public and private insurance coverage which provides minimum protection for Quebec residents anywhere in the world, but there is no reciprocal arrangement for other Canadians or American visitors to Quebec.
As this discriminatory jurisdiction currently affects thousands of Ontario workers who are working in Quebec, and our American visitors, many of whom have had no warning about it, can the Prime Minister tell the House if there have been consultations with the Superintendent of Insurance, and are there active negotiations going on with Quebec officials on this very serious situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 will have to take notice of the question. 1 know of no consultations having taken place, at least at the federal level. 1 suppose that in so far as the matter affects residents of Ontario, it would be good for the two provinces to discuss this matter since it is an area of provincial jurisdiction.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the consensus that appears to have developed that Mr. Donald Macdonald, former minister of finance, breached even the guidelines of the Prime Minister with regard to his appointment to the board of directors of McDonnell-Douglas, and the Prime Minister acknowledges that the guidelines have no effect in law and no sanctions attached to them, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to bring forward legislation respecting conflict of interest guidelines for cabinet and former cabinet members which could be studied by this House at an early date?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about consensus. I doubt whether consensus could even develop in his own party on such a simple matter as that. I can tell him that as far we are concerned, the guidelines were tabled in this House IVi years ago. They were made public after having been sent to the ministers. From my examination of the guidelines, they have not been breached by the former minister of finance. If the hon. member can indicate some aspect of them which in his view has been breached, I will be happy to hear his information.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It was contained in my speech of yesterday evening. The Prime Minister has been invited by McDonnell-Douglas to go to their plant in Malton on June 24 and 25. If

he goes to McDonnell-Douglas, is he planning to visit the plants of their competitors for the $2.3 billion contract which is now being considered by the Government of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must have some inside information. He probably has friends in McDonnell-Douglas, because I know not of this invitation. I will take the hon. member's question as a representation on behalf of McDonnell-Douglas, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister: it arises from an issue raised yesterday at his press conference about which he may be better briefed today. I refer to the correspondence of approximately two years ago between the then minister of national revenue, now Minister of Employment and Immigration, and the then solicitor general, now Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It relates, as the Prime Minister will know, to the 1972 agreement which permitted access by law enforcement officers to confidential income tax information. The nature of the correspondence indicated that the then minister of national revenue was very concerned about the legality of the agreement and the abuse under which it might have been implemented.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether it is the position of the government that this correspondence is protected by the doctrine of cabinet secrecy or privilege or, in the alternative, are negotiations now under way among counsel for the various ministers appearing before the McDonald commission and counsel for the commission to permit the commission to examine that correspondence?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to questions asked at a press conference yesterday, to which I was unable to give accurate answers because this whole matter surfaced when I was in New York and Washington a couple of weeks ago. However, since then I have informed myself and my understanding is that the whole of the correspondence is before the McDonald commission. It is in the possession of the McDonald commission. It has not yet been tabled, but the intention of the minister is to appear before the McDonald commission whenever he is asked to appear and to answer questions on this matter. I believe the further questions asked by the hon. member would have to be asked at that time.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister can inform us whether it is the position of counsel representing the various ministers before that commission that that correspondence will be tabled at an in-camera session. Is that now the negotiating position of the lawyers for the ministers, or is
June 9, 1978

the Prime Minister in a position to tell us that having agreed that the correspondence should be before the commission, the government is willing that it be before the commission at a public hearing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the government has been that everything it had on the whole subject of the RCMP would be put before the McDonald commission. But many of the subjects inquired into by the commission are either of a security nature or they have to do with secrecy of cabinet, and so forth; that is why the McDonald commission has been given authority to hold certain meetings in camera.
Not having been party to the correspondence and not having looked at it, 1 cannot state at this time what the arguments will be relating to that particular part of the testimony. It is important to know that it is all before the McDonald commission and that the commission will bring it forth in evidence in the normal course of events. I do not know if the commission will want to do this in camera or in public.


IMPACT OF U.S. ACTION ON BEEF QUOTAS
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one asked earlier by the hon. member for Fort William, who carefully and quite rightly avoided any criticism of farm incomes in his question about beef prices.
My question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I wonder if the minister has yet been able to do a specific analysis of the impact of the recent U.S. action on beef quotas and what impact that action might have upon the Canadian scene. Also, can the minister give us the assurance that no Canadian action will be taken which would impact negatively on the recovering incomes of Canadian beef producers?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, as of June 2 the quota allotments for beef coming into Canada from Australia and New Zealand were 28 per cent behind those of a year ago. About 17 million fewer pounds came into Canada from Australia and New Zealand as of June 2 this year, compared with up to June 2, 1977. Allowing Australia and New Zealand to bring in more meat would not in any way affect today's prices because there is plenty of room in their allotment now for them to bring over more beef.
With regard to beef moving to the United States from Canada, our movement of dressed beef is 21 per cent behind what it was a year ago. As of June 2, about 11 million fewer pounds than last year moved from Canada to the United States. So I do not think the United States allowing us to shift an additional 15 million pounds to the United States will have any real effect on prices in Canada because we have not moved as much beef this year as we did last year. As of June 2, live cattle shipments were up slightly over last year. I suppose that
Oral Questions
gives the House a picture of beef movements in and out of Canada.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Communications. I am sure the minister is aware that for years the Saskatchewan government has not allowed liquor advertising in the media in that province. A few weeks ago, the Saskatchewan legislature passed legislation extending that law to cable television. The legislature has not yet had a chance to proclaim the legislation, but last week a representative of the CRTC said that if the legislation is proclaimed, the CRTC will have to step in and do something.
I ask the minister whether she can explain what the CRTC means. Also, could she tell us the government's policy? Is the CRTC planning to step in and, if so, what will it do?


Hon. Jeanne Sauv6 (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Saskatchewan has traditionally been opposed to alcohol advertising in the media. The law passed in the last few weeks is legislation regarding the provincial liquor act. That is entirely within provincial jurisdiction. However, some of the amendments apply to broadcasting and that, of course, is not within the jurisdiction of the province but is within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
When the CRTC says it will have to step in if the law is proclaimed and implemented, it means exactly that. The federal government is responsible for content, and advertising is content. However, for the hon. member's information, Mr. Romanow has asked to see me and I am supposed to meet with him in the weeks to come.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there is not a contradiction, because it applies now to radio and television advertising in the province, and if it applies to that, why cannot it apply to cable? The Minister of National Health and Welfare has said a number of times that there is a clear policy against promoting the consumption of alcohol in this country. Is there not a contradiction between the policy of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the statement of the CRTC? The statement of the CRTC seems to be promotion of the consumption of alcohol through advertising.


Jeanne Sauvé: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction. It is true that the CRTC has made adjustments and accommodations for provincial legislation regarding advertising. The CRTC has been able to do that for off-air broadcasting. However, when this would apply in the field of cable we have the problem that cable is the transmission of a foreign signal, and when we are dealing with a foreign signal the same flexibility, obviously, does not exist.

June 9, 1978
Oral Questions
The hon. member will recall that the CRTC called a moratorium because it would imply a deletion of commercials on cable if advertising for alcohol were to be prohibited. So we had a moratorium on the matter of deleting commercials and that is why the situation is very different from off-air broadcasting.


ABORTION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister who, with his usual extraordinary perceptiveness, pointed out that only God and parents can create children. Elowever, abortion clinics take those lives away, some of them on the advice of groups funded by the federal government.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is willing to re-examine the funding policy instituted by the previous minister of national health and welfare and take away some of the money that has brought about high abortion statistics in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is continuing another representation. The hon. member for Hamilton West.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. 1 should think he now has at hand a letter from Mr. A1 Oakie, executive vice-president of the Hamilton Automobile Club, regarding the treatment of handicapped travellers at Canadian airport terminals. If Your Honour will be very patient and allow me a couple of seconds, I shall read from that letter as follows:
Up until recently, handicapped people travelling in wheelchairs, etc., were assigned an attendant to assist them to the aircraft and off the aircraft. We understand that this has now been changed and such travellers must have a companion to take care of them.
I hope the Minister of Transport can advise us that this is not the policy and that he will ensure such restraint is not practiced on the backs of the handicapped. I hope he can give me the assurance that this is not happening and that it will not happen in the future.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that letter at hand but I will certainly be glad to look at it. I think the hon. member will agree that this is really a representation with regard to how airlines should conduct themselves. It would ordinarily be their responsibility to see to

the comforts and needs of passengers approaching and boarding aircraft. Therefore, it is in no way a matter for the Department of Transport or government policy but, rather, that of airlines. But I will look into the matter in that way.
I should say to the hon. member that I have received many letters from associations concerned about the handicapped, and they have been very complimentary about the persistent way in which Transport Canada in particular, and this government in general, is providing facilities for handicapped persons in its buildings and in its transportation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I appreciate the answer given by the minister, but I would like an assurance from him, notwithstanding that he just said this is the role of the airline companies, that he will not tolerate this practice and that it is neither wanted nor acceptable, I think the handicapped want to know that we are not attempting to impose restraint on their backs. Surely the minister can show some sympathy in this regard.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have shown sympathy, indeed, by my emphasis on the fact that wherever we in the government or in my department are involved, we provide essentially for the needs of the handicapped. I demonstrate that in action. What I am not prepared to do is to accept a generalization, or even the allegation the hon. member is making, which presumably he is making on the basis of one letter with regard to one incident and it might apply to one company or more.
Notwithstanding his sympathy for the handicapped, which I share, I think he should have a set of standards which is not simply to indict all companies without first investigating all the facts. I will certainly want to investigate the facts.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This is the case at Canadian air terminals.


POINT OF ORDER
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, my point of order has to do with your ruling a minute ago with respect to my question. While I respect your ruling, sir, I want to point out to you that my question was materially different from the others that had been raised because it had to do with the funding policies of the federal government, and the others have not raised that issue with regard to abortion clinics. The Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde) was rising to answer my question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member misunderstood if he concluded that I set the question aside because it was the same as the ones before. 1 indicated that he was continuing a representation. The difficulty with the question was that it was essentially a representation that funding in respect of certain groups be withdrawn. I regard that as a representation as opposed to a question. The hon. member may want to think about it and perhaps rephrase the approach to the matter in the form of a question as opposed to a representation.


June 9, 1978



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table, in both official languages, an exchange of correspondence between myself and Premier Blakeney concerning the communique issued following the recent annual meeting of western premiers in Yorkton, Saskatchewan. I commend its reading to the opposition. It sheds some light.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies, in English and French, of the exchange of notes between the Government of Canada and the United States to implement a technical amendment to Annex III of the agreement between the two countries on Principles Applicable to a Northern Natural Gas Pipeline, which was signed in Ottawa on September 20, 1977.


ANTI-INFLATION ACT TABLING OF BOARD'S REPORTS
Mr. Ed Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 17(2) of the Anti-Inflation Act 1 wish to table, in both official languages, copies of reports sent to the Administrator by the Anti-Inflation Board.


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Francis William (Frank) Maine: for leave to introduce Bill C-461, to amend the Old Age Security Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to change the name of the Old Age Security Act to the Social Security Act, thereby striking from the existing act the words "old age", which discriminate against many senior citizens by suggesting that they, at the age of 65, are no longer capable of
Order Paper Questions
leading a productive life, and that they are no longer capable of making a valuable contribution to society.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 415, 416, 418, 419, 420, 1,308, 1,314, 1,315 and 1,514.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,441 of the Second Session of the 30th Parliament which stated in part that Mr. Victor Chapman received $12,701.90 up until May 11, 1977 acting as Media Co-ordinator for visits to Canada by the Prince of Wales and also by Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip (a) what was the final figure received by Mr. Chapman now that the visits are concluded (b) what is the name of the highest ranking official who selected Mr. Chapman for the work (c) what are all the reasons that Mr. Chapman was selected (d) were any other persons or firms asked to submit prices to the government for doing the same work and, if so (i) on what date (ii) what were their names (iii) what were the amounts involved?
2.	Is Mr. Victor Chapman the same Victor Chapman formerly employed on the staff of the Prime Minister?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: 1. (a) Fee, $27,000. Travel Expenses, $7,491.18; (b) The director of operations in consultation with the assistant under secretary of state and the federal coordinator for royal visits 1977. (c) Knowledge of and experience with the media. Arranging media requirements for many previous events in Canada such as First Ministers Conference (Commonwealth Conference), heads of governments meeting and many visits to Canada of heads of governments. Previous work as a press advisor to the Prime Minister, (d) No.
2. See reply to question No. 2,441 answered October 17, 1977.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,441 of the Second Session of the 30th Parliament which stated that certain specific sums of money were received by Intertask Limited and/or Vic Chapman for certain services, is the government aware that a press statement was issued by Mr. Paul Akehurst of Intertask Limited stating that no such money was received and, if so, how does the government explain this discrepancy?
2.	Is Paul Akehurst of Intertask Limited a former employee of the staff of the Prime Minister's office?


Yvon Pinard: 1. See reply to question No. 2,441 tabled October 17, 1977. Also see Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, citation 171(e) and (t).
2. No.
6236

June 9, 1978
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,441 of the Second Session of the 30th Parliament which stated in part that Mr. Victor Chapman and/or Intertask Limited received $18,000 from the Department of External Affairs, Public Affairs Bureau for services rendered in co-ordination of a film project (a) what is the name of the highest ranking official who selected Mr. Chapman and/or Intertask Limited for the work (b) what are all the reasons that Mr. Chapman and/or Intertask Limited was selected (c) were any other persons or firms asked to submit prices to the government for doing this same work and, if so (i) on what date (ii) what were their names (iii) what were the amounts involved?
2.	Is Mr. Victor Chapman the same Victor Chapman formerly employed on the staff of the Prime Minister?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. (a) The decision to hire Intertask Limited first for a feasibility study which eventually led to a second $18,000 co-ordination contract was made by an ad hoc committee chaired by the director of academic relations division and the second contract was approved by an assistant under-secretary of state for the Department of External Affairs, (b) Intertask Limited was chosen because of the expertise of one of its employees, Miss Ann Acland, the prospectus which accompanied its bid and by virtue of its bid on the first feasibility contract being 21 per cent less than its competitor. Because of its satisfactory feasibility study, Intertask was then given a further contract of $18,000 (referred to in (a) above) to co-ordinate the principals in the production of the film-video-tape series, (c) When bids were being solicited for the feasibility study, it was understood that the successful bidder would also be asked to co-ordinate the project if its work and prospectus were satisfactory to the Department of External Affairs. In so far as the first contract for $6,000 was concerned the answer is: (i) January 21, 1977; (ii) Innovacom (other solicited organizations were unable to provide the service required); (iii) $8,875.
2. See reply to question No. 2,441 answered October 17, 1977.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,441 of the Second Session of the 30th Parliament which stated in part that Mr. Victor Chapman and/or Intertask Limited received $17,875 from the Department of External Affairs for services rendered towards the NATO Ministerial Meeting Task Force on June 18 and 19, 1974 (a) what is the name of the highest ranking official who selected Mr. Chapman and/or Intertask Limited for the work (b) what are all the reasons that Mr. Chapman and/or Intertask Limited was selected (c) were any other persons or firms asked to submit prices to the government for doing this same work and, if so (i) on what date (ii) what were their names (iii) what were the amounts involved?
2.	Is Mr. Victor Chapman the same Victor Chapman formerly employed on the staff of the Prime Minister?


Maurice Dupras: 1. (a) The decision to hire Intertask Limited was made by an ad hoc committee chaired by the chief of protocol. The decision was approved by the under-secretary of state for the Department of External Affairs and by the minister. The contract was then submitted to Treasury Board for approval in the normal way. (b) Intertask Limited was selected because it was known to have expertise and experience in this area and it was available

immediately, (c) Other firms were not asked to submit tenders because of the shortness of time between Canada's agreement to host the NATO ministerial meeting and the date on which it was held. Canada agreed to host this meeting only two months before it was held and was obliged to compress into that short time all the preparations that normally are made over a six-month span. (The Treasury Board regulation which covered situations of this nature in 1974, was section 14 of the Treasury Board Regulations PC 1964-1467. It states: "Before a service contract is entered into the contracting authority shall invite tenders except in such cases or classes of cases as the contracting authority considers the invitation of tenders not to be in the public interest").
2. See reply to question No. 2,441 answered October 17, 1977.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,441 of the Second Session of the 30th Parliament which stated in part that Mr. Victor Chapman and/or Intertask Limited received $88,000 from the Department of Supply and Services for services rendered towards the United Nations Habitat Conference held in Vancouver, British Columbia from May 31 to June 11, 1976 (a) what is the name of the highest ranking official who selected Mr. Chapman and/or Intertask Limited for the work (b) what are all the reasons that Mr. Chapman and/or Intertask Limited was selected (c) were any other persons or firms asked to submit prices to the government for doing this same work and, if so (i) on what date (ii) what were their names (iii) what were the amounts involved?
2.	Is Mr. Victor Chapman the same Victor Chapman formerly employed on the staff of the Prime Minister?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. (a) the director, professional and special services centre, Department of Supply and Services, (b) This firm was recommended by the customer department. Intertask Limited has established an excellent standard of performance in providing identical services for previous conferences. A survey of other firms who provide the services established that none of the firms had previous experience with conferences of the same magnitude. As a result, Intertask Limited was the only firm invited to bid. (c) No.
2. See reply to question No. 2,441 answered October 17, 1977.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Between 1965 and 1970, were any policemen, prison guards or prison directors murdered in Canada and, if so (a) how many (b) in each case, what was (i) his/her name and address (ii) the date and location of the murder?
2.	Has anyone been found guilty of such crimes and, if so, what are their names?
3.	Have there been any (a) hangings (b) remissions through a Cabinet Order and, if so (i) how many cases (ii) what were the cases?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: 1. Yes. (a) Five members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police but no prison guards or prison directors, (b) (i) Name-Address: Constable N. M. Bruce, RCMP Detachment, Kelowna, B.C.; (ii) Date-Location: April 10, 1965, Westbank, Kelowna, Detachment Area, B.C. (i) Name-Address: Constable G. D. Pearson, RCMP Detachment, Edmonton, Alberta; (ii) Date-Location:
June 9, 1978

November 22, 1966, Winterburn, Alberta, (i) Name-Address: Corporal D. A. Harvey, RCMP Detachment, Grande Prairie, Alberta; (ii) Date-Location: June 23, 1967, Grande Prairie, Alberta, (i) Name-Address: Sergeant R. J. Schrader, RCMP Detachment, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan; (ii) Date-Location: October 9, 1970, MacDowell District Saskatchewan, (i) Name-Address: Constable D. B. Anson, RCMP Detachment, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan; (ii) Date-Location: October 9, 1970, MacDowell District, Saskatchewan.
2. Charles Wilford Hill was found guilty of the murder of Constable G. D. Pearson. Leonard Otto Borg was found guilty of the murder of Corporal D. A. Harvey.
Note: With reference to parts 1 and 2 above, the Ministry of the Solicitor General is only able to supply details on the murders of RCMP members and federal custodial staff. For further information, your attention is directed to page 121 of the statistical handbook-Selected Aspects of Criminal Justice tabled in the House of Commons on March 19, 1976- Sessional Paper No. 301-7/48C.
3. (a) No. (b) Yes. (i) 39 cases, (ii) Joseph Angus McDonald; Thomas Louis Wolfson; Normand Laterreur; Lawrence Herman Haase; John Charles Byrnes; Melvin Peter Young; Joseph Celvis Marche; Joseph Antonio Leopold Dion; Joseph Philias Oscar Letourneau; Matthew Kerry Smith; Reginald John Colpitts; Lloyd Dennis Lyding; Roger Allan Fulton; Claude Levasseur; Henri Boivin; Rene Emile Castellani; Ovila Boulet; Francois Schirm; Clifford Wickett Lurvey; Michael Gregory Kuzyk; Frederick Myron Turner; Roger Poirier; William Tamas; Roger Chevalier; Robert Collin; Marcel Bernier; Claude Martin; Jean-Jacques Gladu; Roland Poirier; Jacques Poirier; Roger Demers; Douglas Brown; Douglas Joseph Booth; Jean-Jacques Boivin; David Albert Deleon; Herbert Mathew Myers; Harold Arthur Ortt; Edmond Guenette; Leonard Otto Borg.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Between 1970 and 1975, were any policemen, prison guards or prison directors murdered and, if so (a) how many (b) in each case, what was (i) his/her name and address (ii) the date and location of the murder?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Canadian Penitentiary Service and National Parole Service. Yes. (a) Canadian Penitentiary Service Officers, 3. Canadian Penitentiary Service Institutional Directors, Nil. (b) (i) Name: S. Green, (ii) Date-Location: July 22, 1974, Stony Mountain Institution, Manitoba, (i) Name: G. L. Nadeau, (ii) Date-Location: April 8, 1975, Cowansville Institution, Quebec, (i) Name: P. Gosse-lin, (ii) Date-Location: June 27, 1975, Queen Mary Veterans Hospital, Montreal.
Note: It is not the policy of the Canadian Penitentiary Service to reveal the address of its employees.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Yes. (a) two members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, (b) (i) Name-Address:
Order Paper Questions
Constable H. S. Seigel, RCMP Detachment, St. Pierre, Manitoba; (ii) Date-Location: September 26, 1971, lie des Chenes, Manitoba, (i) Name-Address: Constable R. E. Pierlet, RCMP Detachment, Surrey, B.C. (ii) Date-Location: March 29, 1974, Cloverdale, B.C.
Note: The Ministry of the Solicitor General is only able to supply details on the murders of RCMP members and federal custodial staff. For further information, your attention is directed to page 121 of the Statistical Handbook-Selected Aspects of Criminal Justice tabled in the House of Commons on March 19, 1976-Sessional Paper No. 301-7/48C.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): In (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 (d) January 1978 (e) February 1978, were any policemen, prison guards or prison directors murdered and, if so, how many and what was his/her name and address in each case?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Canadian Penitentiary Service and National Parole Service: (a) Yes-2 Canadian Penitentiary Service officers; G. L. Nadeau (Instructor); P. Gosselin (CX Officer), (b) No. (c) No. (d) No. (e) Yes-1 Canadian Penitentiary Service Institutional Director. M. Roy.
Note: It is not the policy of the Canadian Penitentiary Service to reveal the address of its employees.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police: (a) No. (b) No. (c) No. (d) Yes-2 members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Corporal B. W. Lidstone, RCMP Detachment, Fredericton, New Brunswick; Constable P. J. Brophy, RCMP Detachment, Fredericton, New Brunswick, (e) Yes-1 member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Constable Dennis Onofrey, RCMP Detachment, Virden, Manitoba.
Note: The Ministry of the Solicitor General is only able to supply details on the murders of RCMP members and federal custodial staff. For further information, your attention is directed to page 121 of the Statistical Handbook-Selected Aspects of Criminal Justice tabled in the House of Commons on March 19, 1976-Sessional Paper No. 301-7/48C.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many ships passed under the Bay Bridge at Highway 14 (Ontario) during the shipping season, May to October 1977?
2.	What is the breakdown (a) eastbound (b) westbound?
3.	What is the information for the past two years?


