1978-06-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity regarding the refusal of the Government of Canada to demonstrate compassion for the victims and families of the victims of the Cranbrook air crash. The Minister of Transport has refused to participate in a shared pool compensation fund proposal, arguing that there is no legal authority for such an arrangement at present. That refusal prevents others from participating and denies aid to the injured and bereaved. In the interests of equity, the official opposition is prepared to encourage the passage of any necessary legislation for this purpose within one hour of its introduction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I, therefore, move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That this House urges the minister to bring forward legislation before the end of next week to enable the federal government to participate in the proposed pool fund.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising out of news reports today that Loto Canada, a federal Crown corporation, has entered into a
contract with the General Instrument Company of Canada for the supply of computer terminals for its new lottery to be introduced in November of this year.
In light of the fact that this contract was entered into without any tendering procedure, in light of the fact that the price paid for leasing and servicing of the required terminals appears to be substantially higher than necessary, and in light of the high probability that the terminals will be imported from the United States although there are at least two companies available which are willing to guarantee that their terminals would be made in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport be ordered to examine this situation and to direct that in this case and in all future cases no contracts will be awarded without proper tendering procedures being adhered to, with preference given to Canadian production.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate at this time requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It concerns the 13 million acre spruce budworm spray program of the provincial government of Newfoundland and the fact that federal law under the Fisheries Act is consistently being broken by the spray companies, doing irreparable damage to the environment. On the basis of observations and evidence collected in central Newfoundland by a group headed by a medical doctor, the spray program is being improperly managed in that massive amounts of the insecticide matacil is being sprayed on lakes, ponds, streams, as well as on water supplies of some communities. Since the spray is resulting in the killing of harmless and necessary insects, birds and fish, it contravenes section 33(2) of the Fisheries Act. Therefore, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin):
That the federal government immediately investigate the enforcement of the law under section 33(2) of the Fisheries Act as it applies to the spray program in Newfoundland and immediately prosecute those responsible for the breaking of
that law and inform the provincial government concerned that such actions must stop this weekend.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 22, 1978
That this House entrust the government that, in line with its stated policy toward South Africa, it forces Canadian-based companies to withdraw their investments from South Africa and Namibia in particular.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that figures released this morning by Statistics Canada show that the Canadian economy increased in the first quarter of this year at an annual rate of only 2.3 per cent, compared with the 5 per cent growth rate which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) stated was necessary to bring about a modest decline in unemployment, and in view of the current 9 per cent inflation rate compared with the 6 per cent rate predicted by the Minister of Finance, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House call upon the Minister of Finance to lay before the House, before the summer recess, detailed plans for the economic recovery which he predicted in his budget speech, or that failing to do so, the House give the minister time to show cause why he should continue to be Minister of Finance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John R. Rodriguez: In view of the fact that Canadian money is assisting South African security forces to torture and kill in Namibia and that Canada has denied publicly foreign armed intervention in Africa, while winking at Canadian investment in Namibia and South Africa, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, perhaps I can put my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. As the disappointing real growth figures published by Statistics Canada this morning indicate that real growth in the first quarter of this year was only 0.7 per cent or, on an annualized basis, 2.8 per cent, would he indicate if it is still the government's view, as the Minister of Finance stated in the House last Monday, that real growth for the entire year will be close to 5 per cent? If it is still the government's view, it will mean we will have to reach a 7.6 per cent annualized real growth in the balance of this year, the nine months remaining.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will be here in a few minutes. Cabinet finished just before two o'clock and he will be in the House shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to reserve the question?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If I may, Mr. Speaker, yes.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In reply to a question put by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra yesterday, the minister indicated that as a result of legal interpretation of section 126 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, confidential information, at the direction of the department, was now being withheld from criminal investigation officers.
June 22, 1978

Does that ministerial or departmental order include information that traditionally has been available to the criminal investigation branch in the process of investigating unemployment insurance frauds, normally at the request of the department? In other words, is that blanket on information all-inclusive, or is there an exclusion where a criminal investigation officer may still get that information in order to build up a case for prosecution of a fraud charge?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and the opportunity to clear up that point. I thought I had done that in press reports and in the House. No, it is not a blanket closing off. The information will be made available for the administration of the UI Act, whether it is to catch those who perpetrate fraud or having to do with social insurance numbers. Having regard to anybody who might be doing something wrong in that particular region of the administration of social insurance numbers, the information will, of course, be made available to the RCMP which, incidentally, has been doing an excellent job on our behalf.


LEGALITY OF RCMP RECEIVING CONFIDENTIAL UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE INFORMATION
William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General. Press reports indicate quite clearly that at least one assistant commissioner has indicated they will not receive that type of information in the process of investigating UI frauds, on the basis that if information supplied for the investigation of other alleged crimes would be a breach of confidentiality, then the supplying of information in respect of UI fraud would equally be a breach. I now understand that the order of the Minister of Employment and Immigration does not extend to UI fraud cases. Was that assistant commissioner quoted incorrectly, and is it the situation that the criminal investigation branch now will not receive that information in respect of UI fraud?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the latter part of the hon. gentleman's question, I can assure him it is not the policy of the RCMP not to discharge its responsibilities in exactly those terms identified by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The RCMP is charged with enforcement of the UI Act and takes this responsibility very seriously. It obtains from the Department of Employment and Immigration such information as is required for the prosecution of these offences and the continuation of investigations.
With reference to the press reports, Mr. Speaker, I have not had the advantage of seeing the transcript of the evidence given before the McDonald inquiry and, therefore, cannot comment on the initial question of the hon. gentleman.
Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS


DISPUTES IN MEAT PACKING INDUSTRY
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have questions for two ministers respecting the strike at Swift and the lockout by Canada Packers. My first question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that the lockout by Canada Packers seems to be a case of acting in concert with a competitor, which could have a serious effect on the price of meat products, will the minister have his officials investigate this whole situation?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I have no information on that as yet, Mr. Speaker, but I will be pleased to follow up the suggestion made by the hon. member.


RECEIPT OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS BY EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN DISPUTES
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the assurance that this matter will be investigated. I hope the appearance of collusion will impress itself upon the minister.
My second question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and also has to do with this situation. In view of reports that employees of Canada Packers are to be denied unemployment insurance even though their being out of work is not a result of their initiative but, rather, because of a lockout, will the minister look into this matter in the hope that justice will prevail and that the employees who are out of work, not through their own fault, will receive unemployment insurance?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the role of the commission in cases like this is to endeavour to remain as neutral as possible. When there is a lockout or a strike, unemployment insurance benefits are not paid. We probably abuse that neutrality to some extent by indicating that we will not pay mobility grants to individuals to move into those particular jobs. If a person takes a job at a plant that is on strike, or refuses to go into a plant that is on strike, he will not lose his unemployment insurance benefits. So to some extent we lean in favour of employees. But, of course, we have been criticized for this by the other side.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the last amendments respecting unemployment insurance put the control of the administration directly in the hands of the department rather than in the hands of an independent commission, will the minister, as the head of that department, take a personal interest in this matter to see that these employees who are locked out are not denied the benefits to which they are entitled?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, as the minister of the department, I have to take my responsibilities recognizing that contribu-

June 22, 1978
Oral Questions
tions are made by both employers and employees in this particular program. It is a matter of some concern to me and it is a matter that would probably best be studied by the advisory council which 1 propose to appoint under the legislation. However, 1 do not want to raise any false hopes by suggesting I am contemplating making that change now, because I am not.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can put to the Minister of Finance, now that he has joined us, the question 1 originally put to the Prime Minister. My question is based on the Statistics Canada figures which show that in the first quarter of this year, real growth in the economy was only 0.7 per cent or, on an annualized basis, 2.8 per cent. Does the minister still hold the view that he expressed no later than last Monday, that real growth for the entire year will be close to 5 per cent? If he does, how does he explain the fact that we will need real growth of 7.6 per cent for the balance of this year, the nine months which remain?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think 1 have to change my prediction, because if we compare the Canadian figures with the American figures, Canada for the first quarter had a growth of 0.7 per cent while the Americans, who were predicting approximately the same figure, had a negative growth. They, however, were affected by the coal strike and it is understandable that this would have an effect on our performance. The United States prediction for the second quarter is very strong growth, and I think Canada has a good chance to perform just as well.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, 1 know the minister is going to the United States to sign a contract; but we are talking about g.n.p. real growth figures in Canada. If the annualized rate of 2.8 per cent persists this year, it will mean 60,000 more people will be out of work in this country. My question to him is, when will he come to the point of accepting the reality that real growth is not developing in the country as he claims it is, and do something to help the unemployed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said that even if we do not have a better performance in the next three quarters than in the last quarter, we will do relatively well compared to other nations because it is an increase over last year. I am not, however, abandoning the prediction I made of close to 5 per cent because, despite the difficulties of the first quarter, Canada had a growth of 0.7 per cent while the Americans, as I explained, had a negative growth. We did better than they did. The prediction for the United States is a growth rate, in 1978, of 4.5 per cent. I do not see why, if we performed better than they did in the first quarter, we will not do as well in the rest of the year.
[Mr. Cullen.)


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary to the minister. 1 would remind him that the 0.7 per cent real growth in the first quarter of this year is just half the real growth in the fourth quarter of last year; in other words, we are on a downward trend again. In view of that, would the minister indicate, as we are losing real growth, whether he anticipates that inflation will take up the slack and, over-all, whether the economy, as far as increase is concerned, will be roughly that which he initially anticipated?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about an increase over the last quarter of 1977 and 1 have not yet had time to analyse the figures. I understand, for example, that one of the problems is a very sharp decline in inventory, which means that when consumer expenditures increase, producers have not increased their line of production and there is a limit to inventories. According to the figures published on employment, there is more growth in employment than in the g.n.p., which means that later they will have to start increasing their production to replace the inventories being depleted at this time.


DECLINE IN BUSINESS INVESTMENT
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. The same Statistics Canada figures released today show that in gross fixed capital formation investment in our economy there was a 2 per cent fall in volume, in real terms, and a further 1.9 per cent slide in business investment compared to the last quarter. That brings it 1.7 per cent below the level in the fourth quarter-not an increase but a decrease. This is the lowest level of capital formation for business in three years and the second consecutive quarterly decline. As the minister knows, without increased capital investment we cannot have increased growth and increased jobs. The minister and his predecessors, Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Turner, brought down many budgets.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a question?