Otto Emil Lang: The swing Bay Bridge at Highway 14 is owned and operated by the government of the province of Ontario, therefore provision of information concerning the operation of this bridge is not the responsibility of the Government of Canada.
6238

June 9, 1978
Official Secrets Act


Yvon Pinard: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Gerald William Baldwin: That this House notes with concern the secret trial to Alexander Peter Treu and the harassment of the Toronto Sun and its editor, Peter Worthington, under the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, and urges the establishment of a special committee of this House to recommend such changes in the Act as will limit its scope to matters directly related to national security and defence.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will note that the proceedings on this motion shall expire at the ordinary hour of adjournment later this day, in accordance with the terms of section 11 of Standing Order 58.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise first on a point of order before time starts ticking against me. Certain documents were tabled yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Young) and in tabling them he said, as reported at page 6189 of Hansard'.
I would add, Mr. Speaker, that I am tabling the remarks at sentence in French only as we have no authority to produce an official translation of such court documents.
My office telephoned the office of the judge, and I spoke to the people there who said that so far as they were concerned that is a lot of nonsense and they have no objection at all to the documents being translated into English. After preliminary examination of these documents-it is the first time I have had a chance to pull back the curtain and have a look at what lies beneath-I think it is very important that these documents should be made available. It may well be that the House might agree at this time that the remarks of the trial judge with respect to the sentencing be appended to Hansard. They would then be available in both French and English for all people who are interested, and I commend them as very important reading to all members of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I would presume that any reluctance on the part of the government to do the translation was not related to a lack of permission but rather to an unwillingness to accept the responsibility for the translation of a document which might come under contest. I notice that the Parliamentary
[Mr. Lang.l
Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Young) is prepared to respond.
I have no objection to accepting the document on behalf of the House in any way that would facilitate its translation in our area of responsibility. We do it as a matter of regular course with those documents that are filed and are either referred to in debate in such a way as to require translation or, alternatively, are appended to Hansard so that they require translation. I think that should be done, unless the Department of Justice will proceed with the translation.


Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think you have touched exactly on the point I would have mentioned. I do not think there is any objection on the part of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) either to translating the document or having members of the opposition translate the words that I tabled yesterday, from French to English. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has mentioned a phone call and told us of the response that there was no objection to the translation.
I would point out that this is an entirely different issue from whether I or the Minister of Justice could have provided the House with an "official" translation. I do not think we could have done that. It was our belief that we could not specifically provide an official translation of the remarks by the court. We could do a translation and hon. members opposite could do one, but whether that would be accepted as "official" on the part of court officials is, I think, a completely different matter.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the parliamentary secretary then give consent to having the document which was tabled by him yesterday appended to today's Hansard? That would leave very simply the question of translation where it belongs, with the House. I would be as willing to accept the translation of the House as I would that of the Department of Justice.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker I have no objection to the document being appended to Hansard (and thereby translated.)


Mr. Speaker:: The House is agreed. Then we will order that the document shall be appended to today's Hansard, in which case we can commence at once on the translation of it. There are parts of the document which should be given priorized treatment. Perhaps that can be related to further comment. In any case, we will agree and so order that the documents tabled by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) yesterday, in respect of the Alexander Peter Treu case, be appended to today's Hansard. The result of that will be that we will commence translation at once.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of document above referred to, see Appendix.]


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate at once that I am glad we have been provided with the opportunity for this debate today. While I may have lost a skirmish yesterday,
June 9, 1978

we in the House get used to losing skirmishes from time to time. Because of Your Honour's remarks yesterday, perhaps the net result will be the provision of an opportunity for a committee to have a look at the general issue involved. Because of the fact that we have been provided with an opportunity to debate this matter, 1 think a major battle is being won by the House and by the country. There is still a war to be won, but this first battle will assist in the winning of that war. My loss of a skirmish is part of the proceedings which make this House go around.
Before I knew that we would proceed with this debate today I took the liberty of circulating to all members of the House, except cabinet members and, I believe, some parliamentary secretaries, a simple letter asking for the widest possible support for action involving the naming of a committee to examine the provisions of the Official Secrets Act. So far the result is that I have received approximately 80 or 90 responses, even some from the government side. I did not send one to Your Honour, of course, because it would place Your Honour in a difficult position, nor did 1 send copies to members of the cabinet. In any event, I have received responses from all parties in the House. With the permission of the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) and the facilities here, perhaps we will receive some 100 responses, all of them except one being favourable, and some indicating variations of the possible order. 1 mention this because I think it provides an attitude of the feeling in the House toward this issue.
The United Kingdom has the same rule as the House, where a motion can be put down which is signed by 100 or 150 members. I am attempting to receive signed support of a motion such as that before the House now. The response has been very gratifying. Before the debate is over perhaps the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) will lend his vocal support to the issue. Of course I will wait for him to speak in this regard.
There are some cliches concerning freedom and democracy. It is not true to say that we are born free and automatically inherit institutions of democracy which are self-starting and self-sustaining. On the contrary, in a democratic country there is a constant struggle against governments. By their nature, governments have an inclination to be authoritarian, tyrannical, overly secretive, and one of their prime requirements is to cover up embarrassments, mistakes, and sometimes touches of corruption. I say this of all governments. Because of long experience in this House, the present government has a special expertise in this regard, particularly respecting the hiding of information and taking steps to conceal facts and documents which to any extent may be considered embarrassing. Of course that touches upon the issue before us, the Official Secrets Act and the use which can be made of it.
Recently many people in this country were somewhat shocked to learn of the nature and history of our Official Secrets Act. I should like to take a very few minutes to comment on that aspect of the problem. The Official Secrets Act did not spring into being fully armed like the figure in Greek mythology. It was brought about in its present form
Official Secrets Act
mainly by the machinations and desires of senior bureaucrats in government.
In the nineteenth century in the United Kingdom, a clerk of the foreign office, who was doubling in brass and making extra money writing for the press, had a phenomenal memory. He was able to memorize foreign dispatches, return to his home, and write stories concerning them for the newspapers. He did this at the time of a very important meeting in Europe. As a result, a great deal of trouble was created. If I can quote the prime minister of the day who stated his disapproval, "All hell broke loose in the United Kingdom". This clerk was prosecuted, and the charges against him were dismissed because it was found that there was no charge under the then criminal code to deal with that particular case. Thus the first Official Secrets Act was born under those circumstances. It dealt exclusively with issues of national defence, espionage, and foreign relations. There was no law then; there had to be one and, quite properly so, one was passed.
Some years later enterprising bureaucrats, supported by people in government, improved upon and added clauses to the British act. It expanded the act to cover the disclosure of any official government information. That was the British experience. There were a number of prosecutions under it. As far as I could find out, none of the prosecutions were in secret. During the war there were secret trials, but they were held under the treason provisions where spies were charged, found guilty, and executed. These secret trials were held under the criminal provisions and not so much under the Official Secrets Act.
In 1939 in Canada, when we were approaching the eve of the Second World War, in the type of hysteria and attitude which prevailed at that time this country passed its own Official Secrets Act. To all intents and purposes, it was a replica of the British Act. I emphasize this to hon. members of the house. It was passed with no debate at all. There was no debate at second reading stage. There were a few comments at the time of clause by clause discussion.
The then minister of justice, Mr. Lapointe, who perhaps was badly advised by his officials, told the House that this was an act dealing with espionage and defence only. The only critic, an hon. member of the then C.C.F. party, who dealt with the issue said precisely the same thing.
Whereas in fact the direct copy of the British act brought within the ambit of sanctions and criminal action every minor leakage of official documents of any kind, any public servant who gave or any person who received documents was caught within the fine mesh of Section 4 and other sections of the particular act. What had been a weapon of defence against enemies without, became an offensive mechanism for governments and bureaucrats to deal with embarrassments within. In other words, it became part of the danger within. In my humble opinion, I consider the text and the provisions of the act, as it stands today, to be a very grave danger at this time.

June 9, 1978
*
Official Secrets Act
Any law which does not deserve the respect of the people is not a law that should be on the statute books. I do not mean by this that we should remove the Official Secrets Act entirely, but we should certainly tailor it to make it conform to what the views of society think it should be.
Any act which would not sanction a situation such as we saw today, or in this House yesterday when the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) quite conscientiously and in good faith, when participating in a debate dealing with the Post Office, read from a secret report, namely the Hay report, a report not officially released, is a bad act. There is no doubt that someone gave that document to him or to somebody else. The hon. member was technically in default under the act.
How can we in this House discharge our duties in view of the failure of governments to provide us with documents which constitute reasonable analyses and suggestions in respect of problems in government departments? This forces us to break the law. I suggest with respect that possibly you, Mr. Speaker, at some time or other before you occupied that position-I am not going to ask you to deny this, because you cannot-have been in company with most members of this House in having in their possession documents not officially authorized, and perhaps not even dangerous. You, and all of us, were in breach of the act at those times. There are ministers in the House today who have, or through their assistants, deliberately leaked documents to provide a favourable impression of their activities, or quite frequently to deal with issues and confrontations between themselves and other ministers.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said there are ministers in the House today who had themselves, or through their assistants, leaked documents. It seems to me he is in that way making an allegation of the commission of an offence.


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down.


Otto Emil Lang: I would think he ought not to do that unless he is prepared to give clear evidence about it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) seems to think this is a strange request. I am simply saying that if the hon. member for Peace River is there stating a specific illegal act, is describing an illegal act and ascribing it to a minister in this House, he ought to have some evidence to support what he is saying, or he ought not to say it, and ought to have the good grace to withdraw that allegation, making clear he is not alleging, because he lacks evidence to allege, any such wrong doing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, if possible the minister is making himself even more ridiculous than he did the other day. I did not think that was possible, but apparently he has been successful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: 1 made a general statement. If this minister can stand up in this House and say on his honour as a member of the House that none of his colleagues at any time has ever directly or indirectly leaked information to the press, or to other people, to influence the course of the appreciation for their actions, or to deal with confrontations, let him stand up and say so. If he can make that statement and guarantee it, and if he does so, I will say nothing more about it, but will leave it to the public and the press to judge who is correct.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, the hon. member for Peace River has now, indeed, even moved from the specific allegation of an illegal act and wrong doing to the general question of whether anything was ever leaked. What an extraordinary proposition he is putting forward! How extraordinary that he could a moment ago make a general charge of illegal act or wrong doing against ministers in this House-


An hon. Member:: My goodness, he is sensitive.


Otto Emil Lang: -and now says he will not withdraw that but stand by it, not because he is going to produce a tittle of evidence about it, but will stand by it unless someone on this side can make a sweeping and absolute defence against some leak somewhere, which is quite a different issue. What an extraordinary legal doctrine, that the hon. member for Peace River may make a charge in relation to wrong doing, and then, rather than having evidence, he says; "Let the defence come forward first before the charge is even substantiated." I find that so extraordinary that it colours his entire earlier rhetoric about our legal system, our courts, and their role in it.


An hon. Member:: How sensitive can you be.


Otto Emil Lang: It seems to show a complete lack of understanding of our legal system. If members opposite suggest I am sensitive about this, let me say that I am sensitive about the need to adhere to some decency and some tradition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: -and some traditions of British justice and fair play. If hon. members opposite find that unimportant, then let me say that, to me, it is extremely important that no member in this House should in that fashion seem to put the burden on others by a general statement of illegality and wrong doing. I take it the hon. member for Peace River should have the good grace, with his wisdom and experience in the law, to move away from any suggestion that he would, without evidence which he is willing to produce, make an allegation of illegality or wrong doing on the part of, as he said, ministers in this House.


An hon. Member:: Your halo is crooked.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

June 9, 1978


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the expressions of opinion by the minister and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) would indicate that the point has been clarified, at least to my satisfaction. I listened to the hon. member for Peace River who at one time implied that I, as a member, might have at one time, in my parliamentary life had some documents in my possession. I did not take that as a direct innuendo, but rather a statement said in a way that would mean any person at some time in his life might find himself, without his own knowledge, in that position. 1 took the hon. member's statement perhaps a little more lightly than did the minister. The minister did quite rightly rise to clarify the issue. I think we should leave it at that point.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I was attacking the law and how it operates as being a stupid, silly, and ridiculous law. It was certainly not an attack in the parliamentary sense against any person at all. I think the Minister of Transport should have realized that. This reminds me of a judge we used to have in the Peace River country. He was there for a good many years and we used to refer to him as "the judge of necessity" because of that very old motto about necessity.
However, let me carry on, Mr. Speaker. I have said that in my opinion this act is no longer a weapon of defence but has now become an offensive mechanism. That is borne out by the report of the Royal Commission on Security in 1969. I am not going to take the time to read the document in whole or in part, but it does make some very strong criticisms of the operation of the Official Secrets Act.
That commission made some suggestions that 1 and other members on this side have advanced from time to time. Some of us who have been in the House for some time will remember the unfortunate case involving a postal clerk by the name of Spencer. He was a former member of the communist party and had gathered together information that was publicly available to anybody in this country, and had given it to an agent of another country. There was a fuss in this House, and the then Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, quite courageously stated the facts and said that no action would be taken because of the nature of the proceedings that would have to be initiated. The man died, not long after. He was then suffering from terminal cancer. This shows the stupidity of the existence and maintenance of this act.
Those who have criticised us who have suggested that the law should be changed, have always asked us to define the kind of crime that should be covered. They have talked about definition of the kind of criminal actions that should be covered, and have referred to the use of the phrase "national security", which we deliberately put into this motion because it involves the subject of discussion. 1 recognize that it is not easy, Mr. Speaker. The words "national security" are comparatively new words which have come into the lexicon of governments and the courts since the time of Joseph Mac-Carthy and the cold war. But even if the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) would find difficulty in defining them, I have seen in this House monstrosities in legal form perpetrated as legis-
Official Secrets Act
lation, after people in the Department of Justice have struggled to bring forward legislation.
I suggest that it is not beyond the scope and the capacity of this government to produce the limited, narrow type of definition to which provisions of this kind should be restricted. To say that it is hard to do, is no answer. The trouble today is that the normal practices of cover-up and concealment, which in the passive sense have been so evident in the operations of this government, have now been translated into intimidation and threats, as in the case of Rudnicki and in the case of attempts by the government to stop the operations of the Laycraft commission and the Keable commission using section 4(1) of the Federal Court Act. There are also the examples of the uranium cartel, that diabolical regulation which was enacted and the attempt by the Prime Minister to intimidate the CBC to take a course of action with regard to national unity, which was, in his opinion, the only course that could be taken.
There was a recent disclosure yesterday in the newspapers of the RCMP apparently taking OHIP records illegally and then saying they cannot break another law by revealing them. There is the case of the Toronto Sun, a case of selective prosecution that, in my opinion, was deliberately taken. 1 am not talking about whether or not the Sun is guilty of an offence under the act. As a matter of fact, as I tried to make out a moment ago, almost anything can be a crime under the Official Secrets Act. The Toronto Sun has been selectively prosecuted and the case is very similar to the Aitken's case in the United Kingdom.
I believe that part of the reason for which the Sun was picked out is because it came to the defence of Dr. Treu about the very dangerous trial that was undertaken in that regard by the government. In the Treu case, the trial and the conviction were in secret, and the sentence was open only because the law demanded it. The reasons for judgment disclosed in this sentencing are remarkable. The comments of the learned trial judge who sentenced this man to two years, and the fact that the government, not only stood by passively, but launched the prosecution, are events which I find extraordinary.
I find it difficult to believe that a government would act as this government has acted, and looking ahead 1 hope that the appeal will change the conviction. If it is not changed, Mr. Treu will go to jail for two years, or whatever time is suggested by the appeal court. I am convinced that if the government takes the same attitude it does now, Mr. Treu will be told while he is in jail that if he says anything his rights to parole will be limited, his opportunity to seek early release through parole will be limited, and he will be told that if he says anything after he has left jail he will be liable for further infractions and further charges under the Official Secrets Act.
Alexander Dumas should have lived today, Mr. Speaker, to write about this as he wrote about the Count of Monte Cristo or as in the story of "The Man in the Iron Mask." Those are the kinds of situations which have been created under the operation of the Official Secrets Act. It is particularly so in the

June 9, 1978
Official Secrets Act
case of Alexander Peter Treu. This government has put out the lights for him.
The facts behind the charges against Mr. Treu, if there is a charge in the true sense of the word, not a technical sense, are extraordinary. In March, or at least early 1974, the authorities began a most painstaking investigation of his documents. The only charges which the former minister of justice, Mr. Turner, was able to lay were the two rather innocuous charges upon which he was convicted. The trial did not start until 1976, and a year and a half after it started Mr. Treu received from the NATO service centre in Brussels another contract related to the contract upon which he had been working before the documents were seized. Ele received a contract, and was operating under that contract, and he received other contracts as well since the time the investigation had started, and the last contract, which he received in 1977, Mr. Treu is still engaged in carrying it out, and he is still receiving classified documents. Those are the facts of the case.
However, this government has refused to look at the matter from the viewpoint of equity, to order a new trial in the open. It is one of the most extraordinary situations I have ever seen in all my years at the bar. There are a number of questions which cry out aloud against this government. There is the case of Treu alone, which goes in one slot. There is the case of this law, this stupid, tyrannical authoritarian law which, as an English judge once said, "has long outlived its usefulness in its present form and has to be pensioned off." A law such as this deserves contempt, and that is all I have for it.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a strange and disturbing case which remains a mystery in a dark room, behind locked doors. Unless this House and this country meet the challenge, open those doors, and turn on the lights, in my humble opinion a very substantial injustice will have been committed and carried on. Here is one small man against whom is arrayed the enormous power of the state and the state system. He is not a real criminal, as the judge himself said in sentencing, in the ordinary sense of the word, but had to be sent to jail as a deterrent to others, yet nobody else knows what the facts are.
If there is a criminal in this matter in the general sense of the word, it is the government that sits opposite, criminal in the sense that it has taken the proceedings which, in my opinion, are against natural justice and human rights. We in this House just a short time ago cried out unanimously against this kind of trial which was being perpetrated in the Soviet Union, and we did so promptly. I would suggest to the members of this House that we look at what we are doing in the case of Alexander Peter Treu.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise here to speak in this debate on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) because he has previous commitments in British Columbia today. He has several very important meetings, including, I believe, one with the premier and one with the Law Society, which were longstanding commitments. As hon. members know, a debate like this is brought about with

relatively short notice. Indeed, we are grateful that perhaps the notice in this case was a few hours longer than normal, but even at that the travel plans and firm commitments of the Minister of Justice were in place.
First I would like to note that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), in moving this motion, is asking for a review of a law, and that is in itself not an extraordinary matter but one which, after a period of time, obviously deserves attention, and I am sure it is receiving that attention.
The motion would have an examination undertaken by a committee of this parliament. No doubt at some point that would be the right course as well, although it may very well be that the best course is for the Minister of Justice and others charged with responsibility in this area to consider what propositions and proposals they would want to put forward, and have them examined as proposals rather than in the abstract.
I found the motion rather strange in that in referring the subject matter to a committee it seemed to go on to tell that committee in advance about the results of its work. It directed that the scope be limited to certain things. That would be, perhaps, an unusual way of concluding a question before the question is even raised in the committee. It shows the kind of confusion that the hon. member for Peace River is bringing into this area, which is a very important area.
It is important to understand that we all believe very firmly in the principle of the independence of the courts and their role in safeguarding rights of citizens while at the same time enforcing law laid down by parliament. It is important that we avoid intemperate outbursts against judges and the courts, against process and procedure, in the absence of the full facts, and to avoid implications that the courts are in some way misbehaving or mishandling the question. We have seen that recently from the hon. member for Peace River. I think it is unfortunate and wrong.
The fact that a trial was held in secret is, of course, a matter which can catch the public imagination and be made to sound as though something very strange was going on. The hon. member for Peace River referred to it in that way when he said in his closing rhetoric that this was held in a dark room behind closed doors. Mr. Speaker, neither the hon. member for Peace River nor I was present, and neither of us knows whether the room was dark, middle lit, or lit very brightly. That is a small example of the way in which rhetoric is designed to excite opinion about an issue which may be in the process of being handled in a completely legitimate way and in a way in which it would be handled even after the closest scrutiny by any committee. After the restructuring of laws in this particular case the same procedures might be followed.
There are reasons for a court from time to time to have discretion to exclude its deliberations from public view. Only about a year ago a piece of legislation with which I was associated as Minister of Justice, was endorsed by this House. It gave some additional powers to courts in relation to exclud-
June 9, 1978

ing from public view or comment, cases involving certain sexual offences where the particular purpose of the exclusion was obviously the defence of reputation and innocence which might otherwise be damaged. In the same way, in cases involving delicate information in the hands of government, the state and its agencies, where the protection of the security of the state is at issue and where the secrecy of that information is important, it would seem obvious to me that some such matters cannot properly be talked about in court in open public view.
If there is secrecy attached to any document or any information, and even the hon. member for Peace River admits that in certain categories of information, then there may be cases where secrecy in court is required as well. In this particular case that followed exactly. Indeed, items of information involved here would appear to fall even within the hon. member's narrow category, that is to say, even he would have the official secrets law apply to certain types of information with which we may deal here.
I cannot say very much about the two cases referred to in the motion, of course. Indeed, all hon. members would require that these matters be sub judice and there ought not to be extensive analysis or reference to them as though the rights of the individuals were not important and as though the proceedings before the court were not the right and best way to test those rights.
In this particular motion, referring again to the Treu case, what was arranged in advance was the application for the hearings to be in camera, and the indication was that that request was being made because the documents which would be reviewed included a large number of NATO documents and testimony of witnesses concerning those documents. The obligation of the Government of Canada to protect the secrecy of that information was also cited. Information was to be discussed which was of a military and defence nature. For those reasons the request was made for in camera proceedings.
The accused was there before the court with his laywer. The court invited the lawyer for the defence to make comment upon the request that the hearings be held in secret, and his reply, as recorded by counsel for the defence, was:

... as far as that request is concerned, I have no representation.

This is, therefore, hardly an occasion the beginnings or the continuation of which should lead to the high flown rhetoric of the hon. member for Peace River who referred to the Star Chamber, a situation where procedures for the defence, rights of appeal and all, were set aside at one difficult period in history a long time ago. In this country rights of defence counsel for the accused, rights of appeal, all stand and exist, and are very important indeed to us.
The Official Secrets Act is a necessary piece of legislation and exists in countries throughout the world where in every case there are certain matters which are of delicacy and
Official Secrets Act
confidentiality and which need, for a variety of public purposes, to be protected.
We have here the results of that in the existence in Canada of a law, one which in its particular form has stood for a long time, one which troubles the hon. member opposite when he reaches his own legal conclusions about who may be offending against provisions of the act, who may have a different opinion than his, a different legal advice than he about those provisions. In some cases he may be sweeping in as illegalities things which are not illegal under the act. His carelessness in referring to secrecy and the Star Chamber, his carelessness in referring to the judge, weaken the allegations he is making in law. It shows a driving willingness to exploit the situation in a particular way rather than analysing it in a way which a committee of this House dealing with it later on would presumably do.
Very few cases have gone to court under the Official Secrets Act. Officials have provided me with a list of eight or so cases, including the two to which the hon. member's motion refers. Of the others, four dealt particularly with matters which resolved around the famous Gouzenko case. There were two others, one in 1962 which was dismissed, and one in 1967 where a conviction was obtained, and there are two current cases. That is all an indication of the fact that the act in its operation is designed to deal with certain important matters and is not necessarily as sweeping as the hon. member would seem to imply.
I should say that I take some umbrage on behalf of the Minister of Justice at the words in the motion which refer to the harassment of the Toronto Sun and its editor. I am not sure that the hon. member for Peace River has added anything to clarify where he finds the harassment. He referred to the matter as being the subject of a charge and a proceeding. I wonder if he is, indeed, suggesting that this is a reason for somehow calling it harassment. If he is, 1 think it is a completely erroneous statement to make, having regard to the careful traditions and procedures which were followed in this case by the Attorney General who himself cited the long standing traditions of care with regard to these matters.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth while my recalling for hon. members the words of the Minister of Justice when referring to the matter in this House shortly after the laying of the charges. At that time the minister described his concern and deliberation of the matter before reaching his conclusions as to where his duty lay. I refer to page 388 of Hansard for March 17, 1978. The Minister of Justice is quoted as saying:
In arriving at these I have been guided by recognized authorities such a Lord Shawcross, Edwards, Erskine, May and Bourinot, and more recently and very helpfully, my valuable discussions with Commonwealth attorneys general in Winnipeg last summer on the office of attorney general, and more particularly my personal conversations at that time with the Attorney General of England and Wales and the Lord Chancellor.
I am aware that, since the enactment of the Official Secrets Act, this would appear to have been the first occasion in Canada where consideration has to be given to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act and the right of a member of

Official Secrets Act
the House to freely express his views in the House in the course of carrying on his parliamentary business.
The first principle, in my view, is that there must be excluded any consideration based upon narrow, partisan views, or based upon the political consequences to me or to others.
In arriving at a decision on such a sensitive issue as this, the Attorney General is entitled to seek information and advice from others but in no way is he directed by his colleagues in the government or by parliament itself. That is not to say that the Attorney General is not accountable to parliament for his decisions, which he obviously is.
Clearly, I am entitled to seek and obtain information from others, including my colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), and the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the security implications of recent disclosures. This I have done.
In my view, the special position of the Attorney General in this regard is clearly entrenched in our parliamentary practice. Based on the authorities and on my own experience as a member of the government for ten years, which has included my three immediate predecessors, this special position has been diligently protected in theory and in practice.
Mr. Speaker, the second principle is that every citizen is subject to the law. One of the pillars of our system of government, dating back three centuries, is that neither the king nor any other person, be he a member of this House, a member of the government, a member of the press, or someone possessed of title or position, is above the law. The law should apply to all, equally. He who breaks it must bear the consequences.
Third, with today's differing ideological viewpoints between different countries, it is essential for the preservation of our democratic way of life that there would be maintained a strong and vigorous security service. In spite of all that has been alleged and what is properly being examined by the McDonald Commission, we are being well served by a group of dedicated individuals.
The Minister of Justice went on to refer to his consultation with his officials and their advice in the matter, upon which he was relying. That, surely, is an answer, and a complete one, to the use of the word "harassment" used by the hon. member. We have before us the law of the land. Members opposite are sometimes seen to ask the government to ensure the law is observed and not in any way ignored. In this case the Attorney General, looking at his obligations under the law, following the highest precedents and traditions of his office, reached the conclusion that his consent under the Official Secrets Act was the appropriate course of action to take, and he therefore followed it. That is surely an answer to this particular part of the motion, one which should stand and should lead the hon. member for Peace River to accept and to qualify his remarks. He should accept these explanations and comments and qualify his remarks concerning harassment.
We do have in this country an Official Secrets Act, and we shall continue to need one. There seems to be no debate about that. The debate may go on with respect to interpretation and, perhaps, about some procedures within the law, but the law does stand. Hence, the judge in the Treu case was quite right in being concerned about implications that he had in some way ignored the law when those implications were somewhat overstated by the hon. member for Peace River.
The hon. member touched on another item. 1 do not know that he produced any evidence on it, but it concerned the suggestion when he said, I think, "the continuation of receipt of classified information by the defendant in this case." My information does not agree with that, and I do not know where the hon. member is receiving his. However, as I have indicated in some four or five cases during the course of my remarks, the

hon. member for Peace River has substituted allegation and suggestion and hint without evidence at all for any substantial base upon which to make his case. We have heard him refer to the Official Secrets Act which he admits is required. He would argue about the nature of matters which should come before it. But surely in addition to those of national security and defence, there is a need to protect certain matters which need to be received in confidence, such as private information which is sometimes designed to be in confidence, such things as cabinet documents and information which in that way it is important to keep confidential.
The question of procedures which will follow is one which we can debate, but surely the hon. member would admit that some trials would have to be in secret. He should therefore avoid rhetoric which makes him sound as though he would never, at any time, have a part of any such secret trial.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear, even from the motion, that from any analysis of the nature of the problem of secrecy and the protection of information, we need an Official Secrets Act. It is fairly clear in almost any circumstance it would be somewhat broader than the narrow definition prescribed for it by the motion of the hon. member for Peace River. I am thinking of information which, if released, might impede law enforcement, or assist criminals, which might interfere with our foreign relationships or, indeed, if information was received in confidence on categories which might continue to deserve protection.
I think that the reference I made to the Worthington case and the statement by the Minister of Justice adequately dealt with the course of conduct he felt obliged to follow. I do not want to say more about that in view of its nature as a case before the courts.
I think it is clear, without any reference to the Treu case, that secrecy in a trial may well be required. If that is the case, then the approach in the Official Secrets Act, which gives the judgment to the court and the decision of the judge as to when that should be the case, is the right and time-honoured approach. I think it sits very badly with a member of parliament, or indeed anyone, to attack intemperately that process of the court or the judge without the least bit of evidence of any misapplication of principles of law, fairness, and justice, to make it seem as though something nefarious had gone on.
June 9, 1978

I referred earlier to the fact that the accused's counsel did not in fact offer any representations on the argument that it was to be a case in camera. I put forward the proposition that obviously that would have to be so in some cases where the very evidence being dealt with was itself so delicate that the speaking about it and arguing about it would do the very damage that was sought to be prevented by the law.
I think any defence counsel would understand in certain circumstances it would be appropriate, just as in some others for the sole protection of the defence or a witness secrecy is the exception, as a permitted and recognized form of action. Here too with the judgment of a court it can be properly brought about.
It is rather sad if members raise the level of their rhetoric to try to appeal to the superficial view of the fact that the trial being in secret was something wrong by talking, as the hon. member for Peace River did, about something behind closed doors in a dark room or the Star Chamber. That is wrong, and should be emphasized. I repeat it in order to emphasize it.
Members of parliament and other citizens ought to have such respect for the courts and our processes that they do not launch into attacks against them without some evidence of a misapplication of a rule or principle. No such evidence has been put before us here.
I would add that we do not have before us, inevitably, the full story of that case. We may have more if the Minister of Justice succeeds in his suggestion that he will see if the judgment of the court, as distinct from the words of the sentencing, may be made available to the House for our further information about the case.
Obviously any law may be reviewed and should be reviewed from time to time, and I indicated earlier that that may well be an appropriate course of action now with regard to this one, but it is quite wrong to use lack of evidence, intemperate rhetoric, and the excitement of concern, based on principles and practices which themselves are completely defensible and understandable, to distort the situation and make it appear as though something is going on which is in fact not in any way a threat to the system of justice in which we all live and which we all defend and cherish.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate that we in the New Democratic Party are in full support of the motion which has been placed before the House today by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I want to commend him on the campaign he has conducted over a number of years against secrecy in many areas of government. Indeed, the motion he has put down today specifies one particular area where there is too much secrecy for our democratic way of life, and we welcome the opportunity he has given the House to discuss this matter on this allotted day.
I want also to say that, in my view, the hon. member has certainly made a case for the intent of his motion, namely, that
Official Secrets Act
there should be a special committee of this House to review the Official Secrets Act and to recommend such changes as might seem desirable to that committee.
I listened with a great deal of interest, and perhaps a bit of amusement, to the attempt of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to demolish the case of the hon. member for Peace River by accusing him of indulging in rhetoric and of being intemperate.


Mr. Dick:: That was because he had a weak argument.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Precisely. I thank my hon. friend for taking the words out of my mouth. The minister had such a weak argument that he had to turn on the hon. member for Peace River as a man who indulges in rhetoric. The hon. member for Peace River is a very interesting speaker. I like his style. He often comes out with a turn of phrase which really makes the point, but he is not exactly one of the tub-thumping orators of this place. As for accusing him of indulging in rhetoric, all the Minister of Transport was doing was admitting that he did not have a case against the solid arguments of the hon. member for Peace River. Then to throw in the word "intemperate" a few times adds to the evidence against the Minister of Transport that he was really floored by the argument and the case made by the hon. member for Peace River. We certainly give that hon. member and his motion our full support.
One other attempt the Minister of Transport made to belittle this motion was to argue that there have been very few cases under the Official Secrets Act where persons have been charged or brought to trial. I did not make the notes 1 perhaps should have made, but I think he said that since the Gouzenko case there have been only four cases. One case was dismissed, and another led to a conviction. Others are the two which are with us right now, the case against Alexander Peter Treu, and the harassment of the Toronto Sun and its editor, Peter Worthington. In terms of civil liberties and in terms of democracy that is just about the weakest argument I have heard. If there is only one case of injustice, or only one case of the law having done something wrong to a human being, that is a serious matter, and I think it calls for the kind of review which has been proposed by the hon. member for Peace River.
As for those few times that the Official Secrets Act has been used, I noted the reference to the Gouzenko days. I was here then, and I remember the feeling of revulsion there was on the part of people concerned about civil liberties.


Mr. Ellis:: Nobody can remember when you weren't here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was here a few years before I was, and my friend, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), came long before I did.


Ralph Goodale: All that is irrelevant.

June 9, 1978
Official Secrets Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), says that is irrelevant. That is true. It was an answer to an interjection, but I thank the hon. member for getting me back to the point I wanted to make.
In the Gouzenko days there really was a hue and cry about the extent to which secrecy was used on that occasion against a great many Canadians. I well remember taking part with the late Dr. B. K. Sandwell and the present right hon. member for Prince Albert in a big meeting which was held in Winnipeg in those days. 1 remember how fully that was reported and how much interest there was, because even though Canadians were found guilty of certain crimes against their country, the feeling in defence of civil liberties was so strong in those days that there was a good deal of concern over the way in which the government had used that legislation, in other words, the Official Secrets Act.
The minister says that since that time there has been one case where there was a dismissal, another case where there was a conviction, and now there are two, in one of which there has already been a conviction. It is good to know that secrecy on the part of the government is not practised very often, but I thought we believed in an open society. I thought we were opposed to this sort of thing when it is done in countries on the other side of the iron curtain, but we had the Gouzenko experience and the use of the War Measures Act in 1970, and now we have the use of the Official Secrets Act in two cases. Even if in only one case harm is being done to an individual in terms of his rights, I say that it is time that this parliament, the highest court in the land, reviewed that situation, and I am pleased to indicate our full support for the motion which is before us at this time.
I said earlier that we welcome this motion not only for its own sake but also because it is tied in with and is part of a campaign in which many of us have taken part-I have to give the hon. member for Peace River particular commendation- against secrecy in government in many ways.
We have had a great deal of trouble the last number of months about matters respecting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their use of the powers they had or powers they did not have. We have had trouble because much has been kept secret, because the police did not tell the responsible cabinet minister what they were doing, or because one minister did not tell another, and a good deal of the trouble which is still with us today and which supposedly is being investigated by the McDonald commission is because we have across the way a government which seems to think that the right to do things in secret somehow goes with the fact that the government is in power. I think that that is an area where things ought to be reviewed.
I may say too that we all know of cases in the public service where persons get fired and never know the reason. There was much fuss a while back about extra-parliamentary activities and about a certain secret list, but around here many things which are secret seem to get leaked and seem to get out. However, many individuals feel that their lives are put in

jeopardy, or their careers are frustrated because of things which are done against them for reasons they know nothing about at all. In our view that is not consistent with the whole principle of democracy, which calls for things to be done in the open just as much as possible.
I know that every time an hon. member, like the hon. member for Peace River, says we must have an Official Secrets Act, we must have some areas where secrecy is the rule, it brings back the great orator, the Minister of Transport, to tell us that we have admitted his side of the case. It makes it difficult for us to make that admission too strongly because our greater concern is indeed with individual rights and liberties, and those rights and liberties are in jeopardy when secrecy can be practised the way it is by this government.
I think of another area where we have far too much secrecy around here, and that has to do with the difficulty we have in getting hold of government documents, of opinions or reports that have been prepared for the government in connection with decisions. It is a myth that the government must have these secret reports and secret documents and that the rest of us must not know what is in them. The government makes decisions on the basis of reports or of research that has been done, but we in parliament and the people of the country are denied the right to know what has been produced by those who have done the research. Sometimes it is in matters of social policy, of agriculture, of labour, immigration, or what have you, and I think we have gone too far down the road in terms of protecting these areas by secrecy. When I say "we", I mean the government has gone that way.
Those guidelines which were tabled by the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) some time ago are forever being read to us. I realize that they have been studied in committee and so on, but they have never been adopted by parliament itself. They are guidelines foisted upon us unilaterally under which, as I say, the government keeps all kinds of things secret. Many a time when we have asked for the reasons for certain decisions, or why this piece of legislation was valid and that one was not valid, we have been told that this is because of a ruling from the Department of Justice, and a number of times I have had something to say about some of those rulings. As a matter of fact one former deputy minister of justice has remonstrated with me for referring to certain specific cases where I felt that the government was getting the ruling that it wanted from the Department of Justice. Out of respect for that opposite opinion I do not intend to mention any particular cases at this point, but I would just say that if we are expected to take at its face value the decisions that the government makes on a ruling of the Department of Justice, we should be able to see that ruling. The cloak of secrecy that is put around those rulings, like the cloak of secrecy that is put around reports prepared by the government, makes it difficult for us to make an evaluation as to whether the decision or the judgment is the correct one or not.
June 9, 1978

There is another area in which I think there is far too much secrecy, and although in this particular debate I am supporting a motion from the Conservative party-and they are glad to have my support-I am coming to an area where they might not be so ready to agree with me, but 1 will try it anyway. 1 believe that in income tax matters, out of respect for the poor little fellows whose affairs should not be made public, we have gone too far in terms of total secrecy on income tax returns. It seems to me that it would make good sense for us to strike some level, such as $50,000 a year, or what have you, and say that above that level information on people's returns should be made public. I think the same thing should apply to corporations. How many times do we find it impossible to ascertain whether the public has paid for certain expenditures of corporations because they get a deduction from their income tax because, we are told, of the secrecy provisions in the Income Tax Act?
I admit that 30 or 40 years ago I brought in a bill to remove the secrecy provisions from the Income Tax Act as a whole, and I well remember the howls I got from my friends to the right. I am prepared to modify that position and to say that for the little people the secrecy rule should stand. But when you get people making $50,000 or $100,000 a year, or more, when you get people with high incomes who manage to make our their returns so that they pay no income tax, I believe that they are defrauding the public and that this information should not be guarded by a cloak of secrecy. As I have said, the same thing applies to the kinds of expenses that corporations can claim for income tax purposes.
I am quite justified in putting this kind of thing in the same category with reports that are prepared for the government to help it make up its mind, with decisions that the government gets from the Department of Justice as to the validity or invalidity of certain measures, in the same way as 1 put the firings which take place, the reasons for hiring, and all the rest of it. There is far too much of the practice of secrecy in government today, particularly by this government, and what has happened in the Treu case is that the whole thing has been brought out into the open.
We are trying our best to get a freedom of information act passed in parliament. The government is favourable to it, and one minister after another says that it is a good idea. We have certain provisions now under the Canadian Human Rights Act where people can get certain information, but we seem to hear more about the kinds of information that cannot be obtained than we do about the kinds of information that can be obtained. Are we a free and open society or are we not? If we want to make a comparison with some other societies, maybe we are better off than they are, but in terms of our protestations about ours being a free, open, and democratic society, we are far below the mark.
Therefore, I am pleased that my friend, the hon. member for Peace River, had the opportunity to put this motion down today. I think he has made an excellent case for it. He did not indulge in intemperate rhetoric; he just stated the case as it is. The Minister of Transport has no reply, so he has made the
Official Secrets Act
accusations he has made in his remarks today, but I hope that the rest of the day will witness a number of members from all sides of the House supporting the proposition that it is time we had less secrecy in this country and therefore it is time we had the kind of committee that is recommended in the motion presented by the hon. member for Peace River.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say something in support of the motion moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I have to say that the attitude taken by the minister today is almost as hard for me to accept as the terms and scope of the Official Secrets Act as it stands in the books. I understand of course what might have prompted the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to talk so much about the importance of avoiding intemperate statements. I think that is something that the minister should repeat to himself every hour on the hour for several weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It seems to me rather amusing that he should accuse the hon. member for Peace River, one of the most moderate and soft-tongued members of the House, of rhetoric and intemperate language. I quite understand why the hon. member for Peace River would speak with some vigour about the Official Secrets Act. It needs to be attacked with some vigour. The hon. member for Peace River has not attacked the judge or the courts, as the Minister of Transport seemed to indicate. He has attacked the act and he has used some vigour in doing so, as I may myself in the course of the afternoon.
1 think there are a number of considerations in connection with legislation of this sort, the Official Secrets Act. The minister has said this morning, and again this afternoon, that there is agreement that this kind of legislation is necessary, and that it exists in virtually all countries. Certainly I am prepared to agree that we need an Official Secrets Act of some limited scope. I would not contest that point with the minister. He spoke as if the act is necessary, that we need this kind of legislation that perhaps it should be looked at, and that all legislation requires some review. He ignored almost entirely the weight of committees and commissions in Canada and elsewhere upon the urgency of a thorough overhaul of this legislation.
First of all, there is the question as to the appropriate scope of such legislation, and what kind of information the Official Secrets Act should try to protect. As the hon. member for Peace River pointed out, this legislation is practically a copy of the British legislation. Virtually it protects all government information. It would permit prosecution for wrongful possession or transmission of practically any or all government information.
An interdepartmental committee in Britain examined this, and made a report in 1972. The committee was headed by Lord Franks. He referred to section 2 of the British act, which is equivalent to section 4 of our act. He said that the main offence which section 2 created was the unauthorized com-