John Carnell Crosbie: In fact, they are the Three Stooges of Canadian finance. What is the minister going to do to reverse this decline in business investment in Canada over the last two quarters? What steps is he going to take? His budget has not been effective. What is he going to do now?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we introduced a budget only two months ago and we think that when stimulating demand as we did in the budget as well as in other economic sectors such as the development of tar sands or the incentives given to small businessmen, all the programs launched during the past two months will give some impetus to the Canadian economy which should reach the objectives expected for 1978, that is a growth of 4.5 and 5 per cent.
June 22, 1978


John Carnell Crosbie: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance is the Donald Duck of finance ministers. When he is asked a question, all he does is squawk. We want more than squawks; we want some action. If we look at the capacity utilization rate for the first quarter, it is 82.7 per cent, which is the lowest rate of use of Canadian industry since 1961 when the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce kept statistics. It is the lowest rate in mining, the lowest rate in manufacturing, and reflects the weak demand in the Canadian economy. The minister has brought down two budgets-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I know you do not like this. My question is, what is the honourable Donald Duck going to do to reverse this trend?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Rimouski.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I know why-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Rimouski.

[ Translation]


URBAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR DETAILS ON CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE DWELLINGS IN GASPfi PENINSULA, QUEBEC
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of State for Urban Affairs confirm to the House whether there is any truth in the article published in last Tuesday's edition of La Presse according to which the minister has just authorized the construction of four single dwellings in four Gaspe peninsula villages for which the federal government supplies free building materials and the manpower would be provided benevolently by local residents? If so, does he intend to promote that program across the country?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is a pilot project which has been proposed by the hon. member for Matane. He has worked along with some officials of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on that program and when I visited his riding I was pleased to announce that CMHC would provide the funds necessary to see that pilot project through.
Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL GRANT LOANS AT INTEREST RATE CORRESPONDING TO COST OF ADMINISTRATION
Eudore Allard: I would like to ask a supplementary question. With a view to encouraging the private sector, would the minister consider as an alternative building single family dwellings? That would reduce current excessive costs. Builders could also receive loans at an interest rate equal to administrative costs. Would not the minister agree that this is a more logical solution than to ask the population to do voluntary work? Nobody works for nothing these days, and 1 think it is pretty difficult to find anybody who will work for nothing.


André Ouellet: gather that the hon. member does not approve of the pilot project. It is too early yet to see whether or not it will be useful. I would ask him to wait until the end of the summer, and we can talk about it then.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister another supplementary question.
The minister has answered only part of my question. The House would like to know if he intends to duplicate that experience in the other provinces in general, or to restrict it to Quebec.


André Ouellet: I thought 1 had answered the hon. member by saying that this is a pilot project. We have to see, first of all, whether or not this project will be useful before extending it throughout the country. I think it is too early yet to draw any conclusions. This is a small project concerning four houses in four different villages, and we are waiting to see the results before doing anything else. If it is successful, we will of course draw the obvious conclusions at that time.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It now has an added aspect of urgency due to the harrowing coverage given last week by the CBC to the aftermath of the Cranbrook air crash and from further news reports in the Ottawa press this week.
Is the ministry engaged in negotiations with regard to the pooling of insurance claims for the victims of the Cranbrook air crash? If so, can the minister report progress on those negotiations and has he learned, in response to the question put by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain,
8004S-53

June 22, 1978
Oral Questions
whether any legal difficulties are in the way of pooling those claims at the present time?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the legal difficulty existed only in relation to the ability to actually pay money into a pool, not in relation to entering into an arrangement. Progress is being made. 1 am confident that soon we shall have an arrangement which will allow an effective pool to operate and specific negotiations to take place. Those discussions are going forward and I am now in a position to enter into such an arrangement.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, is the minister suggesting the pooling arrangement will be made prior to the release of the report by the Ministry of Transport on its investigation into the crash, or is he waiting for that report? I would be curious to know if there is a connection there. If not, why cannot the pooling arrangement be made immediately?


Otto Emil Lang: There is no connection at all between those two things, since the investigation which we are carrying on has no direct bearing on any question of liability, which is determined in another forum. There are significant legal issues which have to be dealt with in creating a pooling arrangement. As well, there are complicated questions arising out of the British Columbia joint tort feasors law and the like which have to be considered. The various parties have to consider any effect on their position caused by the arrangement they would enter into. That has been the source of the problem. 1 do not think there has been any problem on our part other than to simply get together on these difficulties so far as the various parties are concerned, and I think that is almost over.


FUNDING OF COMPENSATION POOL
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. The minister has reconfirmed today in the House, as well as last night on the CBC program "As it Happens", that the government will continue its refusal to participate in the funding of this pool. In this connection he stated:
-we as a government cannot turn money over except according to some law.
Since that will have a direct bearing upon other parties participating, because it appears they are not prepared to participate in the fund unless the government, through the Ministry of Transport, is prepared to do so, has he again met with his legal counsel and considered a legislative solution to this problem? In addition, is he prepared to bring in an amendment to existing legislation to allow the federal government to participate in this pooling arrangement? I ask this question in the name of sympathy, compassion and humanity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the people affected, I wish the hon. member would not ignore the answers I have given and come back to
[Mr. Johnston.J
the suggestion that there may be a problem in the way of our participating in a settlement of claims. There is no such problem. The only problem is in relation to doing so in a particular financial manner in advance of certain stages having been reached in the negotiations. I do not see that as a difficulty. We are participating. We are proposing to participate in the negotiations and we are proposing to enter into the necessary arrangements with the other parties so that settlements can be achieved and payments made at an early date. Let the hon. member recognize that there is no difficulty in that regard. If there were one requiring a legal change, obviously I would consider putting one forward.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious the minister is unable to clarify the government's position to the House. He was unable to clarify its position on the show "As it Happens" last night. I ask the minister if he will undertake to make a full and detailed statement on motions to explain the government's position in this whole affair and put on the record, once and for all, the position of the government and the manner in which it intends to proceed toward expediting a settlement of this issue.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how it can be made simpler than by saying we are prepared to participate in the necessary steps to allow a pooling arrangement to go forward and these claims settled.


An hon. Member:: When?


Otto Emil Lang: An hon. member shouts "When?" The point is that there is a complex, legal consideration which enters into this kind of matter. It may be very well for one of the participants in the proposed pool to throw darts and rocks at this government, and for hon. members opposite to share in that in their partisan way, but the fact is that we are in a position to enter into the necessary arrangement. The legal questions are being dealt with and I am optimistic about the early achievement of a pool. I cannot say that beyond any doubt, because it depends on the participation of other parties. I hope hon. members recognize that. It is simple, and the hon. member should understand.


HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL SPRAYS
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare: it relates to the increasing number of chemical substances sprayed in Canada these days. In view of the fact that some of these sprays affect people's health and in some cases even proving to be fatal, could the minister please inform this House whether it will be the policy of her department to ensure that it is the responsibility of manufacturers to prove and guarantee the harmlessness of these sprays to human
June 22, 1978

beings, so that the onus of responsibility for any ill-effects is placed on the producer and not paid by society as a whole?


Miss Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm, without any doubt, that the burden of proof that there is no harm done to humans through chemical substances in spray or other forms remains entirely with the manufacturers. This has always been the position of my department and it will continue to be the position.


TRANSPORT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport: it has to do with the latest revelations connected with the cost to the western farmer in lost sales to the extent of $150 million in consequence of grain transportation delays and, as well the damage to Canada's international reputation. The figures are unchallengeable.
What is the government and the minister doing to bring about something in the nature of responsibility in connection with this matter, so that the western farmer is not subjected to terrific losses in consequence of the failure of this government to act?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is really astonishing that the right hon. gentleman should refer to an export of over 800 million bushels of grain as being some kind of a disaster for the western farmer. When he was prime minister, 440 million bushels used to be awfully good. Eight hundred million or perhaps even close to a record is what we shall be achieving this year. There have been shipping difficulties, certainly: not, however, peculiar to Canada.

As I indicated to the House-the right hon. member may have been absent-in the middle of May, 39 ships were waiting in the American gulf. The right hon. gentleman would like to suggest that we are losing markets: the announcement the other day of 110 million bushels sold to China certainly gives the lie to that argument.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that answer is in accordance with the departure from the truth which is not uncommon on the part of the minister. 1 am quoting from the advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board which today, at 2.02 p.m., made the following declaration: it referred to the cost to farmers of more than $150 million in lost sales, the damage to Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier, and said that some action must be taken. Therefore, 1 have good company, in the advisory committee of the Wheat Board, to question the
Oral Questions
minister who is so far removed from the facts that it is impossible for him to tell the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: 1 put it down as intentional. It may be negligence. Was the advisory committee wrong today when it said the railways should be directed to take immediate action to build up their grain car fleet and speed up grain shipments? That was not in May, but on June 22. The advisory committee of the Wheat Board says there is a serious failure and that the western farmer is being subjected to losses that should not take place. Who is now deceiving the country as a whole: the minister or the advisory committee?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it may be recognized by some, if not by the right hon. gentleman, that notwithstanding that, we are setting or nearly setting a record because of the standards we are setting. It is possible for the advisory board to speak of the further opportunity which we may have had-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: The fact is that in moving 820 million or 830 million bushels into export: we are moving the whole of the equivalent of a record crop, plus some more. The right hon. gentleman asks what we are doing to become more effective in this regard. Part of the answer is 8,000 hopper cars, repairing a couple of thousand boxcars a couple of years ago, $700 million for rail rebuilding, co-ordinators at the terminals, an exchange of cars between Calgary and Edmonton, and the block shipping system. These are all elements which have made it possible for us to achieve 800 million bushels of export.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman answers everything but the allegations made today by the advisory committee of the Wheat Board which states how serious the situation is. Has the minister not been given that information? Do I have to pass it on to him? Are they afraid to let him know the facts?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the right hon. gentleman that I am aware of the facts and have been following the situation very closely.


John George Diefenbaker: Then why don't you act?


Otto Emil Lang: It is not a simple matter of accusing the railways. At this point in time, perhaps unknown to the right hon. member, we have a problem of damp grain moved into the Saskatchewan wheat pool elevator: it is not capable of operating effectively. It was not the fault of the railways but of some other part of the system. Because of those sorts of difficulties, difficulties of ships being delayed in October and November, last week I indicated the intention to appoint a systems expert analyst to further improve the turn-around time of our railway equipment.
6646

June 22, 1978
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Systems expert analyst?