June 9, 1978
Official Secrets Act
munication of official information, including documents, by a Crown servant. Actually this matter is not involved in either of the two cases we are talking about today, but this is the main offence created by section 2 of the British act. The Franks committee also indicated that the leading characteristic of this offence was its catch-all quality. It catches all official documents and information, everything and anything at all. It makes no distinction as to kind or degree. The committee indicated that all information which a Crown servant learns in the course of his duty is official for the purposes of section 2, whatever its nature, whatever its importance, whatever its original origin.
As the hon. member for Peace River pointed out, when this legislation was adopted in Canada there was virtually no debate. It was presented to parliament on the basis of legislation dealing with espionage and the protection of national security in a very basic way. I have the impression that the same thing occurred in Britain when the act was passed in the 1880s. It was not discussed on the basis of preserving the confidentiality of ordinary government documents. It was presented to the House in terms of espionage. The same thing took place in 1911 at Westminster. The situation was similar to what occurred in Ottawa. There was practically no debate or no discussion at all.
As I understand the situation, the catch-all provision has been loved by governments and high functionaries in the public service through the years because it serves as a deterrent. There are some known cases where it has been used, not necessarily in Canada but certainly in Britain, to persuade journalists and authors not to include certain documents or information in some of their writings.
In 1972 the British Franks committee came to the conclusion that their legislation was too broad. Also it found section 2 to be a mess, which is the equivalent of Section 4 in our legislation.
The Canadian Royal Commission on Security found that the legislation was much too broad. Having judged that the Official Secrets Act was unsatisfactory, the royal commission was in favour of a complete revision of the legislation. It discussed some of the things the revised legislation should and should not do.
This morning the Minister of Transport quoted the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) when he said that the law should apply to all equally. I say with no hesitation that this broad catch-all provision has not been applied equally. I doubt if it is possible to apply it equally. For that reason alone, it is bad legislation. Possibly it has been used as a threat or a deterrent, but no one would pretend either section 2 in Britain or Section 4 in Canada would apply to the need at hand, and therefore it is poor legislation.
In addition to preserving confidentiality and protecting the disclosure of matters, also there is the question as to what degree criminal law should be used for this purpose, and the group of cases where we should consider it appropriate to use criminal law. The Franks committee gave a good deal of
[Mr. Stanfield.)
attention to this question. It came to the conclusion that there was no justification or no acceptable reason for using the criminal law, as we now do, to protect all documents and information which we catch up and protect in Section 4 of our legislation. The Franks committee made a short list containing four categories of information where criminal law should be used. Under our Official Secrets Act, as it is now drafted and in effect, the sanction of the criminal law is applicable to any violation of the broad, wide-ranging Section 4 of our legislation. I suggest that is an intolerable situation. I hope the Minister of Transport will not regard that as intemperate language. It is an intolerable situation that we are using the sanction of criminal law to protect all the information covered in Section 4.
A third consideration or concern is evidential and procedural arrangements. These were of concern to our Royal Commission on Security. As the law now stands, in certain circumstances the burden of proof is put on the accused when certain facts have been established. It provides for certain evidentiary presumptions. The royal commission mentioned a couple of instances in which there should be some evidentiary presumption. Also the commission indicated, apart from the two provisions it had mentioned relating to classifications and cases involving classified information and ones involving unclassified material, that it saw no reason for major unusual evidential or procedural arrangements. Yet, the Official Secrets Act has very far-reaching evidential arrangements which are prejudicial to the usual position of a defendant charged with an offence.
This morning the minister said that such prosecutions are rare in Canada. I do not question that. But I do not know what that has to do with the situation, Mr. Speaker.
The minister said prosecutions are rare and, therefore, clearly the Act is designed to deal with certain important matters, but it is not really as sweeping as the hon. member for Peace River implies. I think I have said enough to indicate not only my opinion but the opinion of commissions which have been established to examine the legislation. Their view is that the legislation is enormously sweeping and catches up virtually everything that anyone could think of.
I say, without any hesitation, that I do not believe the government, ministers in a government, or high officials in a government are necessarily the best ones to decide what should or what needs to be kept secret. I am not being offensive about this, and this is not directed toward any individual, but there is a very real danger that members of the government or officials serving the government confuse the interests of the nation with their own political interests. There is very real danger of that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think some better mechanism or better method of deciding what needs to be protected should be considered by the committee.
We have secrecy in the case of the Treu trial. I do not hesitate to agree that there might very well be documents that
June 9, 1978

need to be considered in camera. There is no question about that. I must say, however, I find it pretty hard to accept that a whole trial has to take place in secret. That is asking me and other people to take a good deal on faith. I am not criticising the judge or the court. A court has to operate under the legislation of this country. The fact is that the trial did take place behind closed doors and, in terms of publicity at least, in a dark room. There is no suggestion in the sentence of any mens rea in this instance. It seems to be simply a matter of an allegation of improperly having information in one's possession and not taking proper measures to secure that information.
The judge said, as 1 understand it, that it was necessary to convict and sentence Treu in order to serve as an example to others.
I do not want even to try to put myself in the position of being an appellate court, and I assume there will be an appeal, but I have to say very simply that I find this kind of totally secret trial pretty hard to accept in our country, and I would require a good deal better case than that put by the Minister of Transport this morning to persuade me that it is necessary. I repeat, I am not criticising the judge; I am criticising the legislation under which the judge had to proceed.
With regard to the Toronto Sun, I am sure the Minister of Justice did the best he could to make the best decision in respect of the charge. Again I find it difficult to understand how a document which was alleged to have been put in the hands of some 50 odd people could be considered an official secret document of any great importance to the state. As far as I know it was never denied that these documents had wide distribution.
I notice that the Sun was prosecuted, but radio stations and others that broadcast effectively what the Sun had published were not prosecuted. I think the Minister of Justice is put in a pretty difficult position with this kind of legislation, and we ought to be able to do something to help him.
The Official Secrets Act is much too broad and much too sweeping, as has been agreed by the authoritative groups which have examined it. It is badly in need of overhauling. The minister did not dispute that it might be a good idea, as he said, to have a look at it. He also said that rather than the work being done by a committee it might be more appropriate if the minister examined the legislation and brought forward some proposals. He said it might be more appropriate to deal with specific concrete proposals brought forth by the minister rather than have a committee deal with this question in the abstract. All I want to say about that, Mr. Speaker, is that it is nearly ten years since the Royal Commission on Security condemned the Official Secrets Act and, in very unambiguous language, called for a review and a substantial overhaul of that legislation.
What reason have we to believe that the Minister of Justice is going to bring forth concrete proposals in respect of overhauling this legislation when the matter has been before him and his predecessors for nearly a decade? It shows something of the attitude of the minister and the government that he should bother to say that perhaps the proposals should come
Official Secrets Act
from the minister rather than the matter being considered by a committee. This reflects what seems to me to be the rather authoritarian attitude of this government.
It was said some ten years ago by a royal commission in Canada that this legislation needs to be overhauled, narrowed, and substantially changed. It was said more recently in Great Britain, by a prestigious committee, that their legislation, which is very substantially the same as ours, needed to be overhauled and changed.
We have had these developments in our own country, the Treu trial and the charges against the Toronto Sun, that have served to accentuate the need for a fresh and urgent look at this legislation. I cannot think of very much that would be more urgent for this parliament to do than to send this subject matter to a committee, and for that committee promptly to launch a thorough study and overhaul which would result in legislation we need for our security, but not legislation that permits itself to be abused.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) for enabling us to discuss this subject in the House today, and also on a much broader basis for the determined leadership he has given in the country and in the House, not only in respect of this subject but on the broader understanding of it, namely, freedom of information.
1 say this, first of all because I think it is true, and it is incumbent upon us from time to time in the House to pay tribute to what members on the other side are doing. I say it secondly because I have to admit I am disappointed with his presentation on this occasion.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: It is sad to say that to gentlemen in the opposition, but I had thought the hon. member for Peace River might have given us a different kind of presentation this morning.
I am disappointed first of all because of the insertion in the motion of the reference to the "harassment of the Toronto Sun and its editor, Peter Worthington", to quote from the words of the motion. I had thought of challenging that on a procedural ground. I must say 1 think it is highly improper to refer in that way to a case which has not yet come to trial. It is unfortunate that such a reference was put into a motion of this kind, the subject matter of which ought to be approached on a different kind of basis.
The complaint of the hon. member for Peace River has to do, as I understand it, with the Official Secrets Act as such, and it should not really be necessary, and indeed it is not even proper, to bring in a reference to a case under that act which is presently in progress.
Secondly, I am disappointed because of the inclusion in the reference of the conclusion, which he would thus determine in advance. I do find this disappointing, Mr. Speaker, because

June 9, 1978
Official Secrets Act
the conclusion which he recommends is not shared by either the Mackenzie Royal Commission or the Franks Royal Commission, in Great Britain. The Franks Royal Commission, admittedly, comes closer than the Mackenzie commission to the kind of proposal which is made here, because they recommend that section 2 of their act, which is equivalent to Section 4 of our act, should no longer be dealt with under the Official Secrets Act, but should be dealt with by a different kind of legislation. They go on to advocate much more than the terms of this motion would allow as to using the remedies of the criminal law to deal with the release of government or official information.
Thirdly, I have to admit that I am disappointed with the presentation of the hon. member for Peace River because of the partisan, rather than the positive, tone and content of his presentation. In fact the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), who is perhaps now freer from such considerations than many of his colleagues and even perhaps members on this side of the House, gave the kind of presentation I would have expected from the hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: 1 gave him my power of attorney.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I think it is highly useful at least that we have the statements of the hon. member for Halifax because he did attempt to explore the legislation and to say what he would criticize in it and what he thought should be involved in the replacement of the Official Secrets Act. That is what this debate is about, Mr. Speaker, if this debate is to be useful at all. It is not an occasion for partisan polemics, but it is an opportunity for us to influence future legislation in an area which is most important to this country. Later on I will refer to another reason why I am disappointed in the statement of the hon. member for Peace River.


Paul Wyatt Dick: What would you do about it?


Mark R. MacGuigan: I will tell you what I would do about it. 1 propose to say how I think the legislation is wrong and to some extent how I think it should be amended, within the limitations of the time that is available to me.
With respect to the Treu trial, we have a most unfortunate situation. We have a lot of information that has reached the public, and I will be taking a lot of it from an article on the Treu trial by Lew Diggs of the Canadian Press which was in the Montreal Gazette of May 29, so that members who wish to see these facts will find them in one place.
That article refers to a statement by Treu himself. He said:
-a top civil servant in the Department of Supply and Services withdrew his security clearance without his knowledge while he continued to receive classified documents.
Apparently, however, Treu's own counsel said that although this may have been substantially correct, it was a very marginal factor in the decision of the case. I just wish we knew more about the case to understand that comment. The Crown prosecutor said:
[Mr. MacGuigan.1
-he called witnesses from NATO and the federal department of supply and services as well as "three military witnesses." All had to deal with highly classified documents and to discuss in detail the relationship between NATO and Canadian classification system.
Apparently, according to other newspaper reports, Mr. Treu was a one time designer of NATO air communications systems.


Gerald William Baldwin: He still is.


Mark R. MacGuigan: He still is, as we are told by the hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: He may have to carry on in jail.


Mark R. MacGuigan: In looking at the judgment of the court, I am even more troubled because one would normally think it would reveal a lot about the facts in the case. In fact, it reveals more about the judge's philosophy than about what actually happened in the case. There are, however, several passages worth referring to. In one case the judge says:

... it is exceedingly difficult for a human being to try another human being or sentence him ... That is a task that is almost humanly impossible . . .

He goes on, Mr. Speaker, obviously addressing Mr. Treu himself:

In your case it is even more difficult because your lawyers are right, you are an exceptional person, you are certainly not, in my opinion, a criminal; you have committed a criminal act but you are not what one would call an individual with a criminal career, far from it, you are a person who has had a most respectable life, who has great intellectual qualities, who as a human being is likeable, at least in my opinion, who has a family, who has children .. .

In other words, the judge finds Mr. Treu an admirable person, and it seems that on the subjective side of the case he would be disposed to great leniency, but he talks about the necessity of looking at the objective side and of looking at the deterrent effect of sentencing.
I will not take the time to read much more of the judgment except for this one passage which indicates that Mr. Treu had legitimate access to the documents at least at certain times. The judge says:

Your lawyer drew my attention to certain circumstances-that the documents for which I have convicted you were your work tools, your intellectual property. ..

Again, this makes it a bit more difficult to understand the result, which consisted of a sentence of two years' imprisonment, two years on the first count, which was under Section 4(1 )(c) of the Official Secrets Act, and one year concurrent under Section 4(1 )(d) of the same act.
1 have not gone into the case to the extent that I have with a view to criticizing the judge. Rather, the point I make is that
June 9, 1978

when we are given this much information, but no more, it is tantalizing, to say the least. We may almost be better off to be in the situation of the Australian parliament where the public is excluded from, not only the hearing itself, but also the sentencing, should the accused be found guilty. But in Canada the public is admitted to sentencing.
While I do not suggest that we revert to the Australian type of rule, nevertheless, if we were to have such a rule we would not have some of the problems which we have here. For one thing, given the reliance which the trial judge placed on the concept of deterrence, one can see certain limitations, given the fact that without knowledge of what the offence was and the kind of documents involved, the deterrent effect is somewhat muted. Of course, one learns that the courts take a serious view, at the very least, of the unauthorized holding of secret information, but perhaps that is not enough for the concept of deterrence to be as operative as it might be.
1 would suggest that there ought to be a rule. 1 can accept the necessity for a secret trial as such, but there ought to be a rule that the judge divulge as much as possible of the proceedings, and especially, as much as possible, the kind of evidence which leads him to take such a serious view of the matter in question. Perhaps it would be possible to give an indication of the kinds of documents involved in a general way so that if it was necessary to impose a sentence for reasons of deterrence, we would at least have some idea of why the sentence was imposed. This would go a long way, not only toward public comprehension, but also toward increasing the deterrent effect which the court itself has in mind as one of the important aspects of a case such as this.
As the hon. member for Halifax pointed out, the Mackenzie Royal Commission on Security itself made a number of criticisms of the Official Secrets Act when it reported in 1969. The general comment at page 65 was as follows:
The Canadian Official Secrets Act is an unwieldy statute, couched in very broad and ambiguous language.
The commissioners found practical problems with that kind of legislation and they went on to say:
-must the Crown prove in all cases that the information concerned is secret and official?
The secrecy of the information or the relevancy of secrecy is thus the question they raise. They also raise the question of unusual evidential and procedural provisions relating to espionage cases.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) has dealt with these questions so I shall not take the time to deal with them further except to note that they point out that a prosecution for conspiracy to commit an Official Secrets Act offence is a prosecution under the Criminal Code and does not require the fiat of the attorney general as does a prosecution which is brought squarely under the Official Secrets Act. So there is even a way of getting around that provision for the permission of the attorney general for a prosecution under the legislation.
Official Secrets Act
I would go further than the Mackenzie royal commission. It seems to me that under section 4 of the Official Secrets Act, which is the most relevant section for our discussion, the provision is so sweeping that it is almost difficult to conceive that in strict law any minister or public servant could lawfully communicate any significant information. The definition of "communication" in section 2(3)(a) is as follows:
-expressions referring to communicating or receiving include any communicating or receiving-
This is the broadest possible language imaginable. In section 4 the law allows him to communicate only to a person to whom he is authorized to communicate or a person to whom it is in the interest of the state to communicate.
Such a section can have a very chilling effect on the operations of people in government. It is quite true that the section has rarely been used. In fact, there are only two cases between the series of Gouzenko cases and the present Treu and Sun cases. Those are the Featherstone case of 1967 and the Biernacki case in 1962. The fact that there have not been many cases does not indicate the fully chilling effect such law may have by way of deterring people from communicating things they would otherwise communicate.
In particular, it seems to me that the concept of treasonable spying and improper release of classified information ought not to be treated on the same basis. Public release of secret information could conceivably be just as treasonably effective as clandestine delivery. Generally speaking, however, the two differ in character, nature and effect. I believe it is a mistake to jumble all those things together in the act as is the case at the present time. I think we have very serious reasons for looking at the effect of the legislation.
The Franks commission in Great Britain looked at similar British legislation-on which our statute is based and with which it is almost identical-and recommended a new statute called the official information act. This proposal has not yet been adopted by the British parliament but it has in it a lot of eminently good sense. The official information which it would be illegal to reveal includes not only classified information relating to defence or internal security, foreign relations, et cetera, but also matters such as are likely to assist criminal activity or to impede law enforcement-things which are not taken account of in the motion-or a cabinet document, or information that has been entrusted to the government by a private individual. I feel that the law ought to take account of those categories in its use of the criminal law to support the prohibition of release of certain kinds of information.
The "official secrets" question is almost the most serious aspect of the general problem of freedom of information. In the field of freedom of information we try to arrive at principles as to what should be released and how documents should be classified by the government. In the Official Secrets Act we impose penalties for releasing those documents. Official secrets legislation is, therefore, the completion of the doctrine of freedom of information.
In that context 1 find it all the more surprising that this motion should be placed before us by the hon. member for

June 9, 1978
Official Secrets Act
Peace River, because he is chairman of the committee which is looking at the question of freedom of information based on the green paper. I believe he is also a member on the Special Committee on Rights and Immunities of Members which is even more directly looking at the question of official secrets. I suggest that it is incumbent on the members of those committees to put before the House and the country with the greatest possible speed their conclusions on these matters.
The Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments has had this reference before it at least since December. I know that one of the most important aspects of their report will be the consideration of what to do about the Official Secrets Act. I hope they will soon be able to make a report which will recommend to the government where we should go from here.
I would go so far as to suggest to the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) that if the committee does not produce that report in the near future he should no longer wait for it, the matter being of such importance. He should present his own proposals and perhaps later this afternoon he will give us some indication of what those proposals might be.
My time is almost up, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to conclude with a quotation from the Franks report which I believe puts the problem in the kind of context it seriously deserves, which I regret to say this motion does not do.
On page 12 of the Franks report appears the following statement:
A totalitarian government finds it easy to maintain secrecy. It does not come into the open until it chooses to declare its settled intentions and demand support for them. A democratic government, however, though it must compete with these other types of organizations, has a task which is complicated by its obligations to the people. It needs the trust of the government. It cannot use the plea of secrecy to hide from the people its basic aims. On the contrary it must explain these aims: it must provide the justification for them and give the facts both for and against a selected course of action. Nor must such information be provided only at one level and through one means of communication. A government which pursues secret aims, or which operates in greater secrecy than the effective conduct of its proper functions requires or which turns information services into propaganda agencies, will lose the trust of the people. It will be countered by ill-informed and destructive criticism.
In those words, which 1 take to be of universal validity, I think there is a message for all of us-for the government, for the opposition and for the country. I hope that these words will be the inspiration for us in developing a new Official Secrets Act in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate briefly in this debate. To those who will speak later I would like them to know that I have to leave the chamber early to catch a flight and I intend them no disrespect, particularly the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts). I look forward to reading the transcript of his remarks with interest.
I deem it a pleasure to follow my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). I serve on the committee of which he is the distinguished and

highly regarded chairman. His remarks today reminded me of nothing so much as a sandwich; the two slices of bread containing the opening and closing remarks were rather green and mouldy, but the meat in the middle was a credit to the hon. member. This was particularly so when he refuted the suggestion of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) that we rate the Official Secrets Act by the number of charges laid under it. If one were to take that philosophy to its conclusion, it would mean the fewer the charges, the better the legislation. The Minister of Transport would continue to defend, as he did when he was minister of justice, that important provision in the Criminal Code dealing with the abduction of a female passenger by the master of a vessel. Likel no provision of greater import adopting that philosophy exists in the Criminal Code.
On a serious note, Mr. Speaker, one would hope that the provisions in the Criminal Code with regard to treason would not be judged on the number of charges laid under that particular section, and no one in this chamber would suggest that they be removed, but it was such a specious argument that I had to make mention of it. What troubles me the more is, if 1 understood the Minister of Transport correctly, that he opened his remarks by saying this law deserves attention and in fact is receiving attention now, the suggestion being there is proposed legislation of some kind. Because it would be a waste of time for the Minister of Transport to examine this situation of the Official Secrets Act in the abstract, to use his words.
What shallow hypocrisy is this when at this very moment this important subject is before the justice committee? In that committee we are debating matters pertaining to the invasion of privacy, of written communications, Bill C-26, to which the Official Secrets Act is applicable. Indeed, a year ago we went through the same exercise when we were dealing with the interception of oral communications by means of electronic surveillance. If, as the Minister of Transport says, the law deserves attention and is receiving attention now, why on earth in June of 1978 is the justice committee occupying itself with a study directly involving the application of the Official Secrets Act, particularly when a third situation is going on simultaneously? I refer to the McDonald royal commission. That absolutely astounds me.
No case has been made out for Bill C-26 as yet; it may be done in the days to follow. But for the Minister of Transport, a former minister of justice, to come into the House and say that this law deserves attention and is receiving attention now, while both the McDonald commission and the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is preoccupied with the matter, is simply a demonstration of hypocrisy which brings no honour or integrity to this chamber or to the government.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport accused my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) of bringing confusion into this area in challenging the independence of the courts, a charge which I feel 1 must reject out of hand, sir. The minister said the courts should have discretion. I do not believe that
June 9, 1978

anyone using the broadest interpretation possible of the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River would suggest that the judicial system and the discretion of that system is under attack. Far from it.
In my view, it is the unhappy position in which the legislation has put our judicial system which is under attack. Last night in committee we heard about a law case in British Columbia-the longest ever held in that province, lasting some seven and one half months, I believe-in which it was ruled that counsel for the accused could not cross-examine in any way the propriety of the warrant which led to the use of electronic surveillance. If the order had no defect on the face of it, then defence counsel had no right whatever to determine whether the warrant was issued properly.
Since we are now talking about postal interceptions, and particularly in the light of national security, I am disturbed even further. In the case of postal interception there is no judicial warrant; it is a warrant under the proposed legislation of the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais). Who watches the Solicitor General? Under the proposed legislation, no one watches the holder of that office.
A colleague of the Minister of Transport said last night-I do not think he was advancing this as a proposed amendment, although he was certainly advancing it as a suggestion for discussion by the committee-that the Solicitor General in his annual report should report to a committee of three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. I put forward, again for discussion last night, the suggestion that before a warrant is issued we might consider a system whereby, on the national security side under the Official Secrets Act, the Solicitor General, rather than being the judge of whether a warrant should be issued, should be the applicant to a judge for a warrant.
I do not necessarily advance this as a policy of my party because I believe that the motion today is right on target and should be sent to a committee for extensive study. If I had the good fortune to be a member of such a committee I would not feel I was examining anything in the abstract. I would feel that suggestions such as the one which came from a Liberal member last night regarding reporting annually to a three-man committee of the Supreme Court of Canada would be an important and vital proposition to discuss. This is something very urgent and not in the abstract at all. Similarly, I hope that such a committee would consider the suggestion I made last night, that the Solicitor General should be the applicant for a warrant rather than the issuing officer for a warrant to intercept mail.
There are those who might argue that such a course would be an abdication of ministerial responsibility to the judiciary. I am willing to be persuaded, although I fail to follow the argument presently. It is one which has been advanced from time to time but, again, I would not anticipate that a discussion in committee about such a thing would be a discussion in the abstract. I believe it to be rather mundane. If I wished to be highly partisan here, I could say that under no circumstances is an abdication of the doctrine of ministerial igno-
Official Secrets Act
ranee advanced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whe-reunder if a minister is ignorant of a situation he is not responsible for the situation. I will refrain from doing that, Mr. Speaker, but under the more commonly accepted doctrines of ministerial responsibility 1 would think an argument could be sustained wherein judges of the Supreme Court of Canada could be the issuing authority, without taking away one whit from ministerial responsibility, of warrants under the proposed legislation to permit the interception of mail.
My final point, Mr. Speaker, goes back to what the Minister of Transport said earlier today. He kept using such words as "rhetoric" so often that it was sometimes very hard to get the point he was making. I do not wish to do him an injustice, but it seems to me he was suggesting that publicity, attendant upon a trial such as the Treu trial, would work against the interests of justice. I really cannot accept that premise. I was always under the impression that publicity protects against injustice.
An hon. Member; Right!


William Herbert Jarvis: I always thought of that as a principle. As an officer of the court and as a defence counsel I always accepted the principle that one of the important things in the administration of law was publicity. I always attached importance to the view that publicity in itself worked to prevent either injustice in a specific case or future injustice. Yet if I understood the Minister of Transport today, he appeared to be advancing the proposition that publicity about a trial such as the Treu case would work an injustice or would constitute an attack on the judicial system. I do not see that point of view.
I am quite anxious to read the report of what the minister said because, as I have indicated, I found him difficult to follow because of his rhetoric. When we have trials in secret, without publicity, no one can gauge the wisdom of the verdict, no one can gauge the fairness of the sentence and, most important of all, no one can gauge whether or not a secret trial was necessary in the first place to protect the interest of the state. On these three crucial points no one, least of all the public, can sit in judgment as to the efficacy of that particular trial.
To my colleagues, particularly to those on the government side, I commend the necessity of taking some form of positive action wherein the Official Secrets Act is reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, by a special select committee or by some parliamentary committee, rather than waiting for some legislation or white paper from the government. To do otherwise, in my view, would be to deny this country and its citizens, the justice they have earned and the justice they deserve.
I am most obliged to my colleague, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peace River, for bringing this motion before us today and I am most pleased to have had the opportunity of participating in the debate, one which I believe to be of the utmost importance.

June 9, 1978
Official Secrets Act


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, as members of the House will realize, I am not in my normally fine voice today. I therefore would not have sought to rise to present my views to the House, particularly on the essential subject matter of the hon. member's motion, the Official Secrets Act, if it were not for the speech by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the speech of my colleague the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) which touched upon the question of freedom of information or access to public documents.
No doubt the parliamentary secretary will later be replying to the various interesting speeches which have been made by members on all sides of the House which relate to the Official Secrets Act. I would like to confine my remarks to the question of freedom of information which the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville virtually challenged me to speak about today. In the face of such a challenge, I would find it hard to resist informing the House as to what is the present situation.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said something to the effect-I may be paraphrasing but I think not inaccurately-that too much is secret around this place, that there is not enough openness in government administration. I want to say right off that both I and the government agree entirely with that statement as I have paraphrased it. We do agree that too much in the conduct of the business of the federal government, indeed one might say of all levels of government in Canada, is carried on in a confidential manner, behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny.
It may be interesting on some occasion to try to analyse the historical reasons why that should be the case. It may spring from the fact that the power of government was the power of the Crown. Gradually the Commons undermined that authority of the Crown; but the legacy of that process was the basic principle that the conduct of the business of the Crown was decided upon in secret. It may be in some ways a reflection of the traditions of parliamentary government.
In parliamentary government, as Bagehot described it a century ago, the principle was that responsibility was focused clearly in the hands of a prime minister and a government responsible to the Crown. They were judged through decisions of the House of Commons, through the decisions of the public, on the basis of their accomplishments, on the basis of their policies and on the basis of the legislation which they publicly presented. The process of arriving at that point of presentation, the planning, the consideration, the calculation of what was to be done and said, was away from the eye of the public or the opposition because it was, in effect, the results of government which were being judged and assessed by the Commons.
Whatever the historical reasons might be for the development of these traditions of secrecy and confidentiality, it is certainly a paradox that in the last quarter of the twentieth century so much in government should be hedged about by doctrines of confidentiality and practices of secrecy. We find this not only in the presentation of advice of civil servants to ministers. We find it not only in the deliberations of the

cabinet. We find it in the deliberations of various caucuses of the parties of this House of Commons which are carried on behind closed doors, away from the public view. There is in some ways a legacy of the use of confidentiality which, I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, is in the present context, the context of the twentieth century, an unfortunate tradition which has carried this far.
The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville invited me to associate myself and all members to associate themselves with the paragraph which he read from the Franks report. I do that with glad heart. Lord Franks describes the conditions which require openness in government, the danger of arbitrary and unjust decisions being taken by totalitarian governments which maintain secrecy. I would go further than Lord Franks and say that the doctrine that the government must be open, that administration must be open, that the research, material and information to government must be open, really springs from the doctrine of universal suffrage.
It was said in the nineteenth century in Great Britain by one British commentator when the act of universal manhood suffrage was passed that we must educate our masters. The implication was that now that power was in the hands of the people, they must be educated about their responsibilities since they would be determining the course of the nation.
I am not sure I would use the word "educated" in mid-twentieth century. I would say it is an obligation that they be informed. If people are to vote, if they are to present to government their view of what should be done, it must be on the basis of the knowledge of alternatives open to government, the information on which decisions are taken. Without full information on the basis of decision making, it will be difficult for them to exercise intelligently the vote, the responsibility and the power which the franchise gives to them.
The government therefore recognizes the need for open government. It not only agrees and accepts that it should be the case, but urges that that principle should be the basis of its administrative practices. It accepts, urges, and indeed in the green paper which I presented to the House on access to public documents accepted as a basic principle that the information and the material which is in the hands of government should be available to the public.
The green paper which I presented to the House embarked on the process of finding the most effective ways of making that principle a living reality within the Government of Canada and its administrative dependencies. The paper was presented to the House for the very real purpose of stimulating discussion and providing the basis for debate.
I think that most if not all members of the House recognize that there are certain areas of public documents which it would not necessarily be in the public interest to reveal. A moment ago the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville cited a paragraph from the Franks report. I think he had a careful eye upon you, Mr. Speaker, at the time. He felt that he should close his quotation from that report because he saw you ready to stand before he had quite arrived at the end of it. Perhaps I could read the paragraph. Lord Franks was describing the

June 9, 1978

necessity of openness, a necessity which I certainly accept. He went on to say:
A government which pursues secret aims, or which operates in greater secrecy than the effective conduct of its proper functions requires, or which turns information services into propaganda agencies, will lose the trust of the people. It will be countered by ill-informed and destructive criticism. Its critics will try to break down all barriers erected to preserve secrecy, and they will disclose all that they can, by whatever means, discover. As a result matters will be revealed when they ought to remain secret in the interests of the nation.
1 think most, if not all members, will accept that there are some matters which should not be accessible to the public. That does not in any way derogate from the essential principle which should govern our actions.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre touched upon one area, an area which has considerably exercised me, namely that there may be upon occasion a conflict or, it would be better to say, a tension between the rights to privacy and the rights to public knowledge. He cited in particular the case of income tax returns.
He cited also the fact that 40 years ago he presented a piece of legislation and in the intervening years he had become more concerned with the rights of poorer people. I find it impossible to believe that the hon. member could become more concerned with the rights of poorer people, a determination that he has shown throughout his parliamentary career. He recognized that there could be a conflict between the possession in the hands of government of tax information which the individual citizen, even if only an individual citizen with an income of $150,000 a year, would have a right to protect, a right to privacy that in some ways was a limitation therefore upon the right to know.
1 doubt that there are many members of the House of Commons who want to allow the public to have the capacity to force the federal government, when preparing for a conference with the provinces, to disgorge its negotiating position or the basis upon which it wishes to undertake those negotiations one week or two weeks before the conference is to take place. To make the example more clear, I am sure most hon. members would not want the public to be able to insist on knowing what kind of negotiating position the government is considering in relation to some international negotiations.
Apart entirely from what we might call the narrow area of national security, there are public interests, which I think all hon. members would recognize, which relate to certain documents held within government.
The task which the green paper outlined as essential was not simply the establishment of the basic principle that information which is available to the government should also be available to the public; the green paper also recognized that there will have to be, however strongly that principle is established, certain exceptions to that principle.
1 must confess that in government we found it difficult to wrestle with the problem of the precise definition of what those exemptions and exceptions could or should be and to find language which would adequately respond to the problem.
Official Secrets Act
That was one of the reasons why in the green paper on access to public documents we put before the public a variety of possible interpretations. For instance, we asked whether it would be acceptable to adopt the wording which exists in the United States freedom of information act or, alternatively, we wondered if it would be preferable to use the wording which was being considered by the parliament or the government of Australia. We were open to suggestions as to how these exceptions, which will be necessary, can be worded to make them as precise and narrow as possible. That was one area of controversy which was outlined in the green paper. I am glad to say that there has been a great deal of public discussion about it.
Another controversial matter is the question of what kind of review process should be applied to the application of those exemptions or exceptions. If one does admit that there must be some exceptions to the basic principle, then there is the basic question of who is to decide on the application of those exemptions and whether any specific document falls within their confines.
In the green paper we presented, as a basis for discussion, five varying approaches as to how that review process might be exercised. I know that there are some who regard the green paper process as a disguised dressing up of a determined government conviction. They feel that rather than genuinely presenting matters for discussion we have some design which has already been determined and that this is a means of obfuscating essential issues.
I want it to be clear to members of this House and to the public that that is definitely not the case. There has not been a predetermined government position on how the question of the exemptions and the review process should be handled. There was a genuine desire to have the input of that very valuable committee of which the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is co-chairman. There was a desire to have its views as well as the views of the public. It was with that purpose in mind that the green paper was referred to the joint committee of which the hon. member for Peace River and a distinguished member of the other place are co-chairmen. I hestitate to say this, but I thought that the hon. member for Windsor-Walker-ville (Mr. MacGuigan) might have been-unintentionally, I am sure-slightly unjust to the hon. member for Peace River when he implied that the hon. member was in some way dragging his feet on this issue.
The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville urged me to take action without waiting for the report of the joint committee, but I know that the deliberations of the committee have been active, and I can say honestly that they have been extremely useful. I know that the joint committee plans to report some time before the end of this month. At least, we hope it will be before the end of this month, and I am very much looking forward to the conclusions the committee will draw from the hearings which have already been held.
The presentation of briefs to the committee has in itself been a very useful process. It has enabled us to get a sense of perspective regarding the views of interested organizations on

June 9, 1978
Official Secrets Act
the matter. I can assure the hon. member for Windsor-Walk-erville that we are going ahead and that I am now preparing proposals for my cabinet colleagues on this matter. In a sense I am not really waiting for the final report of the committee, but I am reassuring hon. members that when the report of the committee appears later this month it will certainly have an impact on the proposals I make. I will certainly not come forward with any final proposals until I have had a chance to assess the views the committee brings forward.
I want to assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville that as a government we are determined to proceed to the implementation of the principles which those hon. members, myself and all members of this House accept, the basic principle being that the information in the hands of the government must be available to the public. We know that there are aspects of the question which are complex. I have wrestled with them. The hon. member for Peace River has wrestled with them. The Joint Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments has wrestled with them. The committee is coming forward with its report. I will be presenting proposals to my colleagues. It is very much my hope that I will be presenting legislation in this regard early in the new session. Progress is being made. I hope the House will understand that the commitment of the government to this principle is fundamental. We shall proceed as expeditiously and efficaciously as we possibly can.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) for his efforts over the last number of weeks and for his determination in trying to bring a very sad state of Canadian affairs to light. I think the intent of the motion he has put forward today is the very minimum position this House should adopt. When I say "this House", I include the government. This matter should be referred to a committee.
I suggest that this government should take the position being taken by the hon. member for Peace River when he asks the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) to apply to the court to declare a mistrial. I suggest that a new trial should be directed and that that trial should be held in the open.
We heard some comments earlier today by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). In his efforts to put down the mover of this motion he spoke quietly and with repetition. I feel that he spoke in this way because he had such a weak case. He does not have the facts on his side, so he used up his 20 minutes quietly trying to accuse others of doing things he feels they should not have done.
This is the forum in which things of national importance are brought forward to be discussed, and today we are dealing with a matter of crucial importance to the democratic way of life we believe we have here in Canada, that is, civil liberties and rights being guaranteed to human beings.
The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Mac-Guigan) also deplored certain aspects of the presentation of the hon. member for Peace River. He went on to point out that

he agreed with certain parts of the Franks report dealing with the official secrets act of England. I felt that there was much prattle but not very much substance in the three speeches from the government side.
We have heard from the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts). He did not talk about the resolution at all. He spoke about freedom of information, which has been discussed for four or five years. If members of the government would stop talking, do something concrete and put something before the House- which could have been done three years ago-we would be well on the way. However, they have been prattling quietly today because the facts as they appear in this case indicate that perhaps a wrong course of action has been taken in Canada.
I have always been a very proud Canadian. I suppose I am nationalistic, and I am somewhat embarrassed by the fact that there has been a trial in this country which has been held in absolute and total secrecy. I am not ashamed of my country, 1 am not ashamed of our way of life, but 1 am embarrassed about this.
Perhaps I can draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that on February 15, 1977, as reported at page 3041 of Hansard, the former member for Eglinton, the Hon. Mitchell Sharp, stated that Canada was the strongest proponent of basket three incorporated in the final act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, popularly known as the Helsinki Agreement. He went on to move a motion under Standing Order 43 which read as follows:
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs convey to the government of the Soviet Union the disappointment and deep concern of the elected representatives of the Canadian people in parliament assembled at the arrest of Alexander Ginsberg, Mykola Rundenko, Alexy Tikhy and Yuri Orlov.
What he was doing in that motion was condemning an act in the judicial proceedings and the way in which things were carried out in the Soviet Union which is foreign to our ways in this country. We did not feel it was right and therefore we condemned it.
On March 2, 1978 a motion was put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), under Standing Order 43 which read as follows:
That the Canadian government request the Soviet government for permission to appoint an official observer at the trial of Anatoly Shcharansky on charges of treason so that the wide international community of concerned people can be assured that justice is done in this very important human rights case and, further, that the Canadian government repeat its offer to give immediate landed immigrant status to Mr. Shcharansky.
We as the House expressed concern in an official motion which has been adopted, and yet now we are saying that we do not even want the Canadian people to know what is going on at a secret trial in our own country. It seems absolutely absurd.
We find further that on Thursday, May 18 of this year, the following motion under Standing Order 43 was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and seconded by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen):
June 9, 1978

That this House deplores the trial and extremely severe sentence given Yuri Orlov by the Soviet Union for his activities with the Moscow-Helsinki group, activities which in Canada would be perfectly acceptable.
We deplored that trial because it was held partially in secret and foreign correspondents and journalists were not allowed to attend. Yet here in our own country we have a trial which was held in absolute secrecy. How can we speak out of both sides of our mouth at the same time from this chamber? Therefore,
I hope that the government will move, as was suggested by the hon. member for Peace River a couple of days ago, that the trial be declared to have been a mistrial and that the next trial be held in the open.
Having secret trials makes people think of, perhaps, Dante's "Inferno", the Star Chamber practices which took place in years gone by, or perhaps the practices that took place in Europe during the second world war. I think many people would want to forget that. We in a free, democratic country want to know that we have the right to free, public and open trials, because it is only by having a free, open and public trial that justice can not only be done but can be seen to be done.
I would like to sketch in a few things. It is my understanding that Alexander Peter Treu in 1974 had his documents seized for the first time and finally, after two years, charges were brought against him in 1976. After he had been charged in Canada, he was given contracts by NATO on security matters.
I understand that the last contract was given to him in 1977 and even now that he is sentenced he is still working on that contract. I suppose that if he had not appealed and had gone to jail, he would be doing work on NATO's communication system. Would that not be interesting! This seems ludicrous, but that is what has actually happened in this case. What concerns me is that, even if there were a technical breach in this case, there is a judgment on the minister as to whether or not he would prosecute.
According to some of the comments the judge is alleged to have made in passing sentence, Peter Alexander Treu is not a criminal and cannot be considered a criminal. He is a brilliant man and he is continuing to do his work, but in a technical way he has breached the law. If it is a technicality, why was discretion under section 10 of the Official Secrets Act not applied? Section 10 says "may be arrested"; so a person may be arrested but does not have to be arrested. There is also discretion under section 12, which states:
A prosecution for an offence under this act shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney General;-
The Attorney General of Canada had to give his consent, so again there was an overact after the delay, even though, at the very most, it might have been a technical breach of the law. Then in section 15 the Attorney General can elect whether to go by way of summary conviction or by way of indictment. Summary conviction carries a fine not exceeding $500 and imprisonment is not to exceed 12 months. But they proceeded by indictment, which could mean imprisonment up to 14 years.
What is interesting was that Treu was charged under section 4 of our Official Secrets Act, which is equivalent to section 2 of the British official secrets act. But the British official
Official Secrets Act
secrets act limits penalties under section 2 to two years, whereas our act carries a much more onerous penalty of up to 14 years. Bearing in mind those considerations and the overact by the Attorney General of Canada in exercising his discretion in proceeding by way of indictment and allowing a prosecution to take place, all this is of great concern to us and should be of concern to all Canadians.
It has been brought out that there have been only eight prosecutions under the present Official Secrets Act. The British official secrets act was first passed in Great Britain in 1889. It was adopted in the Canadian Criminal Code in 1892. It became a new statute and was passed in England in 1911. We adopted the statute holus-bolus in Canada until the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Technically we relied on the Criminal Code provisions without having an official secrets law between 1931 and 1939 when we adopted our Official Secrets Act modelled on the one passed in Great Britain in 1911. As I said, there have only been eight prosecutions under the act, but for the first time in Canadian history a trial has been carried out in Canada in complete secrecy.
The Gouzenko trial and the Rose trial were not held in secrecy. An application was made in front of an open court for portions of the trial to be held in secrecy because of certain reasons which were stated. Thus there was exclusion of the public for a short period of time. When the sensitive area had been dealt with, reporters were allowed back into court.
In 1961 the public was admitted to the trial of the Biernacki case, in which he was acquitted before he went back to Poland. In 1967 at the time of the Featherstone case, again press reporters and the public were allowed to attend. During that trial an application was made to exclude the public from portions of it.
1 should like to indicate that I have carefully researched the law in this regard. Perhaps 1 am somewhat unique. Unlike the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville who are knowledgeable in theoretical approaches to the law, having been deans of universities, my experience has been a far cry different. Many persons who have studied law often wonder why they bothered to attend university, particularly when one compares the theoretical approach at university to the practice of law in the courts.
1 have had an opportunity to prosecute on behalf of the Crown in Canada, wherein 1 made applications under section 44(2) of the Criminal Code which provides for excluding the public from all or portions of a trial. Because evidence was going to be disclosed indicating the procedure Bell Canada used to make credit card numbers, on one occasion it was necessary to make an application for exclusion of the public. The accused was being charged for a telecommunications theft. I explained to the judge that it would be necessary to establish how credit card numbers were arrived at. If that information was given in an open court, anyone who was present could make up a credit card number. Thus, the entire system would have been frustrated. Because it was not to the

June 9, 1978
Official Secrets Act
benefit of the public, the spectators were removed from the courtroom for approximately 15 minutes while this evidence was adduced. After that sensitive technical information was established, the public and the press were allowed to return to the courtroom. Only under special circumstances should that be done.
I should like to refer to some of the most important cases historically regarding this matter, such as the Scott versus Scott case which was heard by the Privy Council of the House of Lords. At that time Viscount Haldane is reported as saying the following:
In cases in other courts, where all that is at stake is the individual rights of the parties, which they are free to waive, a judge can exclude the public if he demits his capacity as a judge and sits as an arbitrator.
In other words, it cannot be done if he stays on as a judge. He continued as follows:
... in the final reasons for his judgment, on the ground that justice could not be done in the particular case before him if it were not heard in camera.
He was discussing a case where counsel wanted a portion of it held in secrecy. He continued:
My Lords, provided that the principle is applied with great care and is not stretched to cases where there is not a strict necessity for invoking it, I do not dissent from this view of the existing law.
He expressed the existing law as follows:
While the broad principle is that the courts of this country must, as between parties, administer justice in public, this principle is subject to apparent exceptions, such as those to which I have referred. But the exceptions are themselves the outcome of a yet more fundamental principle that the chief object of courts of justice must be to secure that justice is done.
In other words, no matter what one may have to bear in front of the public's eye, it has to be done, because under common law a secret trial or portions thereof can be conducted only if it is for the protection of certain individuals and their rights. This matter dealt with immoral conduct involving children and lunatics. In order to provide a witness with some protection from being shot, for example, and in order for justice to be done, the request was made.
Viscount Haldane continued as follows:
But the burden lies on those seeking to displace its application in the particular case to make out that the ordinary rule must as of necessity be superseded by this paramount consideration.
The paramount consideration is that justice must be done. He continued:
The latter must treat it as one of principle, and as turning, not on convenience, but on necessity
In either case he must satisfy the court that by nothing short of the exclusion of the public can justice be done .. .
A mere desire to consider feelings of delicacy or to exclude from publicity details which it would be desirable not to publish is not, I repeat, enough as the law now stands.
That common law principle was expanded and relied upon in the case of Rex versus Lewes Prison (Governor), Doyle, ex parte. The case involved a court martial which was held in secrecy in Dublin in 1914. That was because martial law was in existence at the time. Dublin was under martial law because the IRA were in revolt. There was concern that the courtroom might be blown up, or at least that witnesses would have been
[Mr. Dick.I
shot either in the courtroom or in retaliation afterward. In order for justice to be done, it was necessary to conduct the trial in secrecy. Otherwise the trial could not have been carried out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion, I should like to point out that nowhere can I find in civil cases, criminal cases or cases conducted under the Official Secrets Act in Canada, an example of a total trial being held in secrecy. Applications for exclusion have been made only for sensitive parts.
In the Treu case, upon the charge being read and the plea being entered, an application was made and secrecy was invoked carte blanche for the entire trial. It is unfortunate that not even the reasons for doing so were given publicly.
In the Tomasz Biernacki case, the accused was a hydraulic engineer. In his case, much of the evidence at the preliminary hearing was heard in public; but from time to time the judge ordered journalists present not to publish certain pieces of information involving national security matters. That was because the Official Secrets Act indicated that all or any portion of the public may be excluded. In other words, the judge may order average citizens out of the courtroom, at the same time as telling press reporters that they can remain. For example, the judge could order that all women have to leave the courtroom but that the men are allowed to remain, or vice versa. In the Biernacki case most of the evidence was heard in public.
In the 1967 Featherstone case, most of the evidence was heard in public; but the judge excluded reporters and spectators from the courtroom to protect the identity of undercover RCMP agents. The judge authorized the official court reporter to make available a transcript of the closed door testimony, provided the agents were not identified. Even though it was necessary to protect certain elements of secrecy, they went to extremes to make it as public as possible. "Public" means an open and public courtroom.
I should like to refer to the case of Mr. Treu and an article which appeared in the April 29 edition of the Globe and Mail. It was written by a Mr. Jeff Sallot and reads as follows:
RCMP Sergeant D. R. McElroy, one of the investigators, told reporters there were "entire days of evidence'' that didn't concern classified material.
Why was the public not there? The article continues as follows:
But it was better not to have the public present because there was no way of determining in advance if questions by the defence would get into national security areas.
June 9, 1978