Otto Emil Lang: The right hon. member might like us to buy an additional "X" number of cars. In his day he never thought of hopper cars. We have hopper cars now. We have a system that can handle 800 million to 850 million bushels of grain. When we continue to thrust for a new record, of course we will find the system is being tested to its fullest extent. 1 predict, for his benefit, that in about four years' time we will be going after a record of one billion bushels of export. We may have had some difficulties, but we are accomplishing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


LOTO CANADA
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport who is also responsible for Loto Canada. Can the minister indicate why Loto Canada has awarded a substantial contract, amounting to approximately $23 million, for lease of computer terminals, plus perhaps $5 million a year for servicing and support? This contract was let without a tendering process of any sort, in the face of substantial evidence that at least two other Canadian companies could have filled this contract at a price substantially below the price Loto Canada has agreed to pay.


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, while it is true there are certain Canadian companies which could have fulfilled the computer functions required, our investigations showed that General Instrument company was the only one which could supply us with the retail machines we required for this particular type of game.
In this connection, I should like to urge, for the hon. member's attention, that in excess of 50 per cent of the components are Canadian-made. It is our intention, before four years are up, to have it as close as possible to 100 per cent Canadian content. In addition, we have had enlightening consultation with existing Canadian companies which could participate in this deal and could make full use of the R and D grants which the Minister of State for Science and Technology recently announced. I believe that through all these various means we will soon, within four years, have as close to 100 per cent Canadian content in these machines as possible.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister whether the rapidity with which this contract was let has any relationship to competing against provincial lotteries across the country. The two other computer companies which might have filled this contract have indicated that terminals supplied by
[Mr. Lang.)
them would have been between 50 per cent and 75 per cent Canadian content, thus producing Canadian jobs, whereas the terminals supplied by General Instrument of Canada will most likely be imported from the United States.
I ask the minister whether she will rescind the current contract which is squandering perhaps millions of dollars of public money and resulting in the loss of an undetermined number of potential jobs in Canada at a period of high unemployment. Also, can the minister relate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think the hon. member listened to my answer to his question. I said that at this time we have between 51 per cent and 53 per cent Canadian content. He also asked in his last question, which I did not answer, why we did not put this to tender. It is because it is a Crown corporation. I believe we should note that the current Loto Canada contract was negotiated under constraints of time and confidentiality. They chose the company that could best fulfil their needs. I am prepared to have the corporation go to full tender for the additional components that are required. We have at this time purchased 2,000 terminals. There will be aproximately 4,000 in due course and all Canadian companies, of course, will be able to make available their changes in technology if they have any at that time.


POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF LOTTERY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the minister responsible for gambling.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Yesterday, when questioned by my leader, the Prime Minister said:
-the undertaking was not to prolong the lotteries without coming before parliament, and we intend to discharge this commitment.
In her last answer, the minister stated her proposal is that it last for a four-year period. Will the minister tell the House how she can justify spending even one cent on the extension of a program that has not been approved by this House, let alone the provinces, nine of which have already rejected the program, as the minister knows?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for fancy figures has given me an excellent opportunity to remove from the record of this House that which his leader put on yesterday. Contrary to the hon. member's assertion yesterday, Loto Canada is not planning to introduce a slot-machine operation. It is not an instant-win game. Rather, winners will be selected through a regular draw process, just as they are now through Loto Canada's established lottery.
June 22, 1978


Charles Joseph Clark: I suppose you will answer today's question	[Translation]
tomorrow.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


Iona Campagnolo: The principal difference is that with the new game, players can select their own numbers through an operative. They will not operate the terminal machines. 1 will not, therefore, in any sense be running a jackpot, and I will be requesting-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Iona Campagnolo: Loto Canada prizes are assured prizes, not like those-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON GAMBLING
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this minister is falling into line with the rest of the cabinet in not answering the questions she is asked. Therefore, 1 would like to put my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Because of the fact that the government has apparently gone ahead with plans not only to expand but also to extend the federal lottery beyond the end of 1979 and because, on the other hand, the Minister of Agriculture has on a number of occasions made it very clear that he is opposed to off-track betting because it would expand federal gambling operations in Canada, could the Prime Minister explain to the House the obvious inconsistency in the government's policy regarding gambling in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, with regard to gambling, I explained to the House yesterday that several years ago this government moved an amendment to the Criminal Code making lotteries possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was a mistake.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Some hon. members still oppose it, but it seems to me unbecoming of the Tory party to talk of inconsistencies. Just yesterday the hon. member's leader was arguing that gambling should continue, to use his words, but he thinks it should be done by the provinces rather than by the federal government. I wish they would make up their minds.


REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF HERRING FISHING PERMITS TO &quot;NADINE&quot; AND &quot;RALLI II&quot;
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment.
Considering that the fish processing plant of the Pecheries du Golfe Saint-Laurent Inc. at Paspebiac in my riding had to close its doors about three days ago because of insufficient supplies, which contributes to an unacceptable lay-off in an area where the unemployment level is always higher than elsewhere, and considering that it is impossible so late in the fishing season for the company to obtain the French fishing boat Victoria, as was the case last year, is the minister prepared to entertain favourably the request of the Pecheries du Golfe Saint-Laurent Inc. for two general herring fishing permits for two of their boats, namely the Nadine and the Ralli II, and if not, why not?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, 1 regret I did not receive notice of the question, because I could have checked what was, in fact, the state of those supplies.
I shall consider this question and answer the hon. member later.


ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the belated announcement this morning by the Atomic Energy Control Board, for which the minister is still responsible, that on April 21, 1977, it issued secret orders and secret directives which grossly inhibit and restrict the potential power capacity in most of Ontario's nuclear power plants due to defects in emergency safety procedures, perhaps even design defects, and in spite of the continuing contradictory statements of the minister and the agencies under his control, when did the minister first find out about these secret orders?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with the Atomic Energy Control Board. The board has been reviewing the information which has been made public. I referred yesterday in an answer to the extensive information I made public in the House last fall and the further information which was placed on the public record, through cross-examination, by Dr.

June 22, 1978
Oral Questions
Edwards and a senior officer of the Atomic Energy Control Board before the Porter commission.
The Atomic Energy Control Board has assured me that all reactors which are operating are operating safely. The board has also stated that it will be issuing tomorrow an updated review of the current licensing situation in the province of Ontario.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question relates to whether what the public has learned up until now from the minister and his agencies is credible. That is the question which really goes to the heart of the matter. In spite of the minister's statements to the contrary, and in spite of public utterances on behalf of the agencies under his control, some of them continuing up until yesterday, it now appears there have been gross defects in the design and procedures in relation to the safety of our citizens regarding power plants in Ontario.
When did the minister first find out about these orders which were issued in secret and with no public disclosure, but which obviously have a great deal to do with public concern about safety? When did the minister first find out about these orders?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned a moment ago, in answer to the first question, that a statement will be issued tomorrow. In a matter which is as technical as this and which covers so many different aspects, I think it is important that there be a full statement, and that is what I have been assured will be issued tomorrow.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister: it concerns his response to a letter he will have received from the Premier of Ontario asking the federal government to challenge the constitutionality of a Quebec regulation regarding restricting Ontario residents from working in the province of Quebec as of July 1. I would like to ask the Prime Minister what his response has been to that letter from the Premier of Ontario.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have just read that telex, but I did talk about the matter with the premier a couple of weeks ago. He raised it with me in a telephone conversation. At that time the ministers of labour of Quebec and Ontario were meeting. I told the premier that if those meetings were unsuccessful, and if he was unable to settle this very important matter with the premier of Quebec, I would gladly hear from them further. I think this telex is pursuant to that. He is suggesting a reference to the Supreme Court of the regulation of the province of Quebec and I will refer his telex to the Department of Justice for advice.

I can indicate quite openly what I told the premier the other day on the telephone. I thought it was quite inconsistent for the province of Quebec to argue some kind of common market in a future Canada and to begin even now to prevent freedom of mobility of labour between the provinces. I have no hesitation in saying that we oppose that kind of legislation or regulation. As to whether a reference can be made and what the basis of the reference would be, I would expect the Minister of Justice to advise me very soon.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, when that advice is proffered by the Minister of Justice, will the Prime Minister, observing protocol with regard to advising the premier of Ontario, advise the House of Commons as to the outcome of that decision because of the interest of many thousands of people in the province of Ontario in this very important matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that decision will of course be made known if there is a reference to the court. It will be stated publicly. It is also apparent to me from the premier's telex that he thinks other provinces might be interested in such a reference. That is why, beyond having advice from the Minister of Justice, we will have to learn the views of other provinces, including Quebec, because it would be our preference, if we do go the reference route, to make sure that the provinces concerned contribute to drafting the terms of reference for the supreme court.


PRIVILEGE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given you notice, first in a preliminary manner on Monday last, and earlier today in the usual, more formal manner. I point out to Your Honour that the right to raise this question of privilege was reserved by the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole (Mr. Turner) when he said last Friday that the blues would be examined on Monday and that a decision would be rendered at that time.
My question of privilege arises out of very serious allegations made in this House last Friday by the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott). Those allegations clearly imply that I have taken advantage of the banking system in Canada to make a fast dollar, that 1 "lured a great many innocent shareholders" into a banking enterprise over 12 years ago, and that I subsequently made a "very comfortable profit out of it and left a lot of other people holding the bag".
The minister in making these statements did so in support of his reflections on my character and on my ability to function as a member of parliament.
June 22, 1978

As reported at page 6504 of Hansard the minister stated:
For the hon. member for York-Simcoe to speak as though we have betrayed the small business community just because some slick player that he may be acquainted with is unable to take advantage, is, I would suggest, an outbreak of hypocrisy that we are all too familiar with around here.
The minister then added:
The fact is that when one speaks of things that are pretty shabby unfortunately in many communities, and in the business community, there are people who can look with sharp-eyed interest at provisions that were not designed for them, take advantage of them and make a big dollar. We have even known, Mr. Chairman, of people who have taken advantage of the banking system to make a fast dollar.
Asked to clarify to whom he referred, the minister stated:
-the hon. member for York-Simcoe and his friends put a bank together under the banking system, made a very comfortable profit out of it and left a lot of other people holding the bag.
The minister's charges are totally unfounded. They reflect on my character, my code of ethics, and ultimately on my posture as a member of parliament. They ought to be withdrawn in their entirety.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, when we review the remarks, it is clear the minister began by very deliberately equating me to a general class of hypocrites and "slick players" out to take advantage of the banking system.
Not content, Mr. Speaker, to merely leave me in the company of "slick players" and "shabby" operators out to "make a fast dollar", the minister went further and stated categorically:
-the hon. member for York-Simcoe and his friends put a bank together under the banking system, made a very comfortable profit out of it and left a lot of other people holding the bag.
In making this statement the minister reflected not only on me but on present members of his own Liberal caucus who were associated with me in the Bank of Western Canada.


Mr. Paproski:: Shame on you, Abbott.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Incidentally, I would invite the hon. member to check with colleagues in his own caucus and find out their story of what happened with respect to the Bank of Western Canada.
When the minister was asked to retract his statement-1 told the House then, and 1 repeat now, that I did not make a nickel from the promotion of the Bank of Western Canada- the minister hedged by repeating other unfounded allegations, allegations calculated to smear my reputation in the House and my character in general. He said, as reported at page 6504 of Hansard:
What we do know without any question is that a great many innocent shareholders lured into the enterprise by him and his associates lost a great deal of money.
The imputation is very clear, Mr. Speaker. The minister is saying that I may not have made any profit out of the Bank of Western Canada, but that it was still my intention to make a fast buck and leave others holding the bag.
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
1 know Your Honour is very knowledgeable on procedural matters in this House so I will not dwell at length on the ample precedents for my question of privilege. In passing, I would like to remind Your Honour that Beauchesne's citation 155(1) at page 130 very clearly considers "the imputation of false or unavowed motives" to a member of parliament as "unparliamentary" conduct. It also makes specific reference to the word "hypocrites" as being unparliamentary. Citations 140(1) and 149(f) also support this question of privilege in that the minister's words reflect on my character in general and my work and reputation in this House.
In closing, may I very briefly put the facts before the House concerning the minister's charges. Fact one, I never at any time made any money from promoting the Bank of Western Canada. In fact I spent $250,000 of my own money in legal fees and other expenses trying to save it, in trying to reactivate it.
Fact two, there were no "innocent shareholders" who got stuck "holding the bag" as the minister claims. Clarkson and Corporation-who distributed the bank's funds-paid $14.80 per share to each shareholder on an investment of $15. That was after they took out $150,000 in expense money and for the various legal fees. In short, on a $15 issue investment, all the original shareholders received $14.80 back. There were 5,200 shareholders. A loss of 20 cents on a $15 investment is a long way from the manipulated and ripped-off innocents the minister implies were taken in by this venture. On average, the most any shareholder lost from his original investment was $16. The original shareholders are still shareholders in the bank.
Fact three, I resisted the wind-up of the bank-I did not, as the minister implies, take the money and run. I had sold control of the bank prior to its wind-up but came back in, in an effort to prevent its termination. Subsequently, as the wind-up continued, 1 attempted to get, first, a Vancouver group, second, a Regina group, and thirdly, a Winnipeg group to take over the bank with a view to reactivating it. All three groups were willing, and in fact in most cases signed agreements, to take over the bank and reactivate it, but they were defeated in each instance by the then minister of finance in Ottawa, who squelched the reactivation of the bank. I would also point out that the Regina group included the Liberal government of the day, headed by Ross Thatcher who was very enthusiastic about the opening of the bank in Regina, but his plans were vetoed by the then minister of finance in Ottawa. If any of those groups had succeeded in reactivating the bank, they agreed to pay a minimum of 50 cents a share to the outstanding shareholders of the bank, which would have meant that on top of $14.80 which they received in cash they would have actually made a profit of 30 cents a share on the bank in which they had invested. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the shareholders would have received a net profit but for the fact that in each instance the minister of finance of the day refused to co-operate.
If hon. members care, they can look at the present Bank Act and they can see that the Bank of Western Canada is still a scheduled bank. If the Minister of State for Small Business is

June 22, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
concerned about the bank's 5,200 shareholders, let him approach the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and ask him to relicense the bank, and 1 can assure him the bank will be open by the fall, if the licence is granted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure this matter can be settled amicably.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: What the hon. member failed to mention, as he frequently does, is that when he rose on Friday and told the House and myself that he had not made a personal profit out of the bank, I withdrew that comment, and I did so immediately. I said that clearly he was the person who knew best if he had made no personal profit, and I withdrew that comment. I will quote my words.


Charles Joseph Clark: You should quote his words correctly.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I said:
If he is also saying that I must withdraw the comments that shareholders were encouraged to purchase stock and subsequently lost money, my information would be to the contrary and that that indeed did happen.
The hon. member has attempted, in his recitation of the facts, to create the impression that because the original shareholders including himself, the issuers of treasury stock, lost only 20 cents-and he vigorously brushed over the fact that the subsequent purchasers, mainly as a result of reading the prospectus, which was presumably published by the hon. member as one of the promoters of the bank, lost no more than an average of $16-I should withdraw my remarks that the other shareholders who were subsequently lured, if that is the word, or encouraged to purchase stock by the publicity and the prospectus issued-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) might just listen. He might learn something, because he does not know much about this. The prospectus that was issued by the bank presumably encouraged a good number of people in western Canada and elsewhere to purchase shares. All I said was that they lost money. 1 do not think the hon. member would deny this, indeed he has confirmed it in his statement.
I share the desire of most hon. members that the tone of debates here does not cast aspersions.


Charles Joseph Clark: You and Otto Lang!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Perhaps I created in my remarks the impression that he had acted unethically and improperly, by referring to people losing money while he made a profit and people being left holding the bag. I withdrew the point that he had made a profit unduly, but it would be impossible for me to withdraw the very legitimate point, which he confirmed today, that

shareholders were encouraged, the purchase of shares was advertised, and subsequently they lost money.


Charles Joseph Clark: Otto Lang must have written that.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: If I have created the impression in the mind of the hon. member, and the minds of all hon. members and the public, that he acted unethically and improperly, then certainly I withdraw that inference. Indeed I would apologize if I created that impression. 1 cannot withdraw the point that many people in this country purchased the stock based on what they perceived to be the integrity and reputation of the promoters. They lost a considerable amount of money. As the hon. member confirmed, the holders of treasury stock lost 20 cents.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: That was a 20-cent apology.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the matter has been resolved by the last remark of the hon. minister. The intervention of the minister on this occasion, as objected to by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), points out two very important things about debates here. First, in attempting to maintain a certain calm and dignity to the debates in the House, the rules and precedents prescribe not what can be said but obviously the manner in which statements can be made.
The minister has pointed out that initially he used the words "lured into investment" and "investors left holding the bag". Subsequently he said "investors were encouraged and lost money". Both of those comments may say very similar things, but one of them has a connotation of impropriety. The luring of people in and the leaving of people holding the bag has a connotation of impropriety. To encourage people to invest, and investors losing money is an occurrence which happens on a daily basis. Perhaps that is serious, but it has no connotation of impropriety. It is important to recognize that perhaps the two comments say the same thing. One is in a parliamentary manner and one is not.
Before 1 had an opportunity to intervene and make a ruling to this effect, the minister recognized this. It seems to me that he has stated unequivocally any notion of impropriety contained in his original statements not only has been withdrawn but he has apologized for it. From a procedural point of view, that seems to complete the matter.
However, there is a second aspect which ought to be borne in mind by all members. Occasionally in the heat of debate there is a temptation, in a context which relates to the progress of a bill, or in the context of criticism being advanced, to open up personal references to other members, such as to begin by saying, "Who is the minister to say this about such a problem when in fact he . . ." or, "Who is this member to criticize a certain position by the government when in fact he in the past..." and so on. In itself that temptation is always very, very dangerous. If hon. members of the House depart from the subject matter at hand and enter into personal reflections, there is very, very seriously present the danger of improprieties and that unparliamentary references are going to be used.
June 22, 1978

Frankly, a better tone of debate is always maintained when personal references are avoided and debate is on the subject of the merits of the legislation before the House.
In any case, those are two gratuitous observations. Again I refer to the fact that the minister took his responsibility seriously, apologized, and withdrew those remarks which I felt were similar to others he made in a parliamentary way. Those which indicated any aspect of impropriety were withdrawn, and he apologized. Therefore, from a procedural point of view, the matter is finalized.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask the usual House business question. In so doing, I assume the order of business given by the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. Mac-Eachen) last week stands. I should like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that there has been some reference in respect of the establishment of a special joint committee of both Houses to deal with the constitutional matters introduced in the House a few days ago. When does the government House leader intend to put down that motion? When will it be called?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's question, the business as indicated last week is still before us. It is my intention to place on the order paper, possibly today but certainly before the end of the week, a motion referring the proposals made by the government to a special joint committee of both Houses of parliament. It will be my intention to call that motion on Tuesday. I hope to secure an agreement by which the debate will be confined to spokesmen for each party in the House. The reason for that restraint is that also I am proposing to put down a motion to adjourn the House on Friday next, June 30.
If that objective is to be achieved, I believe I will require a certain amount of co-operation from all members in the House. That applies to an effort to confine the debate on the constitution to a possible four speakers, or at least to an agreed period.
For the information of the House, when I put down the adjournment motion to take effect on June 30, 1978, it is my intention to have the House adjourned until October 10, 1978.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, before I turn this over to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I ask the government House leader if he would be prepared to deal with that for a few moments. I am prepared to say now that the debate be limited to one speaker from each party in the House of Commons. If it would be appropriate to do that now, I am prepared to do so.
Business of the House


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a couple of comments to make on this point. It is true that negotiations have been under way regarding this possible debate and the length of it. Perhaps it would be better if those negotiations were to continue among the four of us in the usual manner, rather than trying to settle it on the floor.
Both the government House leader and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) know that we are prepared to have a debate upon and to arrange for the setting up of a committee to consider the constitutional proposals of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). But we do not concur in the proposition that it be a joint committee. It seems to us to be a bit inconsistent, regardless of our long-time position on the Senate, for the government to propose the abolition of their Honours in the other place and then to ask them to sit in on a committee to discuss what is to happen when they have gone.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Participatory democracy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope that even yet the negotiations might lead to the appointment of a committee of the elected representatives of the people to discuss this very important document regarding the future of Canada.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, there is one other matter of House business that I should like to raise. It is a point which has been raised already today, once by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and once by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). Some of our members have been in on the issue in other respects. I should like the government House leader to know that if it is felt that legislation is necessary so that the government can enter into a pooling arrangement regarding the victims of the Cranbrook air disaster, we are prepared to agree to the hour the Leader of the Opposition has suggested. In fact, we will do him one better and agree to do it in half an hour.
[ Translation]