The defence counsel could easily have been warned by the judge-I have seen it happen many times, and have been warned myself-that he was going too far. If necessary they could have made orders for exclusion as they were needed.
I have been informed that the Crown prosecutor in this case also did a search but could not find any precedent in law which showed a complete trial held in secrecy in Canada. He has no knowledge of any such precendent although he did some research into the matter.
It is stated in an article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of May 29, 1978 by Lew Diggs of the Canadian Press:
But prosecutor Handfield said "the whole transcript would have to remain secret" even if it was reviewed today. The only possible exception, he added, was testimony from an RCMP officer who raided Treu's west-end home March 29, 1974, and hauled off about 500 pounds of documents, some of which were used in the trial.
The prosecutor indicated that there were areas in respect of which it was not necessary for the public to be excluded, as there would have been had matters of state secrecy been involved. So we have the prosecutor and one of the investigators both suggesting that the public could have been admitted. I do not know how we in this country can tolerate such a thing as a secret trial from beginning to end. I suggest that is intolerable and in this case it is unfortunate.
I want to refer to a very much celebrated British case, that of George Blake. I have a copy here of an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Sun of May 17, 1977.
The article says that when Soviet master spy George Blake has a secret trial in Britain at least the opening and the closing sessions were open to the public. The evidence at those sessions was so damning and compromising to the state that it could not be revealed in total, and Blake was sentenced to 42 years. Then he escaped to Moscow.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, 1 want to point out something that apparently has not been brought forward, and of which I think the Minister of Justice should be made aware. Let me read sections 14(1) and (2) of the Official Secrets Act as follows:
For the purposes of the trial of a person for an offence under this Act, the offence shall be deemed to have been committed either at the place in which the offence actually was committed, or at any place in Canada in which the offender may be found.
In addition and without prejudice to any powers that a court may possess to order the exclusion of the public from any proceedings if, in the course of proceedings before a court against any person for an offence under this Act or the proceedings on appeal, application is made by the prosecution-
I want to emphasize those words "in the course of proceedings". You must make an application in the course of proceedings; but the application in the case to which we have reference was made before the trial got under way. A trial is not under way until after a plea has been entered. In this case they did not wait until the course of proceedings. The section of the act states:
-if, in the course of proceedings before a court against any person for an offence under this Act or the proceedings on appeal, application is made by the prosecution, on the ground that the publication of any evidence to be given or of any statement to be made in the course of the proceedings-
Official Secrets Act
Again, I would emphasize the words "in the course of proceedings" having regard to evidence to be given or statements made. It continues as follows:
-would be prejudicial to the interest of the State-
In other words, you can only make the application during the course of the proceedings for exclusion during the giving of evidence or the making of a statement which would be prejudicial to the interests of the state. There is not to be a carte blanche order in this country for the closing of a trial. There must be a good reason, and that is stated in the act. The act goes on to state, and I want to emphasize this:
-that all or any portion of the public shall be excluded during any part of the hearing-
Let me emphasize again the words "any part of the hearing, the court may make an order". It says "any part". It does not say the court can make an order in respect of the whole, but rather any part. I have not yet found a dictionary that describes "part" as being equal to the "whole". The statute says specifically a part of the trial, not the whole trial.
Even though the defence lawyer sat silent, as I understand it, or said he had no representations at that time, I do not understand how a judge looking at the law could make a decision that a "part" all of a sudden becomes the "whole". I will never know how that was done, because that is not what the law states.
With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, let me encourage members of the House in every way possible to accept the suggestion included in this motion; that we find some way of referring the subject matter to the committee. I hope the Minister of Justice will seriously consider the earlier question by the hon. member for Peace River as to whether he would direct a mistrial and order a new trial to be held in public, with some of the evidence being heard in secret, namely, those parts that are truly important to the national interest.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, before commencing my comments today I should like to commend all members of the House who I have heard participate in the debate so far. It appears very much to me that the debate has been straight forward and worth while. I congratulate those persons who have spoken for the largely calm and deliberate tone they have set. The matter has had a fairly thorough airing today.
Members on all sides of this House are concerned about these serious matters. That is quite apparent, and 1 think that speaks very well for parliament and its day to day work. The conduct of the debate so far has been exemplary.
Let me preface my remarks by making one point regarding the motion for the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). He does include in his motion the following comment:
-this House notes with concern the secret trial of Alexander Peter Treu and the harassment of the Toronto Sun and its editor, Peter Worthington, under the provisions of the Official Secrets Act-
I could have risen earlier but I did not want to do so. I mention the matter now in only the most cautionary way. Members have had very great respect today for the sub judice
6260

June 9, 1978
Official Secrets Act
rule and have stuck to the main issues of the debate rather than reflecting upon the two cases mentioned. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) did make one or two remarks about the merit of those cases, but soon returned to the main point.
It is interesting to note, since there have been comments today about what the British parliament does in relation to its official secrets act, how the British House also treats the sub judice rule. Let me refer to Erskine May, nineteenth edition, at page 427. Under the heading "Matters pending judicial decision", May states:
Matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law should not be brought forward in debate, subject to the right of the House to legislate on any matter;
It goes on in the subsequent paragraph to state:
Following the first report of the Select Committee on Procedure, 1962-63, the House passed a resolution (23 July 1963) which set out the rule in detail. This resolution bars references in debate (as well as in motions and questions) to matters awaiting or under adjudication in all courts exercising a criminal jurisdiction and in courts martial from the moment the law is set in motion by a charge being made to the time when verdict and sentence have been announced, and again when notice of appeal is given until the appeal is decided;-
That rule sets out a wise caution on matters of procedure and of debate such as we are into. I am not so sure if this were the British House that this same motion would have been allowed to be brought forward this afternoon by an hon. member, such as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), in the same wording and debated in the same fashion.
This side of the House has participated quite willingly in the debate this afternoon, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bas-ford) himself said somewhat earlier in the course of the session at page 3882 of Hansard:
This House has established a committee to examine the privileges and immunities of members of parliament, including the application of the Official Secrets Act. That examination is necessary and, in my view, urgent. It is essential to protect the position of members of parliament to continue to be able to speak freely and candidly in carrying out the responsibilities that we bear on behalf of our constituents and the country at large without any harassment.
I point that out because the hon. member for Peace River in his speech this afternoon spoke of the harassment of an individual and a newspaper corporation. I think it explains quite adequately the position of the Minister of Justice.
The wording of the motion by the hon. member for Peace River gives me some trouble. To me, it is not just a mere reference to a matter before the courts, but it strikes me that the hon. member bases his motion to examine the Official Secrets Act on the obvious premise that the courts are no longer able to discharge their function of ensuring that the criminal process is not used for abusive ends. Where will it all end? Are we then to abolish all courts of appeal and refer judicial decisions to the hon. member for Peace River?
During the course of his comments, the hon. member compared the trial of Dr. Treu to the Star Chamber. I urge him to reflect upon that and to look into some law books and perhaps some legal history. The Star Chamber was a court of investigation and torture from which there was no appeal. To make

reference to that infamous chamber in the context of comparing it with a modern day Canadian court with the attendant regard for due process, the rights of the accused, the presumption of innocence and the right of appeal, is something of a slight upon our judiciary, our laws and the rule of law in this country.
Does the hon. member really believe that the courts act judicially and fairly only in an open court? Is he serious in implying that Judge Trudel applied a different test to guilt or innocence in a closed court than he would have done otherwise in an open court? If the hon. member has any basis for such an allegation or such a comment on the judicial integrity, 1 would suggest that it is his duty to make it public. If not, then he would be doing himself, the bench, the country and this House a disservice.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am waiting until the facts are made public.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, the decision to hold the trial in camera was a decision for the judge, but only after he provided an opportunity to both sides, the prosecutor and the defence, to be heard on the question. It was pointed out earlier by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) that in the Treu case the defence was given the opportunity to argue why the trial should not be held in camera, and counsel for the defence did not oppose the motion to proceed in camera.
In the course of the remarks made by the hon. member for Peace River today, he said that it may be possible to guard some secrets. He did not expand, but he said that perhaps at some time there may be a need to guard closely some secrets. However, in the course of his remarks today he called the Official Secrets Act a "stupid, tyrannical, authoritarian law deserving of contempt". I do not know how you can provide a law to protect secrets on the one hand, and on the other hand feel that it is "stupid, tyrannical, authoritarian and deserving of contempt." How can you balance those two points of view in your mind? Therefore, I am not quite sure exactly where on the real crunch of the issue the hon. member for Peace River comes down.
The hon. member said today that the scope of the Official Secrets Act should be limited to matters of national security and defence. I have yet to hear him come forward with a definition of the term "national security".


Gerald William Baldwin: It is in my private member's bill. I have tabled it.


Roger Carl Young: I did not hear that put forward in the debate this afternoon.


Gerald William Baldwin: I don't need to.


Roger Carl Young: Well, I did not hear it put forward in the debate this afternoon, but if the hon. member has a good definition, why did he not bring it in in the course of his remarks today?


Gerald William Baldwin: Repetitious.
June 9, 1978


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He has been making speeches on this subject for a long time.


Roger Carl Young: The other day the hon. member for Peace River said that he held no brief for Mr. Treu, yet today his hope is that the verdict will be overturned on appeal. He said that the government has "put the lights out for Mr. Treu", that there has been a "selective prosecution" of Mr. Worthington and the Toronto Sun, and that it was an "act deliberately taken". This was not the kind of feeling which was gathered by a fairly well-known member of the press corps in this building, who is perhaps a much greater friend to the Conservative party than to this party or to myself, even though, if I may say, 1 went to school with the gentleman at one time.
I would like to read into the record the comments of Geoffrey Stevens in the Globe and Mail on March 18 of this year. The headline is "Mr. Basford's statement: calm, intelligent, non-partisan, restrained". In the course of that editorial, these comments are found:
Justice Minister Ron Basford, a young veteran at the age of 45, is nearing the end of a 15-year career in Parliament; he will not be a candidate in the forthcoming general election. Yesterday, Mr. Basford ensured that he will depart with distinction.
His statement to the Commons was everything we should expect from the Attorney-General of Canada on such a grave matter. It was intelligent, carefully reasoned, non-partisan, restrained in its language and calm in its tone.
Later on in the article:
-the government cannot ignore the leak and dissemination of documents which it deems to be vital to the security of the nation. Thus, Mr. Basford has consented to the prosecution of the Toronto Sun.
Although it can be argued that the Sun virtually dared the government to prosecute by publishing its materal five days after the Solicitor General had first demanded that Mr. Cossitt return the document, no one likes to see a newspaper hauled into court for giving its readers information which it judges is in their interest to have.
Freedom of the press, however, is not a licence to break the law.
Those are the remarks of a reporter who watches these proceedings nearly every day of the week we are here, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Roger Carl Young: I will take a question at the end of my remarks, if the hon. member will allow me to continue. I say that only because I have some comments grouped before me and 1 do not want to lose track of my thoughts.
1 listened to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) with care because I have a great deal of respect for him. It seemed to me that his speech was built on the premise that the Official Secrets Act is bad because of the power of secrecy, because the power to hold hearings and trials in camera is built into it, and more so because he feels the scope of the act is far too wide and must be limited. I did not hear him outline a definition or a circumscribing of the scope that he felt would have been appropriate. It is much easier to be critical of a matter than to be positive; it is sometimes easier to criticize than to defend. I was always taught that one should criticize in
Official Secrets Act
a constructive manner. If you are going to say that the scope of something is too broad or the powers are too wide, then you should suggest a better outline of what you would like to see. But I did not hear that. I heard that the law was bad, that it was too powerful, but I did not hear what the definition of limitations of the law should be.
The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton touched upon some issues which reflected on the merits of the case. I want to be careful not to do something that I do not think anybody else should do. He referred to some comments on the supposed continuing employment of Mr. Treu. I do not want to say anything more than that those are not the facts as I understand them.
If I may deal with some of the facts involved in the case of Dr. Peter Alexander Treu, Mr. Speaker, they are that he was charged in March, 1976, on four counts under section 4(1) of the Official Secrets Act. The charges alleged in substance that Dr. Treu violated provisions of the Official Secrets Act by retaining in his possession certain documents without authority and failed to take reasonable care in the keeping of such documents. As mentioned already in public debates, the documents alleged to be in the possession of Dr. Treu were, for the most part, classified NATO documents.
After a trial held in camera, Dr. Treu was convicted on two of the four counts and was sentenced to two years in the penitentiary. Dr. Treu has appealed the decision to the court of appeal of Quebec. Shortly after his arrest on the charge he was granted bail and he continues to be free on bail pending his appeal.
Since this matter is now pending before the court of appeal it would be improper at this time to comment further on the facts of the case.
There has been considerable debate in this House and in the press concerning the decision made by the court to proceed in camera. Section 14(2) of the Official Secrets Act provides as follows:
In addition and without prejudice to any powers that a court may possess to order the exclusion of the public from any proceedings if, in the course of proceedings before a court against any person for an offence under this Act or the proceedings on appeal, application is made by the prosecution, on the ground that the publication of any evidence to be given or of any statement to be made in the course of the proceedings would be prejudicial to the interest of the state, that all or any portion of the public shall be excluded during any part of the hearing, the court may make an order to that effect, but the passing of sentence shall in any case take place in public.
Parliament, in enacting the Official Secrets Act, did recognize that there would be instances where, by reason of the necessity to protect the interest of the state, in camera hearings would be required. Parliament, however, did not grant the state nor the prosecutor the power to unilaterally decide on the question of an in camera hearing. Parliament entrusted the judiciary with the power to make such decisions upon its being shown that the public interest would require an in camera hearing.
In comparison, Mr. Speaker, section 442(1) of the Criminal Code provides as follows:
80045-291/2

June 9, 1978
Official Secrets Act
-judge, magistrate or justice, as the case may be, is of the opinion that it is in the interest of public morals, the maintenance of order or the proper administration of justice to exclude all or any members of the public from the courtroom-
The judge may do so for all or part of the proceedings. The discretion to use in camera hearings, although used sparingly, already exists in the Criminal Code and may be exercised in those circumstances.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but 1 must inform him that his allotted time has expired. He may continue if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Including the answer to the question.


Roger Carl Young: I will try to answer the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker. I shall be as brief as I can but I hope I will be allowed a few moments to wind up my remarks.
What I am trying to point out is that the power to have in camera proceedings is found not only in the Official Secrets Act but also in the Criminal Code. Beyond that, at a preliminary hearing a justice of the peace may also order in camera hearings when he is of the opinion that the ends of justice will be best served by such an order as provided in section
465(l)(j).
A number of other provisions in the code, although they do not affect the right of the public to be present in the courtroom, affect the right of the media to publish the proceedings. Section 467 provides that a justice must, on the application of an accused, prohibit the publication of evidence adduced at a preliminary inquiry.
Section 470 prohibits the publication of a confession of an accused adduced at a preliminary inquiry.
Section 457.2 provides that a justice may, and must upon request by an accused, prohibit publication of evidence given at a bail hearing.
Section 442(3) provides that in trials pertaining to certain sexual offences the judge must, if the prosecutor so requests, order that the name of the victim and her evidence shall not be published.
Those are instances, far removed from the Official Secrets Act but found in the laws of this country, in which the public may be excluded from a trial. In essence, that part of the trial may be conducted in camera-such as was done under the Official Secrets Act-or the publication of evidence given in a trial may be barred or banned by a judge. That prevents its being given to those outside the courtroom where the trial was held by a newspaper or radio or television station.
Instances where the public may be excluded from a courtroom in criminal proceedings or where limitations on publication of evidence adduced may be imposed are not unique to the Official Secrets Act. The reasons for such limitations are self-evident and are designed to facilitate the administration of justice and protect the rights of accused as well as the victims of sexual offences.
In matters where state secrets are involved, some of which relate to sensitive defence secrets, can it not be advanced that it is quite legitimate and proper to grant courts the necessary powers to protect against the undue disclosure of such information? On balance, should it not be common ground that important state secrets, the disclosure of which might affect the security of Canada and its allies, warrant as much protection against unnecessary public disclosure as matters involving public morals? If it is proper to grant to the court the powers referred to in section 442 of the Criminal Code, I suggest it is as proper to give the courts the discretion provided for in section 14(2) of the Official Secrets Act.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Part of the trial, not the whole trial.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that in this case the Crown prosecutor, during the course of a public hearing, at the outset of the trial-and I say this for the benefit of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton-moved the court to order an in-camera hearing for reasons which I think have already been given today by the Minister of Transport or the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville. The defence attorney made no representation to that question, Mr. Speaker. That was done in public. The court thereafter immediately ordered that the trial proceed in camera. In its remarks the court interpreted the attitude of the defence counsel as meaning that he had no particular objection to that order being made.
Just in closing, Mr. Speaker, I understand that counsel for Mr. Treu spoke openly within the last couple of weeks to a meeting of the bar; I believe it was an annual meeting held in Quebec. I do not know whether there is any transcript of those remarks but I am given to understand that counsel for Mr. Treu did speak openly and did make some references to the trial. I do not wish to take anything out of context, but I am of the understanding that counsel for the defendant accepted the proposition that there are matters relating to national security which cannot be discussed in public and that such matters arose in the Treu case, which led the court to make the decision it did for national security reasons and thus ordered the trial to proceed in camera.
I also understand that the impression gained from some who were in attendance was that defence counsel was quite happy with the handling of the matter by the court. The hon. member for Peace River shakes his head, but it is my understanding that defence counsel was quite happy to accept the fact that judges are given power to make such decisions, that they have the responsibility to make such determinations, and I know of no cause for complaint in respect to the manner in which the learned justice conducted the trial. I know of no complaint arising to date-at least none has come to my attention-that the judge had discharged his responsibilities in anything other than a proper manner.
If the point hon. members opposite are trying to make today is that the Official Secrets Act is so damnable because of its extent and scope, or because it contains within it the power to hold a trial in camera, then I would have expected to have

June 9, 1978

heard reflections in the debate on the Criminal Code on the powers given to justices of the peace and the powers given to judges to ban publication. We have heard nothing of those things, Mr. Speaker, although there may be someone to follow my contribution who will incorporate some such remarks into his speech. But so far we have heard none of those arguments.
1 think it is true to say-and I hope not trite-that the party which gains the majority of the seats in an election is the party chosen to form a government. Upon it is thrust a great deal of responsibility to carry out the affairs of the country within the context of the laws by which we are all governed. 1 guess there is some degree of trust by the people of this country in those who are elected and then subsequently appointed to the ministry. 1 suppose we all share some degree of trust that in this democratic society those responsibilities will be carried out in a proper way and that our trust will be in the good hands of those who become members of the cabinet. Upon those people who are in charge of leading this country, in the context of their daily work, comes a good deal of information. Some of it is very sensitive and some of it is necessarily secret, and it is incumbent upon them to guard that information so that it may be used in the best interest of us all in this country.


An hon. Member:: You are not in favour of freedom of information?


Roger Carl Young: I am not saying I am not in favour of freedom of information. I am saying that there is a trust placed in members of cabinet. They have to accept it and exercise their responsibilities diligently. There are some secrets which must be guarded and I know it must become very difficult. 1 am not saying that the hon. member for Peace River has no point whatever to make. I am not saying he is not a conscientious member or that he has not put forward a point or philosophy which bears examination and good, solid debate. 1 welcome these things because I share the concern which he has expressed in this House, that of an upstanding, honest member of parliament. That is fair game, fair comment in debate in this place.
Upon members on this side, particularly those in the cabinet, is thrust the responsibility of a difficult job to do. I am sure that the burden of some of the information which comes their way is not always welcomed on their shoulders. But they have that job to carry out and they must guard it carefully. That is a crunch decision to make. There has to be a way of doing it carefully. There is a necessity to carry it out, although at times it may be difficult. In my opinion that trust has been carried out admirably by people on this side, fairly and in a proper manner.
I do not wish to overstep the kindness and courtesy hon. members have allowed me in granting a few extra minutes to conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and I will therefore break off at this point. There are a few more points I would have liked to make but I will conclude at this time because I understand the hon. member for Peace River wished to ask me a question.
Official Secrets Act


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I pass the baton on to my hon. friend from Saskatoon-Biggar.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The old winder-upper!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out, it seems to be my place to try to bring many debates in this House at least close to conclusion. I spend less time in this chamber, I am sure, than the hon. member but I seem to spend an inordinate amount of time catching up and trying to bring into perspective some of the comments which have been made and some of the deliberations which have gone on.
I wish first to commend and compliment my seatmate, the distinguished member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), for bringing to the attention of the House, through his motion today, a matter which I think is of utmost importance at this particular time. It is one which has caused people who give serious consideration to civil liberties in our country to feel great concern.
Notwithstanding some of the comments we have heard, which I take to represent official government attitude, I would not want to suggest that the parliamentary secretary, on the basis of the remarks he made, would be awarded the civil libertarian of the year award in this country or any other jurisdiction at least as far as I can make out.
There is a place for civil liberties in this country. I know the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) may not agree with that view. In fact he may hold a contrary view. However, notwithstanding some of the activities of this administration, there is still room for civil liberties in this country. If he wants to take the contrary position, maybe the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) will yield his place and allow him to pursue that so that we can understand his position.


Mr. Breau:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a little unfair for the hon. member to suggest that I am against civil liberties because of an interjection that I made.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member might have a private point or a point of debate, but it is certainly not a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Maybe that will teach the hon. member not to interject as he does. He is renowned for his capacity to speak from the seat of his pants.
There are other points that have to be made. It is not as though the hon. member for Peace River is making an isolated plea on the basis of the motion he has presented today. I was surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Young) quoted from Geoffrey Stevens as being the basis of absolute truth and perception in all things. We in the opposition understand as well as anyone that his perception with regard to the Gallup poll results last week sometimes

June 9, 1978
Official Secrets Act
gives us cause for thought as to whether everything Mr. Stevens says is the absolute truth and comes from on high. Be that as it may, he is probably the sole critic of the position taken by my colleague from Peace River with regard to this matter.
I can perhaps underline that fact by making two comments. As far as I know, every newspaper, every editorial comment and every political observer commend the hon. member for Peace River on the position he has taken and castigate the government on the position it has taken with regard to this matter relating to Mr. Treu. In fact, the paper for which Mr. Stevens writes made reference to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). I wish to quote from the collected wisdom of the paper rather than an isolated columnist. I quote from an editorial in the June 7, 1978 edition of the Toronto Globe and Mail. It is a reference to the attitude and position taken by the Minister of Justice. I quote:
Mr. Basford responded with a glib sophistry unworthy of his office.
Mr. Stevens should read that comment. The article goes on to comment with regard to the performance of the Minister of Justice, and I quote:
Meanwhile Canadians generally, and the Minister of Justice in particular, will have to start getting used to the idea that thanks to the Treu case Canada has joined such countries as Argentina, the Soviet Union, Chile and Uganda in coming under the examination of Amnesty International, the international organization that investigates violations of human rights and campaigns for their redress.
Those kinds of comments are the kinds of uniform comments one finds across this country with respect to this outrageous trial we are now considering and which continues on to appeal. It does not do the case of the government any good to have the parliamentary secretary bring forward provisions in the Criminal Code where there is a particular, narrow situation prohibited or banned from publication, or where there is an opportunity for the judge in certain cases to clear the courtroom temporarily. It does no good for the government side of the case to present those arguments. That is what those on all sides of the House who object to the provisions in the Official Secrets Act are trying to attain.
What does the motion say? It does not say that we should wipe out every provision in this country with regard to national security. It does not say there is not a place in certain limited instances where considerations of national security have to be protected. What the motion says is that certain aspects of the Official Secrets Act have to be changed. Limitations have to be placed on the powers now contained in that act relating to secrecy and to the onus of proof. If anyone speaking on behalf of the government suggests that is not the basis upon which we all approach the Official Secrets Act, then I am really concerned about where we are going in this country.
I suggest to those who oppose this motion that, as suggested in the motion, we should look in committee at ways of melding the interests of national security, the interests of the state, and the interests of the basic principles of freedom and openness which we hope will be prevalent in our country, and that in some way we can, by non-partisan deliberation, come to some conclusions.
[Mr. Hnatyshyn.l
Maybe we can do as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggested when he did not call the election-demonstrate that there is a lot of work which parliament can do. If we are not going into an election, let us get on with this kind of task. Let us have this kind of non-political, non-partisan look at what is an odious piece of legislation if ever there was one.
I want to comment on a rather interesting aspect of what has gone on in the debate today. I detect two lines of argument coming from those who purport to speak for the government. If I can lump the speakers together, one line consisted of arguments by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice who apparently gave us the official government view with regard to the Official Secrets Act and the content of this motion. The other line was presented by the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) and the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Mac-Guigan). There was somewhat of a conflict between the two lines of reasoning carried on by those two groups.
As I understand the principles which should guide us in this country, freedom of information and openness should be a basic principle and a basic right and any limitation should be an exception to that rule. Those who oppose this motion appear to take the position that somehow the government, in its power that is granted to it by the electorate, should have the ability to make decisions and that there should be the right to do that in private, in closed conference, getting advice that is not open to the public except in specific exceptions granted by the government in their wisdom.
That really is the fundamental question we have to consider. What is the attitude of this government toward freedom of information as it relates to the general topic and to the conduct of judicial proceedings in this country? The Secretary of State tried to speak on behalf of freedom of information. He said he accepts that idea and supports it strongly. I ask the Secretary of State, as I have done in the course of committee meetings, how far he and this government are prepared to go to bring about effective freedom of information as opposed to something less than effective freedom of information.
Unfortunately, the Secretary of State has not yet come down hard on the side of supporting the proposition that there should be an independent review of an application for information by any citizen of this country which could be adjudicated upon by an independent arbiter whose decision would be binding in 99.9 per cent of the cases upon the executive or cabinet of this country. I think that is a very fundamental consideration we have to give to the kind of freedom of information we have in this country, if it is to be effective. All I am saying is that it is all right to pay lip service to freedom of information and to stand up in this House and say that we really believe that there should be freedom of information; but if we are not prepared to support the basic mechanisms which would bring about that freedom of information, it is quite another thing to be believed.
June 9, 1978

I do not want to speak for too long because I know that the hon. member for Ottawa West wishes to make a few remarks. However, I do want to point out that part of the motion refers to the fact that, in the case of Peter Worthington of the Toronto Sun, there has been harassment.
When we talk about harassment, there are two ways to look at it. Without getting involved in the merits of this particular case, actual prosecutorial actions have been taken against the Toronto Sun. Some say that this is an isolated incident, but this is not the first time Mr. Worthington and the Toronto Sun have been threatened under the Official Secrets Act. Hon. members will recall that a little more than two years ago, on May 7, 1976, the Prime Minister of this country was ranting and raving in this House about an attempt on the part of the media to discredit him. He said the following in this House:
I think it is of concern to every member of the House, too, that a leak which is obviously destined to destroy my reputation and credibility should have been deliberately put into the hands of the press and treated that way by the press.
The Prime Minister was referring to a letter, as hon. members will recall, which was from General Dare, the head of the security section, to his deputy. The Prime Minister was in hot flight after the press and after the Toronto Sun particularly. What he said about the Toronto Sun almost prohibits repetition in this place.
While the Prime Minister was carrying this on, by mere coincidence four RCMP officers swooped into the offices of the Toronto Sun, demanded copies of the correspondence and threatened Mr. Worthington under the Official Secrets Act. That is the kind of use to which the Official Secrets Act has been put on a previous occasion.
What has happened in this instance? The Prime Minister talks about rights of individuals and democratic principles, but we all recall that not too long ago the Prime Minister stood in this House and, in effect, charged, tried and convicted on public television a member of this House with respect to the alleged possession of certain documents, as well as Mr. Worthington and the Toronto Sun. What basic precepts or concepts of freedom and principles of justice does the Prime Minister have when under the protection of this House he advises everybody in public that these are secret documents and that there has been a breach of the Official Secrets Act? Where do we go from there? There is no charge against the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt). Is there a charge against the CTV network which carried the essence of those documents and the story? I do not recall there being any charge laid against that network.
Is there a charge against any other newspaper in this country? No. Only Mr. Worthington and the Toronto Sun were charged. Mr. Speaker, I am talking about harassment by selective prosecution. Without going into the merits of the thing, I simply ask you, as an independent observer, what conclusions can be drawn from that situation.
Official Secrets Act
I want to conclude on that note. I am sorry; I did not realize what the time was. I know the hon. member for Ottawa West does want to speak briefly and conclude this debate, but I appreciate the time I have been given.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in the very brief time-some two minutes or so-remaining to me I want to go on record as supporting the principle of referral of the Official Secrets Act to a committee of investigation. I am not prepared in any way to comment or pass judgment on the way in which the existing law has been applied in the cases under it. It seems to me that previous speakers have explained in some detail the law as it stands.


Mr. Prud'homme:: I share your opinion.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I know some of my colleagues to my right share the opinion I am expressing now. The hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) is one of them.
On only one or two occasions have I had reason to be familiar with the provisions of the Official Secrets Act. I remember that in 1975 the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) was charged by a newspaper, the Montreal Gazette-it was really quite an incredible situation-with having disclosed some features which were allegedly contained in a budget, which would have been the basis of a violation of the Official Secrets Act.
The charge led to hearings before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, and the findings were as one might have predicted. There really was not much to substantiate the charge of the Montreal Gazette. However, if the effect of the Official Secrets Act is to restrict access to information, the context in which the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has set the debate today, then along with other hon. members I can only express the wish that we have it reviewed and that we will proceed to a freedom of information act.
Speaking earlier in this debate the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) undertook that, at the beginning of the next session, he hoped to have a bill to present to this House. I welcome that very much. Those of us who have examined the green paper on freedom of access to information have found that it really is not strong enough, as far as 1 am concerned, in many areas. I for one prefer to have a judicial review to determine whether papers should be accessible through a federal court.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to declare, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), that the proceedings on the motion have expired.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock on Monday afternoon.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
June 12, 1978


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
[Editor's Note: Text of unrevised translation in English will be appended to Hansard of June 12.]
CANADA	COUR: SESSIONS DE LA

[Stage Direction]
DISTRICT: MONTRfiAL VILLE: MONTRfiAL CAUSE NO: 27-003926-765 feTAPE: SENTENCE
PRESIDENT: M. LE JUGE LUC TRUDEL, J.C.S.P.
NOM DES PARTIES:

[Stage Direction]
NOM DES PROCUREURS:

[Stage Direction]
Me MICHEL CHABOT et Me PAUL MIQUELON PROCUREURS DE LA DEFENSE
DATE D'AUDITION:	4 mai 1978
ENRG. MECANIQUE NO:	1904057802151177
SECRETAIRE JUDICIAIRE: DIANE ROB1DOUX STENOGRAPHE JUDICIAIRE: TRANSCRIPTION REMISE LE 16 mai 1978

[Stage Direction]
27-003926-765

[Stage Direction]
Pages
80045-30
[Stage Direction]
June 12, 1978

[Stage Direction]
Monsieur Treu, je vais rendre ma sentence en franfais, ma langue maternelle, car j'y suis beaucoup plus a l'aise. J'estime que c'est important et je prefere m'exprimer en franjais. Cependant, vous pourrez obtenir le compte rendu de mon jugement sans difficulte et, si vous insistez, nous pouvons le faire traduire des maintenant.
PAR L'ACCUSfs
Cela ne sera pas necessaire, Votre Honneur.