Mr. Beaudoin:: Mr. Speaker, I share the opinion of the hon. member who spoke before me. We are prepared to accept a time limit for this debate on the proposals made by the right hon. Prime Minister in Bill C-60. But I also share the opinion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the Prime Minister or the leader of the government should introduce an amendment calling for this committee to be made up of members of the House of Commons only. 1 suggest it would be improper to appoint senators to this committee, travel with them from coast to coast, sit with them on panels and see them commit hara-kiri, so to speak, in front of all Canadians. I feel it would be going a little too far and place these senators in an embarrassing situation. This would be a source of embarrassment for the members of the committee. I suggest we ought to change this right away, and we are prepared to speak only half an hour on this, Mr. Speaker.
6652

June 22, 1978
Business of the House


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, of course, I do not agree with the suggestion that the committee be confined to elected representatives only. Obviously, any bill, including the constitutional bill, has to be dealt with by the other place, and it would be even more unseemly to exclude hon. members of the other place in the consideration of proposals which they must deal with and which affects the institution of which they are members. However, hon. members might wish to move an amendment and let the House decide the action or the composition of the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We intend to.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I had that in mind. 1 was not counselling the hon. member; I was anticipating. But I do think it would be a good idea if we could get an order of the House confirming that when the motion setting up the joint committee is called, the debate will be limited to spokesmen for each party.
There will be opportunity for members to participate on the committee, and there will be opportunity when the bill itself is called for very wide participation in consideration of the proposals and in consideration of the report that would come from the joint committee. It is extremely important that the joint committee be established, that it begin its work while the House is adjourned so that it will be in a position to report as soon as possible. Certainly, it could work effectively in the course of the summer.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the government House leader did not respond to the other matter raised by my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). If there is any legal prohibition, either real or imaginary, on the part of the Ministry of Transport to participate immediately with cash in a pool for the heirs and victims of the Cranbrook disaster, can the government House leader advise whether the government will bring in legislation? He already has the assurance from all sides that it will not need more than an hour or half an hour, and that it will pass in all stages.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in reply to that question, I am not certain as to whether legislation will be recommended by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). I appreciate and welcome the restraint shown by hon. members opposite, and I ask them to broaden that approach to include a large number of other items presently on the order paper.


Walter David Baker: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the government House leader made a very interesting point when he talked about proceeding with the question of the period of time and the number of speakers in reference to the motion which he intends to put down, which would have absolutely nothing to do with the composition of the committee itself. I would hope that we will be able to proceed with that matter by way of an order now, and leave to debate and perhaps division that part which the hon. member

for Winnipeg North Centre talked about, how the committee would be formed.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, 1 think 1 understand the debate going on now on the procedure to follow concerning Bill C-60. If we have to bring an amendment dealing with the composition of the committee, we cannot pass it in half an hour. This will require at least a couple of days, and 1 think it would be the same as saying no now, because either we are logical or we are not. In my opinion, if we discuss an amendment and it is not agreed to by the government leader, we will have to limit ourselves. This can be done, but not in half an hour or by one spokesman of each party. I believe many members will want to speak on that subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Discussions have obviously taken place and will continue to take place. At the moment I have no application for any specific order with which I could deal. Perhaps it will be forthcoming.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,123, 1,179, 1,449, 1,475, 1,536, 1,712 and 1,823.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Rodriguez: For each Fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the constituency of Nickel Belt by the Department of Agriculture and those agencies that report to it?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Departmental accounting systems are not designed to provide expenditures by constituency. However, operational expenditures for offices located within the constituency are estimated as follows:
1970-71	(Estimated) $44,204
1971-72	47,107
1972-73	47,018
1973-74	58,106
1974-75	57,002
1975-76	57,312
1976-77	99.022
1977-78	72,579
June 22, 1978

The following estimated expenditures were made by the Canadian Livestock Feed Board and represent payments made under the Feed Freight Assistance Program for movements of feed grains.
1970-71	(Estimated) $22,008
1971-72	43,055
1972-73	33,216
1973-74	35,580
1974-75	60,396
1975-76	48,168
1976-77	27,600
1977-78	4,151
The Agricultural Stabilization Board and the Canadian Dairy Commission advise that their accounting systems are not designed to provide expenditures by constituency and this information could only be obtained by conducting a manual search of an excessive number of producer files.
Order Paper Questions
of National Defence in trust for Her Majesty. The directors, with the exception of the president of the company, are all officials of federal government departments. For further detail see Public Accounts and Annual reports of Defence Construction (1951) Ltd.-R.S., c.F-10, s.75(3) submitted to parliament on June 30, each year.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	How does the Department of Finance define "ethnic newspaper"?
2.	In which ethnic newspapers did the department advertise (a) in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977 (b) since March 31, 1977 and, in each case, what was the total amount of advertisement placed?
3.	What criteria does the department use to determine which ethnic newspapers will receive government advertising?


Mr. Ed Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: In so far as the Department of Finance is concerned:
1.	The Department of Finance does not itself define the term "ethnic newspaper".
2.	(a) (see list below)-$32,500.00, (b) (see list below)- $57,929.75.
DEFENCE CONSTRUCTION (1951) LIMITED	2 a) Language

Question No. 1,179-Mr. Andre:	Italian
1.	What is the Crown's precise financial interest in Defence Construction (1951) Limited as administered by the Department of National Defence and on what date was such interest acquired, at what cost and for what reason?
2.	What was the book value of the Crown's equity on the date of acquisition and what is its latest estimated book value?
3.	To date, what is the Crown's total investment, including equity costs, contributions to operating funds, debt forgiveness and what is the Crown's total realized profit from such investment?
4.	In what manner is the Crown's interest represented (a) on the board of
directors (b) in its senior management?
5.	Did the government make a policy decision in regard to the future	Chinese
disposition of its interest?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1, 2,	uicraima
3,	4 and 5. Not applicable. Defence Construction (1951) Ltd. is a Crown corporation as defined in part VIII of the Financial Administration Act. The company is listed in schedule "C" to this act. Defence Construction Limited, the predecessor to the present company, was established in 1950 to contract for major military construction and maintenance projects required	German
by the Department of National Defence. Defence Construction (1951) Limited was incorporated in 1951 under the authority of the Defence Production Act to assume this function. In 1965 the control and supervision of Defence Construction (1951) Limited (DCL) was transferred from the Minister of Industry to the Minister of National Defence. Defence Construction (1951) Limited is an agent of Her Majesty and the shares of the company, with the exception of the qualifying shares of the company's six directors, are held by the Minister
Corriere Canadese Corriere Illustrato Vita Italiana Corriere Commerciale La Gazzetta La Settimana
II Samartino-La Voce Cattolica II Tevere
II Giornale Di Toronto II Cittadino Canadese Corriere Italiano II Settimanale Di Montreal L'Eco D'ltalia
Chinese Express Shin Wah Daily News The Chinese Times The Chinese Voice The New Republic
Vilne Slovo Novy Shliakh Nasha Meta Homin Ukrainy Ukrainski Visti The Canadian Farmer Ukrainski Holos Postup
Die Zeit
Toronto Zeitung
Hamilton Journal
Kitchener Journal
Ontario Courier
Toronto Courier
Montreal Zeitung
Montreal Courier
Vancouver Courier-Nordwesten
Alberta Courier-Nordwesten
Saskatchewan Courier-Nordwesten
Mennonitische Rundschau
Manitoba Courier-Nordwesten
80045-54*72

June 22, 1978
Hungarian
Japanese
Estonian
Slovak
Czech
Jewish
Spanish
Greek
Lithuanian
Portuguese
Latvian
Serbian
Polish
Dutch
Korean
Croatian
Finnish
Icelandic
2 b) Toronto
Order Paper Questions
Menora h-Egyen loseg Sporthirado Magyar Elet Kanadai Magyarsag Magyar Hirlap
The Continental Times The New Canadian
Meie Elu Kanadsky Slovak
Novy Domov Nase Hlasy
Canadian Jewish News Toronto Jewish Press The Hebrew Journal The Jewish Eagle Jewish Western Bulletin The Jewish Post The Yiddish Press Western Jewish News
Correo Hispano-Americano El Popular
Green Canadian Reportage Hellenic Postman Anagennesis
Greek Canadian Tribune Hellenic Tribune
Nepriklausoma Lietuva Teviskes Ziburiai
Voz De Portugal Latvija Amerika
Kanadski Srbobran Glos Kanadskie Srba
Zwiazkowiec
Glos Polski-Gazeta Polska Polish Canadian Courier Czas
Calvanist Contact De Nederlandse Courant
The Korean Journal The Canada News The Korea Times
Hrvatski Glas
Canadian Uutiset Vapaa Sana Vaba Eestlane
Logbert-Heimskringla
II Samaritano
Correo Hispano-Americano El Popular Mundo Illustrado New Korea Times The Canada News The Korean Journal Hebrew Journal Canadian Jewish News Canadian Jewish Weekly Kanadski Srbobran Slovenska Drzava,
Nase Hlasy Novy Domov Modersmaalet Calvinist Contact Hollandia News De Nederlandse Courant Windmill Herald
Meie Elu
Vaba Eestlane
Canadian Uutiset
Vapaa Sana
Toronto Courier
Ontario Courier
Montreal Courier
Manitoba Courier-Nordwesten
Saskatchewan Courier-Nordwesten
Alberta Courier-Nordwesten
Vancouver Courier-Nordwesten
Hamilton Journal
Kitchener Journal
Montreal Zeitung
Pazifische Rundschau
Toronto Zeitung
Die Zeit
Greek Canadian Tribune Hellenic Free Press Hellenic Tribune Kanadai Magyarsag,
Magyar Elet Menorah-Egyenloseg Sporthirado Corriere Canadese Corriere Illustrato La Gazzetta II Giornale Di Toronto L'Ora Di Ottawa La Settimana II Tevere Vita Italiana Evdomada Bielaruski Holas Chinese Express Shing Wah Daily News Glas Kanadaskil SRBA The Continental 1'imes The New Canadian Latvija-Amerika Nepriklausoma Lietuva Teviskes Ziburiai Malayalee Norrona
Fortnightly Crescent Toronto Czas
Glos Ploski-Gazeta Polska
Polish Canadian Courier
Zwiazkowiec
Correio Portugues
O. Mensageiro
Voz De Portugal
Asia Times
Kanadsky Slovak
Canada-Svensken
Homin Ukrainy
Nasha Meta
Novy Shliakh
Postup
Ukrainsky Holos Vilne Slovo Jung Montreal
Winnipeg	Jewish Post
Yiddish Press Mennonitische Rundschau Logberg-Heimskringla Hrvatski Glas The Canadian Farmer
Downsview	Toronto Jewish	Press
Montreal	Jewish Eagle
Greek Canadian Reportage Hellenic Postman