[Stage Direction]
Tres bien, mais j'espere, et je suis meme sur que vous allez le faire, que vous allez lire ce jugement et vous le faire traduire. Je pense que vous devriez le faire.
[Stage Direction]
Alors, en date du 28 avril 1978, la Cour a trouve coupable monsieur Treu sous deux chefs d'accusation, a savoir: que le ou vers le 29 mars 1974, il a eu illegalement en sa possession, ou controle, des documents ou des informations qu'il avait obtenus, ou auxquels il avait eu acces, comme un individu qui etait employe pour une compagnie qui avait eu un contrat pour le compte de Sa Majeste, a savoir: la Northern Electric Company Limited, lequel monsieur Treu a illegalement retenu de tels documents et/ou de telles informations, alors qu'il n'avait pas le droit de le faire, commettant ainsi un acte criminel contrairement a Particle 4-1-c) de la Loi sur les secrets officiels. Le deuxieme chef d'accusation etait a l'effet que, quant aux memes documents et quant aux memes informations, apres les avoir retenus ainsi illegalement, l'accuse n'en a pas pris un soin raisonna-ble, tel qu'il est specifie par la Loi, ou s'est conduit de telle fajon et de telle maniere qu'il mettait en danger la securite de tels documents, le tout contrairement a Particle 4-1 -d) de la Loi sur les secrets officiels. Je veux assurer l'accuse, ainsi que les avocats, que j'ai revise entierement, avant de rendre mon jugement, tel que la Loi m'y oblige d'ailleurs et en conformite avec mon secret d'office, que j'ai revise entierement toute la preuve, que j'ai revu tous les exhibits, que j'ai, je crois avoir compris, dans son entite, toute la preuve, sauf evidemment certaines parties techniques, tres techniques qui depassaient mes connaissances, du moins quant a la partie qui exigeait des connaissances vraiment speciales que l'ac-cuse possede et que d'autres experts possedent. Mais du moins, tout ce qui regarde le cote legal et le cote droit et les faits de la cause, je crois que j'ai rempli mon serment d'office du mieux que je le pouvais dans les circonstances, apres avoir revise et apres avoir pris tout le temps et toutes les heures necessaires qui s'imposaient dans les circonstances.
Je ne dis pas cela evidemment pour un but personnel, au contraire, c'est pour assurer tout simplement l'accuse que tel que mes fonctions l'exigent et tel que mon serment d'office I'exige, j'ai revu toute la preuve et j'ai base mon jugement uniquement sur cette preuve et sur rien d'autre que la preuve qui a ete faite devant moi durant tout le proces. En surplus, depuis que j'ai rendu mon jugement, j'ai pense tout le long de cette periode qui s'est ecoulee entre la fin de mon jugement et votre comparution aujourd'hui et je puis vous
assurer que j'ai continuellement pense a la sentence que je devais rendre, sans tout de meme presumer des plaidoiries qui seraient faites devant moi, ou sans non plus me faire une idee definitive parce que je n'avais pas le droit, tant que je n'avais pas entendu votre avocat, ou la preuve qu'il voulait m'offrir, et tant aussi que je n'avais pas entendu la plaidoirie de la Couronne, mais je possedais les faits de la cause et je possedais la Loi et il etait de mon devoir, tout de meme, de commencer a murir et a penser a une sentence que je pourrais vous imposer apres vous avoir trouve coupable. Alors, ni mon jugement ni ma sentence ne sont des decisions de derniere seconde ou de derniere minute et mon jugement et ma sentence, je le crois en toute honnetete, ne sont bases que sur les faits, que sur la preuve, que sur la Loi, que sur la jurisprudence, apres, comme je vous le repete, avoir pris connaissance du dossier et apres avoir entendu les plaidoiries de vos deux avocats et ce jugement et cette sentence evidemment sont rendus en conformite avec ma conscience et de la faqon que j'interprete a la fois les faits, la Loi et la jurisprudence. Monsieur Treu, je veux aussi vous dire que, dans mon opinion, vous avez subi un proces juste, en conformite avec les lois du Canada, telles qu'elles existent; la Loi des secrets officiels evidemment est une loi canadienne qui nous lie tous, y compris moi-meme, y compris les avocats, y compris les journaux et les journalistes. D'ailleurs nous tous, comme citoyens, les Juges a plus forte raison et les gens qui occupent de hautes responsabilites, nous sommes tous lies par les lois de ce pays et je crois personnellement que la Loi est au-dessus des hommes, est au-dessus des personnalites, est au-dessus de tous les citoyens, individuels ou corporatifs, et j'avoue que votre proces a ete tenu, vous le savez, dans des conditions exceptionnelles, mais en conformite avec la Loi sur les secrets officiels et, a cet effet, j'aimerais tout de meme monsieur Treu, rappeler, pour les fins du dossier, les procedures qui ont eu lieu dans cette cause. Vous avez d'abord comparu devant un Juge de la Cour des Sessions de la Paix; ce Juge vous a mis en liberte, conformement a la Loi, avec certaines conditions. Par la suite vos avocats, tel que c'etait leur droit et le votre aussi, a presente une requete devant la Cour Superieure a l'effet de reviser les conditions qui avaient ete imposees par le Juge de la Cour des Sessions de la Paix; sans entrer dans le detail, je crois que le Juge de la Cour Superieure, apres avoir pris connaissance evidemment des plaintes et des faits qui lui ont ete presentes, ainsi que de votre requete assermentee, a decide de changer certaines des conditions de votre mise en liberte, sauf qu'il vous obligeait encore a vous representer devant, plutot a la Gendarmerie Royale, une fois par mois au lieu de deux fois et peut-etre que certaines autres conditions mineures ont ete changees mais, dans leur essence, le Juge de la Cour Superieure a maintenu les conditions qui avaient ete imposees par le Juge de la Cour des Sessions de la Paix. Par la suite, vous avez comparu encore de temps a autre devant d'autres Juges, soit pour les remises du proces ou pour d'autres formalites administratives, pour finir par fixer une date de l'enquete preliminaire. L'enquete preliminaire a eu lieu. Au debut de 1'enquete preliminaire, la Couronne a demande que le proces se tienne a huis-clos, pour des raisons qui ont ete indiquees par la Couronne; les avocats de la Defense, vos deux avocats qu'entre parentheses je considere competents et que je considere honnetes, je crois qu'ils vous ont defendu
June 12, 1978
[Stage Direction]
avec tous les moyens qu'ils avaient a leur disposition, ont consenti a ce huis-clos. Par la suite, a l'enquete preliminaire, et je n'ai pas a revoir toute la preuve, mais a l'enquete preliminaire les exhibits, pour la plus grande majorite, les documents, pour la plus grande majorite qui ont ete deposes devant moi au proces, ont aussi ete deposes a l'enquete preliminaire et entre autre, a 1'enquete preliminaire, la liste d'inventaire a ete produite et par la suite j'ai aussi appris, lorsque j'ai preside le proces, qu'il y avait eu echange de correspondance entre vos avocats et l'avocat de la Couronne quant aux documents qui seraient eventuellement produits, meme s'il y a eu certaines divergences d'opinions entre les avocats quant a la masse des documents. Mais ce que je veux exprimer par ceci, c'est que, des le debut du proces, la Couronne qui represente evidemment le Ministere de la Justice, dans le cas, le Ministere de la Justice Federal et en passant je dois dire, je dois souligner parce que ga fait partie du dossier, qu'une autorisation du Ministre de la Justice a ete produite, je l'ai ici, conformement a Particle 12, le texte est en anglais, mais conformement a Particle 12 de la Loi sur les secrets officiels, le Procureur General du Canada, monsieur Basford, a autorise toutes les procedures qui ont ete intentees contre vous, conformement a nos lois, ici, au pays. Je n'ai pas besoin de vous dire evidemment, tout le monde le sait, que le Procureur General du Canada occupe les plus hautes fonctions, du moins quant a l'administration de la Justice au pays et qu'aucune poursuite en vertu de la Loi des secrets officiels ne peut etre intentee sans ['approbation ou le consentement du Procureur General.
Le procureur de la Couronne a fait connaitre a la Cour les intentions et les raisons pour lesquelles ce proces devait avoir lieu dans des conditions vraiment exceptionnelles; comme je le disais, il represente les plus hautes autorites du pays et la Cour, face au serieux et par le fait que vos avocat connais-saient le dossier et les documents et que vous-meme, vous en connaissiez tous les documents qui avaient deja ete deposes a l'enquete preliminaire, je crois que dans les circonstances, la Cour ayant exerge d'une fagon discretionnaire sa juridic-tion, je crois que dans les circonstances qu'elle etait basee et je ne dis pas ga du tout pour justifier en aucune fagon, parce que les avocats connaissent notre systeme, toute decision judiciaire de premiere instance evidemment, sauf dans certains cas, quant a sa discretion, je ne veux pas donner tout cours de droit ici, sont toujours appelables et c'est une bonne chose, non seulement c'est une bonne chose, c'est peremp-toire dans notre droit et c'est essentiel pour que la democratic puisse fonctionner. Alors, je dis ceci tout simplement pour que ce soit bien clair dans mon esprit que je vous ai juge, quant a moi, dans les cadres de la Loi canadienne, je n'en ai pas sorti, je n'avais pas l'intention d'en sortir et je n'en sortirai pas, ni pour ma sentence. Je vous ai juge, quant a moi, selon la preuve qui a ete faite devant moi et je ne sortirai pas de cette preuve et des faits de la cause et c'etait important pour moi d'etablir cette position de la Cour parce que, vous le savez, il y a eu dans ce dossier-la beaucoup de publicite, dans beaucoup de cas a tort et a travers, on m'en a souligne certains faits de part et d'autre et il y a peut-etre eu aussi certaines mauvaises interpretations qui ont ete faites a tort ou a travers, de bonne ou de mauvaise foi selon le cas, par des gens qui ont interet des fois a agir ainsi. Vous-meme, monsieur Treu, comme je le disais, vous etiez represente par
des avocats competents et honnetes. Des le debut, vous avez, evidemment vous avez vu tout le deroulement du dossier, vous avez ete averti par la Cour a certaines occasions, vous saviez que le huis-clos a ete ordonne, vous saviez qu'au debut du proces ou a peu pres, votre avocat avait souligne a la Cour un journal de Toronto, dont je me souviens pas le nom, pas tellement important, n'avait pas respecte le huis-clos ordonne par la Cour. J'avais, des ce moment-la et c'est dans les notes evidemment, averti Me Chabot que je conside-rais ceci d'une fagon tres serieuse et que, dans mon opinion a moi, personne n'est au dessus de la Loi, ni vous ni, comme je le disais tout a l'heure, ni les journaux, ni personne en definitive mais que, vous le savez peut-etre pas, mais il y a ce qu'on appelle les mepris de Cour qui sont commis face a la Cour et il y aussi le mepris de Cour qui est commis hors la presence du Tribunal. Quand il s'agit d'un mepris de Cour qui est commis face a la Cour, la Loi me donne juridiction pour agir immediatement; quand il s'agit d'un mepris de Cour qui est commis hors la presence du Tribunal, je n'ai pas juridiction. Tout ce que je peux faire, ou tout ce que je pouvais faire dans les circonstances, ou ce que votre avocat pouvait faire, etait evidemment de soumettre le tout a la Couronne qui est en charge de ces procedures en vertu du Code criminel et, dans le cas, il s'agissait de la Couronne provinciale. Quant a moi, je n'ai pas voulu, j'ai souligne immediatement par exemple que votre avocat devrait, s'il le desirait, prendre des procedures immediatement, ou faire un rapport a qui de droit, j'ignore s'il l'a fait ou non, quant a moi je n'ai pas voulu a ce moment-la rien faire et je crois que c'etait justifie parce que je ne voulais pas obnubiler mon esprit en aucune fagon et je voulais demeurer, tel que je congois mon devoir, le plus objectif possible dans les circonstances, et je ne voulais pas en aucune fagon etre derange par quoi que ce soit, intellectuel-lement et legalement, par d'autres choses que les faits qui se deroulaient devant moi a la Cour, que la preuve qui se deroulait devant moi. Alors, j'ai tout simplement porte a mon sens le tout a la fin du proces mais il reste que je vais tout de meme bien specifier et je crois que c'etait compris des avocats et, logiquement, ga devait etre compris de vous parce que vos avocats tout de meme vous ont conseille tout le long de ce proces et avant les procedures, et je crois que logiquement ga devait aussi etre compris de vous que le huis-clos devait etre respecte. Les personnalites en cause ne sont absolument pas importantes a mon point du vue, tel que je vous le disais, c'est la Loi qui doit etre respectee, monsieur Treu, c'est ga qui est le plus important dans notre societe, c'est le seul rempart que la societe, que nous avons nous tous ici. Le dernier rempart qui vraiment, qui puisse nous prote-ger, c'est la Loi et le respect des tribunaux et je crois, cet enonce qui a ete dit d'une fagon beaucoup plus elaboree et d'une fagon beaucoup plus savante par enormement d'au-teurs, de savants ou de juristes, mais il reste que dans des termes bien simples, il me semble que tout le monde com-prend que, sur une longue periode, la seule protection de tout citoyen est la Loi et le respect de la Loi et le respect des tribunaux. Chaque fois que vous ou moi ou un citoyen corporatif ou autre, un journaliste ou journal, enfin de compte, qui que ce soit, manquons au respect de la Loi et manquons a des ordres de Cour d'une fagon aussi flagrante, a mon sens, je crois que nous tous nous en souffrons et que
80045-30'/2
[Stage Direction]
June 12, 1978
la societe dans laquelle nous vivons et pour laquelle nous avons, depuis des siecles dans beaucoup de cas, l'etre humain s'est battu pour obtenir une certaine garantie judi-ciaire, une certaine independance des tribunaux, il y a des gens qui se sont battus pour 5a et, quant a moi, je crois que nous devrions respecter ceci d'une faqon integrate. Alors, ce que j'ai l'intention de faire, je ne peux pas presumer de ce que les tribunaux en feront ou de ce que la Couronne en ferait, mais maintenant que le proces quant a moi va etre fini bientot, d'ici une demi-heure, trois quarts d'heure, apres que ma sentence sera rendue parce qu'il faut bien preciser que vous etes sous ma juridiction tant que ma sentence n'est pas rendue et que vous l'etiez evidemment des le debut du proces, et que ce proces n'etait pas termine tant que la sentence n'etait rendue, alors j'ai l'intention de faire un rapport a la Couronne de ce que j'ai pu lire dans les joumaux et, autant des remarques qui avaient ete faites par Mc Chabot que, depuis ce temps-la, et la Couronne prendra ses responsabilites a cet effet. Si, je ne dis pas, moi, qu'ily a eu outrage au Tribunal ou non, c'est pas a moi a me prononcer sur cette partie. Je ferai mon rapport de ce que j'ai pu constater moi-meme en lisant les journaux. Je me souviens que meme avant que Mc Handfield en fasse mention ce matin qu'apres que la preuve etait terminee des deux cotes, vous avez donne au Montreal Star une entrevue et vous avez encore explique toute votre Defense en plein milieu du proces, alors qu'il n'etait pas, la preuve etait terminee mais le proces comme tel n'est pas termine, il y a la regie du sub judice qui evidemment doit etre respectee et il ne faut pas que les tribunaux soient influences par quoi que ce soit en dehors de la Cour. J'ai pas agi, parce que je ne voulais pas etre influence et j'ai d'ailleurs, le proces, je crois que ?a c'est en octobre ou a peu pres que cette entrevue a eu lieu, le proces a ete remis par la suite et il s'est ecoule une periode assez longue de sorte que, quant a moi, je n'ai pas tenu compte de tout ceci. Mais je voulais que vous compre-niez que pour vous, comme pour moi, votre meilleure Defense, c'etait la Cour et votre meilleur, l'exercice de vos droits doivent etre faits a l'interieur du systeme, a l'interieur du Tribunal et que ce soit par des actions en dommages-interets ou que ce soit par, dans la presentation de votre Defense ici au proces ou que ce soit a la Cour d'Appel, si tel etait votre desir d'y aller de mon jugement, ou plus loin, en fin de compte, d'epuiser tous les recours auxquels vous avez droit et que je respecte enormement, mais si vous pensez que votre reputation a ete atteinte ou si vous pensez que, pour une raison ou pour une autre, la denonciation initiale qui etait assermentee etait de mauvaise foi, je vous le dis encore parce que je considere que c'est un dossier d'une nature speciale, vos avocats pourraient vous renseigner davantage mais il est bien evident que tout citoyen a droit a des actions en libelle, tout citoyen a droit a des actions en dommages-interets, que ce soit avant les procedures ou que ce soit quand le denonciateur est de mauvaise foi, des le depot de la plainte, a ce moment-la le droit de poursuite en libelle existe. Personne n'a le droit de faire du tort a qui que ce soit. Et c'est a ce moment-la que vous avez votre meilleure protection et des le depot de la denonciation, des le debut des procedures, pour une raison ou pour une autre, si vous etiez capable de prouver la mauvaise foi du denonciateur, celui-ci peut etre, pourrait etre condamne, selon la preuve, a
des dommages-interets et pourrait etre certainement pour-suivi en libelle. Alors, vous avez droit, avez le droit comme tout citoyen a l'exercice de vos recours et il n'y a aucun doute aussi que, on a dit que c'etait un proces secret, mais il y a tout de meme, des le debut, tel que je vous le disais, il y a eu des denonciations qui a ete deposee, les journaux ont rapporte d'ailleurs les actes d'accusation, les journaux ont rapporte ce qui etait normal dans les circonstances, les journaux aussi ont rapporte ce sur quoi vous avez ete juge et ce sur quoi vous avez ete condamne. Alors, ce sur quoi vous avez ete condamne, je vous l'ai lu tout a l'heure, ce sont des offenses conformement a Particle 4 et, quant a moi, je ne fais pas plus de commentaires que 5a, mais il est bien evident que la Loi, elle, elle est publique et tout le monde est cense connaitre la Loi. A Particle 3 de la meme Loi sur les secrets officiels, dont le titre en franqais est indique a cote «spying* et en franqais plutot «espionnage* et en anglais «spying*, c'est sous Particle 3 que le legislateur a decide de decrire l'infraction d'espionnage ou de «spying* en anglais, et non sous Particle 4. Alors, si qui que ce soit vous a atteint dans votre reputation, ou ont mal rapporte de bonne foi ou de mauvaise foi, mais par ignorance, negligence grossiere ou de mauvaise foi ce qui serait pire, je vous prierais d'exercer tous les recours que vous puissiez avoir; vous avez ete accuse sous Particle 4 et vous avez ete trouve coupable sous Particle 4 et la Loi parle d'elle-meme quant a ceci. Alors, tout ceci pour vous dire, monsieur Treu, qu'il n'y a pas, ce ne sont pas les journalistes qui vous ont condamne ou qui vous auraient acquitte, ce ne sont pas les journalistes qui vont vous senten-cer autrement puis ce ne sont pas non plus les journalistes qui vont plaider votre cause en appel, c'est pas comme 9a que le systeme marche et ce ne sont pas non plus, votre reputation, la meilleure protection, quitte a ce que je me repete, c'est que votre protection a vous et Pexercice de vos droits doivent se faire a l'interieur du systeme judiciaire, puis c'est encore la, malgre les imperfections du systeme, que vous allez obtenir la meilleure justice, puis c'est encore la que, il faudrait que vous vous mefiiez de vous-meme, de vos reactions et peut-etre de vos amis dans certains cas. Votre avocat, M' Chabot, a souligne a la Cour que vous ne faisiez que vous defendre, mais je n'ai pas, je ne repete pas ce que je viens de dire depuis au moins dix, quinze minutes, parce qu'il est bien evident comme je vous l'ai dit que c'est pas, un depute est soumis a la Loi, un ministre est soumis a la Loi, tout le monde, et on ne se defend pas, on n'a pas le droit de prendre la Loi dans nos propres mains et de faire ce qu'on en veut, personne n'est au dessus de la Loi, alors que ces gens-la, ce n'est pas une reponse parce qu'on verrait quelqu'un en tuer un autre, «moi, j'ai le droit de le tuer*, c'est pas comme 9a que 9a marche. Ou, en fin de compte, «Quelqu'un qui me ferait du tort dans mes biens, puis je vais lui en faire, du tort*, vous savez, c'est pas, j'ai pas besoin de vous donner plusieurs exemples mais, de toute fa9on, tout le monde sait ce que je veux dire, je le pense. Il s'agit simple-ment que de regarder ce qui se passe dans le monde pour s'apercevoir que tout citoyen, plus il a des responsabilites elevees, plus il doit respecter et se soumettre a la Loi; on a simplement qu'a regarder ce qui s'est passe aux Etats-Unis, alors que le Ministre de la Justice a ete condamne parce qu'il n'avait pas observe la Loi pour comprendre que, dans une societe, c'est important. Bon. J'en viens a la partie
June 12, 1978
[Stage Direction]
meme de la sentence, je n'ai pas besoin de vous dire, monsieur Treu, que §a fait un certain temps que j'oeuvre en droit criminel, que ce soit a titre de Juge ou dans d'autres fonctions, et je crois que c'est la partie, on le dit souvent mais peut-etre que les Juges sentent le besoin de le dire davantage parce que ce sont ceux qui les rendent, ces sentences-la, il n'y a aucun doute que c'est la partie qui est la plus difficile. II est relativement facile, meme si 5a prend beaucoup d'ouvrage, il est relativement facile de, parce que nous avons des connaissances legales particulieres, d'etudier un dossier et d'analyser une preuve et de finir par atteindre certaines conclusions legales et, apres que nous avons tout fait, du moins humainement parlant, avec nos connaissances, bien, nous croyons que nous ayons nous croyons avoir rempli notre devoir de la fa$on qu'il doit etre rempli. Mais quand nous arrivons a la partie de la sentence, meme si celle-ci est reglee de la meme fa?on par la Loi et par la jurisprudence, il reste que le Juge est un etre humain; il est excessivement difficile pour un etre humain de juger un autre etre humain ou de le sentencer, ne serais-ce qu'a cause de cette partie humaine. C'est une tache qui est presqu'im-possible, humainement parlant et je ne connais pas de Juges qui, et d'ailleurs pa ne serait pas un bon Juge, il ne meriterit pas de sieger, a mon sens, qui prendrait un certain plaisir a sentencer un de ses semblables. C'est excessivement difficile. Mais cette partie-la, evidemment, ne peut pas etre rendue, non plus que le jugement, sur des sentiments: il faut que le Juge se base uniquement sur la Loi et sur la jurisprudence et sur les faits, puis sur les criteres que les cours d'appel nous donnent et, encore la, je pense que le Juge n'a pas le choix, que ce soit pour une sentence tres minime ou que ce soit pour une sentence plus severe, le Juge est liepar la Loi et je pense encore la que c'est la meilleure protection. Alors, dans votre cas, c'est encore plus difficile parce que, vos avocats ont raison, vous etes uen personnalite exceptionnelle, vous etes certainement pas, dans mon opinion a moi, un criminel, vous avez commis un acte criminel mais vous n'etes pas ce qu'on appelle un individu avec une carriere criminelle, loin de la, vous etes un individu qui avez eu une vie plus que respectable, qui avez de grandes qualites intellectuelles, qui, comme etre humain, est sympathique, du moins a mon sens, qui avez une famille, qui avez des enfants, alors vous n'etes pas un individu, ?a complique davantage et ?a rend plus difficile une sentence dans ces cas-la. A l'occasion de vos fonctions et a l'occasion des hautes responsabilites que vous aviez, a mon sens, puisque je vous ai trouve coupable, vous avez commis un acte criminel mais vous n'etes pas, je ne vous ai jamais considere, parce que je n'ai jamais eu cette preuve-la, comme un criminel et je ne l'ai pas davantage alors, dans mon esprit a moi, vous n'en etes pas un. Il faut que je vous juge, que je vous donne ma sentence en tenant compte, tel qu'on l'a mentionne ce matin, de l'objectivite du crime, la protection de la societe, l'exemplarite, de la dissuasion, en anglais, «deterrence* et, evidemment aussi, de la subjectivity qui a commis ce crime, votre age, votre personnalite, votre situation familiale, vos antecedents, dans le cas il n'y en a pas, votre rehabilitation possible, votre attitude au moment du crime ou immediatement apres le crime, vottre degre de premeditation, les circonstances du crime. Je dois, comme toute Cour, je dois balancer tous ces facteurs, du moins il faut que je retienne certains de ces facteurs, certns
criteres et les mette dans une espece de balance et c'est de la que la sentence sort. Dans certaines causes, il est plus important, le facteur de rehabilitation est plus important que dans d'autres causes; dans d'autres causes, c'est la protection de la societe; dans d'autres causes, nous devons tenir compte de la personnalite qui influe encore davantage, qui fait peser la balance d'une fagon un peu plus lourde que de l'autre cote, dans certains cas, quant a l'individu lui-meme; alors, c'est de tenir compte a la fois des criteres objectifs et a la fois des criteres subjectifs et apres avoir pese, mis tout 5a dans les deux plateaux de la balance, essayer de rendre justice a l'accuse conformement a la Loi et a la jurisprudence. Et, c'est cette partie evidemment qui doit guider le Juge, c'est l'ensemble de tous ces facteurs qui doit guider le Juge, afin de rendre sa sentence. Je n'ai pas besoin de tout repeter au point de vue subjectivity je n'ai pas de doute, monsieur Treu, en aucune fa§on, que vous etes un individu respectable a mon sens; vous l'etiez, vous l'etes encore et je crois que, comme je le disais, vous n'etes pas un criminel. Votre avocat a attire mon attention sur certaines circonstances a l'effet que les documents pour lesquels je vous ai trouve coupable, c'etait vos instruments de travail, il s'agissait de votre propriete intellectuelle, que la compagnie ou l'OTAN, dans certains cas, ou la compagnie Nadgeco et que, elle continuait a vous favoriser dans votre travail, enfin de compte, que vous avez continue a travailler.
Toutes circonstances du crime que j'ai etudiees dans mon jugement, alors je n'ai pas l'intention d'y revenir en details parce que les circonstances du crime ont ete que, je les ai toutes analysees et etudiees et je me souviens d'avoir analyse P-10, je me souviens d'avoir analyse tout ce qui a retenu votre, tout ce qui a plutot amene votre retention des documents et a votre detention des documents pour une periode assez longue, apres la cessation de votre emploi a la Northern Electric. Alors, en resume, moi je crois que, apres avoir pense, monsieur Treu, a cette affaire et apres avoir pese le pour et le contre, je pouvais, dans les sentences que je pouvais rendre etaient que, c'est punissable par un maximum de quatorze ans, on l'a souligne; je veux tout simple-ment, pour les fins du dossier ici, repeter les causes qu'on m'a donnees: la cause de Lemire et Gosselin, 1948, 5 C.R., page 181 et suivantes, 92 C.C.C., page 201; la cause de Pierre Tanguay, C.R., Cour d'Appel, numero A-4962; la cause de Pierre Taillon, C.R., Cour d'Appel, numero A-4963; la cause de R. versus Wilmott, W-I-L-M-O-T-T, 1967, 1 C.C.C., page 171, Cour d'Appel de l'Ontario et, en surplus, il y a une cause ici que j'ai, qui va peut-etre vous faire comprendre ce sur quoi je base davantage ma sentence, la cause de la Reine versus Morrissette, qui est reportee a 1970, 1 C.C.C., deuxieme edition, page 307, dont on emet certains principes a la page 207, du volume de Canadian Criminal Procedure, deuxieme edition, Salhamy, S-A-L-H-A-M-Y. Alors, je pourrais evidemment, le maximum est de quatorze ans de prison, le minimum dans les circonstances, <ja serait une sentence suspendue, a laquelle je pourrais ajouter une sentence suspendue a laquelle je pourrais ajouter evidemment une ordonnance de probation ainsi qu'une amende, du moins selon les causes que je vois ici et qui sont rapportees dans Martin's sous les articles 663, mais je ne pourrais pas vous imposer une amende seulement et, a l'interieur de ces deux extremites, bien j'ai le choix, j'ai une
[Stage Direction]
June 12, 1978
certaine discretion. Alors, pour resumer tout ce que j'ai dit, quant a moi, je retiens le facteur principal en mettant, comme je vous le disais tout a l'heure, dans le plateau de la balance votre personnalite subjective meme, ainsi que certains autres facteurs dont Fexemplarite et la dissuasion, en tenant compte du contexte dans lequel vous avez obtenu les documents en question parce qu'au fond, dans votre cas comme dans le cas de n'importe quel autre citoyen qui entrerait en possession de tels documents, dans le contexte de la Loi sur les secrets officiels, avec des conditions bien strictes et restrictives, il faut tenir compte, a mon sens, de la dissuasion, de Fexemplarite et davantage ces deux facteurs que le facteur subjectif que j'ai enumere et que votre avocat a enumere. II est bien evident que nous ne pouvons pas, votre avocat posait la question souvent «Pour qui, Fexempla-rite*, ou «Pour qui, la dissuasion?*; il s'agit d'un crime bien special, ce n'est certainement pas, je pense bien, pour le voisin, mais je ne crois pas, peut-etre a tort remarquez bien, pour un je respecterais, non seulement je respecterais mais, quant au fond du jugement ou quant a la sentence je, vous devriez exercer tous vos droits evidemment, judiciaires, si vous croyez qu'ils doivent etre exerces. Alors, il faut tenir compte davantage a mon sense de la dissuasion et, pas tant pour monsieur «X* qui serait Finconnu ou le citoyen moyen, je ne crois pas, ?a serait pour eviter que des gens qui sont places dans la meme situation ou vous l'avez ete, avec les responsabilites que vous aviez, en tenant compte des consequences que ceci peut avoir en tenant compte aussi que la confiance qu'on vous faisait, et meme si je prenais pour acquis qu'il s'agissait de votre responsabilite, plutot de votre propriete intelectuelle, en partie, et d'ailleurs je le men-tionne dans mon jugement aussi, il reste que cette propriete intellectuelle ou ces connaissances que vous avez comme savant, ou comme ingenieur, ou comme, ces connaissances que vous avez, a un moment donne vous les avez mises a la disposition du Gouvernement, a Finterieur de nos regies de securite, pour realiser un contrat ou les regies de securite devaient etre observees et cette partie-la pour lesquelles vous etes favorise en fait, d'avoir toutes ces connaissances, elle devait etre, ces connaissances intellectuelles, cette propriete intellectuelle qui etait mise a la disposition de la compagnie, dans la realisation d'un contrat ou le Canada avait un interet, tel que je l'ai mentionne dans mon jugement, cette connaissance et cette propriete intellectuelle devaient etre observees et devaient etre protegees par des regies de securite qui sont etablies par l'Etat et l'fitat, a tort ou a raison, est le maitre absolu de ces regies de securite et l'fitat tire son mandat evidemment de la societe, du moins de la fa$on que la Loi existe actuellement et, si l'£tat se trompe, bien, que le legislateur change la Loi mais vous aviez, dans ce cadre bien precis, des responsabilites enormes, des responsabilites precises et votre propriete intellectuelle devait etre exercee dans ce cadre bien delimite et etait remise en definitive a l'fitat et, une fois que l'execution de ce contrat etait terminee, de la fagon que je l'ai interprets en tout cas, vous n'aviez plus le droit de retenir ces documents et ils devaient etre soit detruits, ou vous deviez obtenir une permission pour les garder, ce qui n'a pas ete fait et c'est pour ?a d'ailleurs que je vous ai trouve coupable et c'est pour §a que ?a occasion-nait a partir de ce moment-la un danger pour la securite de l'fetat, du moins tel que je l'ai con§u dans mon jugement.
Dans la cause de Morrissette, on cite ceci au deuxieme paragraphe du moins, de la page 207:
[Stage Direction]
«La dissuasion est aussi un facteur important. Le probleme est different si l'objet d'une sentence est de dissuader le contrevenant de repeter l'infraction plutot que de dissuader d'autres personnes qui pourraient etre tentees de commettre la meme infraction. Il ne s'ensuit pas necessairement dans Fun ou l'autre des deux cas qu'une sentence prolongee s'impose pour atteindre cette Fin. Il faut considerer la dissuasion objectivement, si le but de la sentence est de dissuader d'autres personnes de commettre la meme infraction. Dans ce cas, la gravite de l'infraction, l'incidence du crime dans la collectivite, le tort qu'il a cause soit a Findividu, soit a la collectivite et l'opinion publique a ce sujet representent quelques-uns des aspects dont il faut tenir compte.*
[Stage Direction]
Alors, en definitive, c'est que cet element de dissuasion, de prevention d'un crime, devrait etre considere d'une facon objective, si le but est d'empecher d'autres personnes ou d'autres individus de commettre ce meme crime, qui pourraient etre inclines, qui pourraient avoir des tendances a faire cette infraction, s'ils sont places dans les memes cir-constances. En d'autre mots, la gravite objective du crime, l'incidence de ce crime dans la communaute, le tort cause, que ce soit par Findividu ou a la communaute, ou a Findividu, et l'attitude publique envers ceci, devraient etre des sujets qui puissent etre consideres et cet effet de dissuasion, evidemment, si elle s'applique a celui qui a commis un crime, si c'est pour l'empecher de commettre ce meme crime, bien la nous devons considerer davantage les facteurs subjectifs parce que si un individu, par exemple, aurait une tendance a faire des vols qualifies, bien, pour eviter qu'il commette d'autres vols qualifies, a ce moment-la, nous pouvons considerer le facteur subjectif et aussi, s'il n'a pas cette tendance a repeter le meme vol, bien, nous devons tenir compte de son age et le facteur subjectif serait, prevaudrait sur le facteur objectif. Mais lorsqu'il s'agit, non pas d'empecher un autre individu, c'est-a-dire l'accuse plutot de commettre le meme crime, mais d'empecher que d'autres individus places dans les memes circonstances soient tentes de commettre ce crime, il faut a ce moment-la considerer les facteurs objectifs et je pense que, dans votre cas a vous, de toute facon, je n'ai pas toute cette cause devant moi, je n'ai qu'un resume, mais de la fa$on que je l'interprete et quoi qu'il en soit, je considere, moi, que je suis oblige de peser dans la balance le facteur objectif, avant tous les criteres subjectifs, dans votre cas, c'est-a-dire que je me dois de considerer le facteur dissuasion, ainsi que Fexemplarite, pour que toute personne ou tout autre individu qui, dans les memes circonstances, dans les memes cas, serait oblige d'avoir acces a des documents d'une nature militaire si importante, selon la preuve qui a ete faite devant moi, ce facteur doit primer sur tous les autres facteurs et je m'en tiens uniquement a la preuve et la preuve a ete faite devant moi que ces documents-la avaient une importance excessive-ment grande, quant a la preuve qui a ete faite devant moi, quant a la preuve d'expert que j'ai entendue.
Alors, en consequence, monsieur Treu, je me vois dans l'obligation de vous condamner a un terme de prison et je
June 12, 1978
[Stage Direction]
vais vous condamner, sur le premier chef, a deux ans de prison, sur le deuxieme chef, a une annee de prison, concu-ramment. C'est tout.
LA COUR EST AJOURNfeE
transcription des paroles recueillies au moyen de l'enregis-trement mecanique sur le ruban n° 1904057802151177.
Je, soussignee, secretaire judiciaire, certifie sous mon ser-ment d'office que les pages qui precedent contiennent la
Diane Robidoux Secretaire judiciaire
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 12, 1978