June 22, 1978

La Tribuna Italiana 11 Cittadino Canadese Corriere Italiano II Settimanale Di Montreal La Voce D'ltalia
Vancouver	Hellenic View
L'Echo D'ltalia II Marco Polo Chinese Times Chinese Voice New Republic Jewish Western Bulletin Sentinela
Nya Svenska Pressen
Quebec	Ciao Magazine
Edmonton	Ukrainski Visti
The Native People
3.	The only media advertising done by the Department of Finance is for the annual Canada savings bond campaign. The selection of ethnic media outlets is made in consultation with the advertising agencies used by the Bank of Canada for this campaign.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	(a) What criteria were used to determine who would be invited to the Ottawa Conference on Immigration and Multiculturalism sponsored jointly by the Multiculturalism Directorate and the Department of Employment and Immigration on March 21 and 22, 1978 (b) how many invitations were (i) extended (ii) accepted?
2.	Will the government pay the hospitality costs (i.e. travel, food and accommodation) incurred by those attending the conference and, if so, what is the estimated total expenditure involved and how much of this cost will come out of the budget of the (a) Multiculturalism Directorate (b) Department of Employment and Immigration?
3.	What aspects of the multiculturalism policy and programmes are to be examined at the conference?


Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: 1. (a) The criteria used for inviting ethnic newspaper editors and radio and t.v. producers and broadcasters to attend the Ethnic Press Conference held in Ottawa March 21, 22, 1978 were: circulation of the newspapers in question and the frequency of publication; regional representation and a crosssection of ethno-cultural groups, (b) The number of invitations issued to sponsored representatives from the above ethnic media totalled 184. Of these, 151 accepted.
2.	The government agreed to pay the cost of accommodation and transportation of the sponsored ethnic media representatives. The total cost came to $53,459. Of this sum, the commission of the Department of Employment and Immigration assumed responsibility for $29,603 and the Multiculturalism Directorate paid the balance of $23,856.
Order Paper Questions
3.	The following items pertaining to multiculturalism were on the agenda: (a) The role of the ethnic press; (b) Panel discussion on the ethnic press; (c) Report from Belgrade; (d) Ministerial questions; (e) The role of the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism (CCCM); (f) Panel discussion on the CCCM and its committees; (g) Closing remarks.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Since the announcement of its new policy of granting financial aid towards the extension and construction of regional grain elevators, has the government received requests for such aid and, if so (a) how many were (i) approved (ii) rejected, by province (b) what was the amount requested in each case?


Eugene Whelan: Yes. (a) (i) and (ii) As of April 13, 1978, of the 63 requests or inquiries received, no approvals or rejections have been made. Newfoundland, 1; New Brunswick, 2; Quebec, 24; Ontario, 26; Manitoba, 1; Alberta, 1; British Columbia, 8. (b) The amounts requested cannot be divulged prior to approval.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	What amount of revenue was derived from the duty-free shop at Dorval Airport in (a) 1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974 (d) 1975 (e) 1976 (0 1977?
2.	What amount of revenue was derived from the duty-free shop at Mirabel Airport for each year since its inception until the end of 1977?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. (a) 1972-73, $297,100; (b) 1973-74, $388,500; (c) 1974-75, $428,980; (d)
1975-	76, $487,224; (e) 1976-77, $363,264; (f) 1977-78, $466,100.
2.	(a) November 1, 1975-March 31, 1976, $116,311; (b)
1976-	77, $964,800; (c) 1977-78, $1,029,000.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year 1976-77, what contracts for professional services were let for studies, surveys and analysis into (a) present or future policies, programmes or information analysis and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?


Yvon Pinard: 1. None.
2.	Not applicable.


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

June 22, 1978
Freedom of Information


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with orders of the day, I would remind hon. members that, since this is the final allotted day in this period, the House will go through the usual supply procedures this evening. In the past we have established a practice which, I think, has been welcomed by members on all sides of the House, and that is the practice of introducing the supply bill early in the day in order to give members an opportunity to read it, and to take away some of the grievance that exists when there is a last minute introduction of such an important bill, even though its contents are well known in advance.
May I assume that the House is disposed to proceed in the same way as in the past with respect to this supply bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Charles Joseph Clark: That this House re-affirms its support for the principle of freedom of information as a prerequisite to open and responsible government, as endorsed unanimously by the House on February 12, 1976, and urges the early introduction of appropriate legislation providing for certain precise and limited exceptions subject to a review process with ultimate appeal to the courts.


Mr. Speaker:: Members are reminded that at 9.45 o'clock this evening every question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on this motion shall be put pursuant to Standing Order 58(10).
[ Translation]


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 must say at the outset that the in-depth changes you suggested before have not been made. [English]
There are many purposes to allotted days in this chamber. Certainly they are frequently occasions for active partisan debate. 1 hope there will not be that tone of partisanship to this debate today, because we have introduced this motion with the explicit intention of allowing members of parliament on all sides of this House of Commons to advance a principle which has already been debated extensively by members of parliament, and indeed a principle which many of us believe to be essential to restoring the reality of democracy in this country.
Before beginning the substance of my remarks I want to pay particular tribute to some members of this House and of the other place, and to former members of this House, who have taken an interest in the question of freedom of information for a long time. I think the House will agree that the primary tribute in this regard must go to my colleague, the hon.

member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who has carried out and adopted this issue personally in the House of Commons and in committee for a long time. In addition, there are members such as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and his former associate in that party, Mr. Mather, as well as on the government side the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr, Francis), the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal), and Senator Godfrey of the other place, who have demonstrated a sincere and determined commitment to the principles of freedom of information.
Because we want to ensure that there would not be a partisan tone to this debate we made it very clear in introducing the subject matter that, as far as we are concerned in the official opposition-and I think in this matter I speak for the other opposition parties as well-we want to waive any connotation of lack of confidence associated with the vote that will come tonight. We want members of parliament to feel free to vote with their conscience on the principle of this question without any fear at all for the life of the government. We want to have applied to this debate the freedom to vote that was suggested by the parliamentary committee for the resolution of the matter in its substance. We hope that determination to deal with a principle and not with partisanship will inform this whole debate and the contributions of members from all sides.
There are, naturally, a number of matters on which members of the House will disagree, that is in the nature of democracy. One matter on which we all should agree, and most of us do agree, is the importance of ensuring that any government is kept accountable to the people of Canada through parliament. That accountability cannot occur if the Canadian people and the Canadian parliament do not know what the government is doing. Unfortunately, and for reasons that I for the moment I am prepared to attribute more to habit than malice, the Canadian people and the Canadian parliament today do not know enough about what the government is doing to hold that government accountable in any meaningful way.
There are a number of reforms that we have to contemplate in this House of Commons. One of them has to do with the power of parliamentary committees, and another, in my judgment, has to do with the capacity of individual private members to introduce private members' bills and legislation that will be considered seriously by this House.
The third matter that we have to consider is the excessive power of party leaders in our parliamentary system as it has evolved. I intend personally, as leader of this party, to act upon these reforms as quickly as it is within my power.
The most urgent and basic of these reforms is to stop the secrecy which denies public access to public documents. This parliament cannot control what it does not know. Indeed, I find it hard to understand how ministers can command the variety of information they require to run their departments when there is such an overwhelming atmosphere of secrecy as we have in this matter. It is entirely conceivable to me that a government which distrusts parliament could come quickly to
June 22, 1978

distrust its own ministers with information that is outside their specific responsibility.
This is not at all a narrow legal question we are dealing with here. What we are talking about is power-political power. We are talking about the reality that real power is limited to those who have the facts. In a democracy that power and that information should be shared broadly. In Canada today they are not, and to that degree we are no longer a democracy in any sensible sense of that word. There is excessive power concentrated in the hands of those who hide public information from the people and the Parliament of Canada.
Sir, I said earlier, that I suspect that much of this secrecy is rooted and based in habit and not in malice. Some in this House would not be that charitable, but I think we all recognize that-particularly with the perpetuation of one party in office for so long-a practice has grown up among some ministers and their advisers of protecting themselves against the inconvenience of scrutiny by denying access to information. The purpose of this debate is to bring focus to the wide concern in the country about this practice which can destroy democracy, and to serve notice on the government that, if it continues to ignore demands for free information, then the excuse that it is a matter of habit will be completely gone and the governing party and all its members will be revealed as deliberately denying the people of Canada the right to know what their government is doing.
Later I want to cite some of the abuses of secrecy which exist today. Before doing that I want to draw attention to the attitude which is at the root of our problem. I think that attitude is revealed in the title of the green paper on freedom of information brought down by the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts). The title is "Legislation on Public Access to Government Documents". The distinction between "government documents" and "public access" indicates a belief that the government is somehow separate from the public. Sir, it is not. The government comes from the public, and it owes its loyalty and legitimacy to the public and the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I find the idea that government is separate from the people, that it is somehow superior to the people, to be reprehensible in a democracy. Yet the government's document is infused with that idea. These matters that we want to have brought into the bright light of day are not government documents; these are public documents, paid for by public taxes, and legitimate only if they serve the public good. They should not be hidden from the public they are supposed to serve. This idea that the government and the people are adversaries should be rejected as simply paternalistic nonsense.
Let me deal with some of the abuses and make a short list of them, Mr. Speaker.
Residents of Port Hope, in the riding of my colleague from Northumberland Durham, became concerned about the potential health hazard from radiation poisoning. That radiation poisoning came from a refinery of Eldorado Nuclear, a Crown corporation. The government conducted studies and said that
Freedom of Information
everything was fine, but refused to release any reports on the grounds that those reports contained classified information.
The Foreign Investment Review Agency carries out screening of takeovers. Yet its deliberations, which are of vital concern to the economic health of this nation, are carried out in secret. No information is ever made public other than whether an application has been approved or turned down.
Not long ago in this House the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) refused to make public to parliament, or to the people of Canada, a consultant's study on the Post Office, this at a time when there is deep concern throughout the country about the failure of the government to be able to deliver mail, and deep interest in knowing what went wrong and what might be changed. There was no justification for the minister's refusal to release this public document, particularly since it was already in the possession of a newspaper and had been the subject of two articles in that newspaper.
There is the case of Bernard Maguire who has been trying for more than three years to find the reasons for his being fired from his job with Canadian National Telecommunications in the Yukon. Mr. Maguire was allowed to see some personnel files in an effort to determine the unspecified security reasons for his dismissal. But he cannot divulge what he saw, to anybody.
Anyone else, anyone in this House could find and read into the record of parliament a list of other instances where individual interests and the public right to know have been limited or qualified by this government's insistence on secrecy.
Shortly after I came to this House I remember going to a public servant to try to get information on a matter of real concern to my constituency. He refused to give me the document saying there was no reason that I should not have it and that there was nothing in it, certainly nothing particularly serious, but that it was stamped "confidential". For this reason he was bound not to give it to me. I was merely a member of the House of Commons of Canada, merely an elected representative of the people whose lives were affected by this government. As I was going out the door he said, "Around here, we stamp 'confidential' on toilet paper." That is, unfortunately, an accurate indication of the abuses to which this practice has led. It will only be corrected in a useful way by legislation which ensures the principles of freedom of information such as 1 intend to elaborate upon now.
We believe that the essential elements of any law of that kind are the following: first, a worth-while, workable, effective freedom of information law must assert in clear and unequivocal terms that Canadians have a right to access of information held on their behalf by their government, and the government in turn has an obligation to respect and respond to that citizens' right.
Second, any exceptions to that norm should be limited exceptions and should be specific exceptions, and the burden of proof to establish that an exception is warranted should rest with the government and not with the citizen. We accept, sir,

June 22, 1978
Freedom of Information
as every person of reason in the country does, that there are exceptional circumstances where the right of access has to be limited. Genuine matters of national security would be one of those. Information concerning certain legal investigations and proceedings would be another. The private records of individual Canadians would be another. Those are three exceptions on which there appears to be widespread agreement. The law should set forth those exceptions clearly and specifically in limited language that will not be subject or capable of being interpreted in a way that will hide that which should be public.
Third, and fundamentally, particularly to this debate because there has been fairly general agreement in principle on the first two points, any useful bill has to provide a procedure for resolving disputes over whether an exception applies in any particular case. That procedure has to be accessible to all Canadians, and it has to be a procedure in which the final decision rests with a body or a person completely independent of the government that would want to hide the information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: On this side of the House we are now ready to give our support to a bill which contains those essential elements. We are equally ready to declare our readiness-I make this very clear to the minister-to fight any pretense at a freedom of information act which lacks those essential elements. We have discussed in this House, in committee, and with the public at large, the principles involved in freedom of information at some length. I refer again to the private bill introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River, back in 1969. In 1974 he was successful in having the subject matter of that issue referred to a standing committee. There was a debate, a discussion, and a report brought forward that was concurred in unanimously by all members of this House in February, 1976. We have had the government's own green paper which has been the subject of discussion in parliament and by the country at large.
I do not propose today to go over all that ground again. Instead I want to refer to the two principal arguments that the government seems to raise against any kind of meaningful freedom of information law. The first argument is that a law of that kind, a law making public documents public, would somehow compromise the neutrality of federal public servants by identifying those public servants with specific policy proposals. That objection is very easily met. All one has to do is delete the pertinent names of the public servants involved in the documents which are revealed, and that would clearly protect the anonymity of any public servant who might be compromised by the publication of his name in association with the document.
A second argument that is put forward, and it is an argument to which I hope the minister will address his attention today, is the argument that judicial review, and I imagine that extends to any kind of review independent of the ministry, would, to quote the government "usurp the constitutional role that parliament plays in making a minister answerable to it for his actions." The fact is that that constitutional role is usurped

already. It is usurped by ignorance, because we cannot hold a government accountable unless we have information as to what that government is doing. When I say "we", I do not speak simply of the opposition, I speak of the whole Parliament of Canada. What is at issue here is not a responsibility exclusively of the opposition, it is a responsibility of each member of the House of Commons elected here to carry out our fundamental responsibility to keep control of and supervise the government of the day. We cannot do that without information. Without information there is no working, practical principle of ministerial responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is important to make the point, and I hope it is a point to which the minister will respond, that the notion of ministerial responsibility, as we practise it in this country, now does not at this point in time preclude subjecting ministers to checks and balances that are enforceable by the courts of the land. The courts have traditionally played an important role in reviewing executive actions, a role that does not at all conflict with the relationships of ministers of the Crown to parliament.
In examining whether or not the court is the appropriate forum to decide on freedom of information matters, we have to keep in mind as a parliament that such legislation, such as is being proposed here, would create a new universal right in Canada. It is the natural function of the courts to adjudicate upon disagreements over civil rights. To assert that ministerial responsibility demands that the minister's voice be the final voice means, in effect, that the minister would be the judge in his own case. The court apparatus can deal with sensitive material, if it needs to, on an in camera basis. It is therefore a viable, impartial social institution to check possible abuses of executive power.
When we indicated yesterday the nature of the motion today, the government House leader on the other side rose and raised some concerns about whether confidence would be involved. He indicated that the sections of our motion which bothered him most were those sections which proposed an ultimate appeal to the courts. I think that reveals the nub of the problem that we have here, not only in this debate but in getting this government to bring forth meaningful freedom of information legislation.
The fact is that the government wants to avoid the jurisdiction of anybody it cannot control. The government wants to appear to introduce freedom of information legislation, while in fact it retains the capacity to hide anything the publication of which would be inconvenient to this government. There is strategy in this matter as I see it. I say this with some regret, but its strategy appears to be twofold. First, it attempts to define exemptions so broadly that in effect nothing will change. Second, in the event a minister's discretion is questioned, it wants to ensure that somebody or some agency whom the government can control will decide, and will decide in the minister's favour. That, sir, cannot be allowed to occur. We require an independent body, an independent judge, in case of conflict. We require a law whose exemptions are specific and
June 22, 1978

closely limited. Otherwise, and let us not fool around about its, the result will simply be a fraud, leaving the decision as to secrecy in the exclusive control of those who want to keep things secret.
There are a number of alternatives as to how that independent agency can be established. One would be to have an independent tribunal outside the government or outside the courts. Another would be to have the courts perform that function. That is the alternative preferred by the committee of this parliament and it is one which we, given the unanimous view of the committee of parliament, are certainly prepared to support and argue in this House.
1 want to make it clear that there is no conflict in this matter with Canadian practice-I have made that point before-nor would there be any clogging of the Canadian courts. The experience in the United States has shown that the business of the courts does not increase appreciably because of a similar provision in the law of that land, a country which practises democracy that we only preach about here.
The basic question has to do with the willingness of this government to step out from its shroud of secrecy and let the public of Canada know the public business of Canada. The starting point for a freedom of information law and freedom of information is a freedom of information attitude. In fact, without that attitude, the law will be little more than a token.
A freedom of information attitude demands that government accept the elementary proposition that all its information belongs to the people of Canada and should be accessible to the people of Canada, unless a specific and persuasive argument can be made for confidentiality. Let me emphasize that the burden for making that argument must rest not on those who want sunshine, which must be the norm, but on those who want secrecy, which must be the exception. That is the essence of freedom of information. Any law not based on those principles is a fraud. Any government unwilling to operate according to those principles will make a mockery of the law and of its own commitment not just to freedom of information but to basic democracy.
I said at the outset that we did not intend this to be a partisan debate. However, it is impossible to deal frankly with this subject without raising a serious question whether this government has any commitment whatsoever to a freedom of information attitude. Its record, both its foot-dragging on introducing legislation and the lengthy list of specific situations in which it has consciously and deliberately kept information from the people of Canada, indicates a mentality which is fatal to freedom of information. In fact it is that mentality, rather than the lack of any legislation, which is the root problem. The hard truth is that there is no freedom of information attitude in our national government. The prevailing and pervasive attitude right throughout the government, from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on down, unfortunately is precisely the reverse.
Freedom of Information
There is no commitment to the principle that all information is public unless there is a specific over-riding argument to the contrary. Instead, there is a belief and a practice that all information is, in fact, confidential, unless there is a partisan or bureaucratic advantage to be gained through publicity. That is the hard truth, Mr. Speaker, and unfortunately the deeply-rooted truth. This devotion to secrecy, this comfortable notion that scrutiny can be avoided with the indiscriminate imprint of a "confidential" stamp, did not begin yesterday or, to be fair, even in 1968. It is a part of an Ottawa tradition which this government simply has extended and imbedded even more deeply into the system.
It is essential that we now shatter that tradition. Our own credibility and effectiveness demand it. We can begin that process today by giving unanimous support to the motion I have placed before the House. Indeed this House is the place to begin. Until we make our commitment to a freedom of information attitude clear and unequivocal, we can hardly expect those who have a vested interest in secrecy to change their attitude.
If all members in this House will join with us today in making our position clear, the responsibility then will rest squarely on the shoulders of the Prime Minister. I say that not only because he must accept over-all responsibility for his government, but because this matter demands the personal leadership of the first minister of our country. He must set the standard. He must make the commitment for his ministry and for his public service.
The Prime Minister used to believe in freedom of information; at least he talked as if he did. In 1964 he said, and I quote:
Democratic progress requires the ready availability of true and complete information. In this way people can objectively evaluate their government's policies. To do otherwise is to give way to despotic secrecy.
In recent days that concern about despotic secrecy, the determination to protect the interests of the individual citizens of Canada, has appeared to take second place to an overweaning concern for secrecy and confidentiality.
I put it to the Prime Minister and his ministers; what is more fundamental than the right of a citizen to information which is his, and without which his role in our democratic process becomes almost meaningless? Here is a right as fundamental as those he wants to enshrine in a constitution. Here is a right where the Prime Minister can act now. Here is a right that we are prepared to act on well before July of 1979.
We hope that the Prime Minister of Canada and his colleagues will act on their declared interest in freedom of information in a way which ensures that the critical decisions will be made by people who are not in the control of or subject

June 22, 1978
Freedom of Information
to the influence of the government, and will support the motion that I have put down today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, it has been said that a well informed citizenry is the lifeblood of democracy. I believe that to be true. We cannot have a truly effective democracy unless we have at the same time a well informed group of citizens. They can only be well informed if they have access to information. That was said some time ago, yet we have an ever-growing mass of materials being gotten together, assembled by government and made available in reports. However, much of it is hidden in an aura of secrecy from the people of this country, even in those cases where they paid to have the research and the studies made which led to the production of those documents.
For this reason our party will support the freedom of information act and the motion by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). We will support it and we call, as he has done, on all parties to give their support to this motion. 1 am very glad that he has made it clear that this motion is not a party matter.
I join in paying tribute to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). No one has been more persistent, aggressive, and persuasive with regard to this matter of freedom of information. He has done a magnificent job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: The Leader of the Opposition was generous and fair in pointing out that this was not the prerogative of any particular party. This concern is shared by people of all parties. In fact the first private members' bill dealing with this subject was introduced by a former colleague and present friend of mine, the then hon. member for New Westminster, Barry Mather.


Mr. Friesen:: My predecessor.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I will not make any comment on your connection, but he is the one who introduced the first bill.
I point out to all the Liberals in this House that even though there may be some incidental criticism of government as we have it, the basic principle embodied in the motion by the Leader of the Opposition is a basic principle that is fundamental to their task as parliamentarians and, indeed, as Liberals.
I sometimes wonder whether some members sitting on the government side really understand what the word "Liberal" means. If it means anything, it is a willingness to see that information is made available to the public. Information is said to be power, and power should be in the hands of the people, not of any select minority or select group. Therefore I hope that every member of the Liberal party will not feel that he is called upon to vote in this debate on any partisan or narrow basis, but on the basis of the fundamental principles which that party, to its honour I must say, has espoused, just as other parties have done.

If my friends need any encouragement, it should have been given to them by the Leader of the Opposition when he quoted the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the effect that a failure to provide true and complete information would be to give way to despotic secrecy. It is a test for this House at this time to see whether it is ready to reject that temptation by producing meaningful legislation on this question. It is not enough to say that we will have legislation. It is not enough to have green papers which produce rhetoric. What is required and what is essential is legislation.
I am glad to say that the motion, from my point of view, does contain the basic essentials. It also happens to be part of the Constitution of Canada in an unexpressed manner. I am looking at a printing of a declaration of the Canadian government in 1948 at the United Nations Conference on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It says this:
Canada is a democracy which cannot be maintained without a foundation of free public opinion and free discussion within the limits set by the civil and criminal laws in Canada. Freedom of information is inherent in the Canadian constitution, but it is not specifically enacted.
What is being asked in this motion is that it be specifically enacted and, as I said, in meaningful terms which can be enforced.
I found that citation in an excellent book on this subject by a professor Rankin, entitled "Freedom of Information in Canada". Professor Rankin comments on that passage regarding the Canadian government's assertion about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as follows:
Notwithstanding such assurances and despite growing public concern over administrative secrecy, the citizen's access to government records remains subject to the whims of the government of the day.
He speaks about the confused state of the law, and I will have something to say about that later. What we are asking is that what is already implicit in the Constitution of Canada be made explicit.
I suppose every member of parliament has had his own experience regarding access to government documents being denied to him. I was long involved in a practice having to do with matters of immigration, and I found out that immigration manuals and instructions to people dealing with the lives of people were not made available either to the people concerned, their lawyers, or to any member of the public. I am happy to say that my understanding is that at long last, after years of battling on that matter, that practice is being changed and that immigration manuals are now to be made public.
When I was on the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence the committee was informed that a group of accountants had made a report, with financial suggestions and financial implications, on the operations of CIDA, a very worth-while agency, but one which has spent a great deal of Canadian funds. The committee asked to see the report because the committee was charged with responsibility for working toward an efficient system of administration of
June 22, 1978

CIDA, and the committee wanted to see what these critics had said. The committee was denied that report.
As a matter of fact, the then chairman of CIDA, Paul Gerin-LaJoie, was ready to produce it, but the then secretary of state for external affairs, who we all know well and respect very much, Mr. Sharp, jumped into the breach and said no, that it was not to be produced. Members of this House sitting on that committee dealing with this serious matter were denied access to that report.
Others have had other experiences. Reports dealing with the environment, which are of great importance to Canadian citizens, have been concealed and not produced. Let us not forget that this atmosphere of concealment or secrecy has the effect of covering up the incompetent and of diminishing efficiency.
If people can put a blanket of secrecy over mistakes they have made, those mistakes are not likely to be corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition has already put his finger on the key matter, and that is that it is perfectly obvious that there are some documents which should not be produced. There are certain documents which, by their nature, would be against the welfare of the state if they were produced. These could be exemptions from the general provisions of an act which could perfectly properly provide that all other documents should be made available to citizens. However, nobody but the most absolute purist would suggest that that general expression should not be subject to exemptions in proper cases.
One of the ways the effectiveness of a freedom of information act would be denied would be to draft exemption provisions in broad terms and to fail to provide adequate means for decisions as to whether particular cases fit within the general rule of production or whether they should be exemptions and need not be produced. These matters are absolutely essential to the proper working of such an act. When we talk about meaningful legislation, we should be talking about exemptions which are clearly and narrowly defined having regard to the public interest.
The criticism of the green paper produced by this government is that it failed to recognize that. The proposed exemption is so broad in its terms that anybody with, or even without, legal experience could find some excuse for not producing a document when it was demanded.
As the Leader of the Opposition has said, the key to it all is who shall in the ultimate analysis enforce the act. It may be that people at lower levels could investigate and report, but the final decision must be made by some independent judicial authority. It does not necessarily have to be the courts, but it has to be someone outside the machinery of government. Any act-and this was proposed by the green paper-purporting to call itself a freedom of information act, which does not provide for that independent judgment on the ultimate analysis of whether the act is applicable, and any act which tries to arrogate to a minister or a group of ministers or anybody within the sphere of government the right to say no-a final no not subject to review-is, and will be, a sham, and will be
Freedom of Information
something which should never be dignified by the title "freedom of information".
The argument in the green paper is that somehow or other judges are incompetent to deal with this. Whoever heard of such nonsense as this! It is precisely that sort of thing that the whole judiciary system is set up to deal with, and I want to give a few illustrations of that in my speech. This is what Mr. Justice Rand said in a case in 1954 which was reported in the Dominion Law Reports of that year at page 483. He said:
What is secured by attributing to the court this preliminary determination of possible prejudice is the protection against executive encroachment upon the administration of justice; and in the present trend of government, little can be more essential to the maintenance of individual security. In this important matter to relegate the courts to such a subservience as is suggested would be to withdraw them from the confidence of independence and judicial appraisal that so far appear to have served well the organization of which we are the heirs.
The matter was dealt with in England, a country where, 1 suppose, the rights and privileges of the Crown are defined as widely as in any other country.
In a recent important case reported in the 1968 Appeal Court Reports, of Conway versus Rimmer, the issue that was to be decided was set out very clearly by one of the judges in the House of Lords, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. He said:
My Lords, stated in its most direct form, the question . .. which is raised in this case is whether the final decision as to the production in litigation of relevant documents is to rest with the courts or with the executive. 1 have no doubt that the conclusion should be that the decision rests with the courts.
All of the members of this English court so held. They said that they were satisfied there would be no constitutional impropriety in allowing the judges the power to overrule ministers on matters of secrecy.
If the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) is going to reply in this debate, I hope he will not pretend-because it is such a false sort of pretence-that there is some judicial impropriety about leaving to judges, rather than to cabinet ministers or to people within the government apparatus, the final right to decide on these matters. As I said, that was the view even in England, which puts on a pretty high level the assertion of the privileges of the Crown to resist the production of documents.
It was described in another way in the book by Dr. Rankin to which I have already referred.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members for their generosity in allowing me a little extra time. I will not take very much. Usually I try to take less time than is allowed me, so I appreciate getting credit time in this instance.

June 22, 1978
Freedom of Information
I was going to quote the following from Dr. Rankin:
It has also increasingly become clear that such objections are based on a self-serving myth that is sought to be perpetuated in the 1977 green paper: that "there is no way that a judicial officer can properly be made aware of all the political, economic, social and security factors that may have led to the decision in issue. If the American experience has indicated anything, it has indicated the hollowness of this assertion.
From the same author, we read the following at page 126:
The fact of the matter is that the courts are the natural repository for decisions on the exercise of constitutional or civil rights and what is contemplated in freedom of information legislation is nothing less than the creation of a new citizens right-a right to access to government documents.
He goes on to point out that the assertion by ministers that they shall do this is without foundation.
I want to say that changes are required in the legislation we have at the present time if we are to effect the principle contained in the motion. First, a freedom of information act must be passed, and for that we have admirable precedents. Our committee visited Washington and discussed the U.S. freedom of information act which was, first of all, found to be unsatisfactory and substantially amended in 1974, and in which they insisted that essential to that type of legislation was a judicial determination, in the ultimate analysis, of whether or not a document was admissible. We have to change that and bring in a new act.
In addition, we must repeal section 41 of the Federal Court Act which, by subsection (2) gives the minister the right to deny access to any document by merely producing an affidavit that in his opinion it would be contrary to the public interest. This flies right in the teeth of what we are arguing for. As a matter of fact, I have filed a private member's bill, which is somewhere down the order paper and not likely to be reached while I am a member of this House, which proposes precisely that amendment.
Another document which we must change is the Official Secrets Act, which was antiquated 50 years ago and is even worse now. It gives up to 20 years, in the vaguest terms, for so-called breaches of official secrets. That act was intended to be confined to cases of spying, cases of clear treason and treachery. Certainly, as applied to that, it may have a useful purpose, but as it is now drafted it can be misapplied in many different ways, and it has not been used very often, I suppose for very good reasons. So those things have to be changed also. We have ample precedents in the U.S. and in Sweden, which, I think, since 1902 has had legislation of this sort.
I want to conclude by once again reading from the book to which I referred, as follows:
After an exhaustive analysis of the Canadian administration. Professor Mallory concludes:
Government in a modern democracy is largely in the hands of a bureaucracy, using the term in a neutral sense as meaning a body of professionally competent, hierarchically organized administrators. The major problem in modern constitutional government is to retain an effective control, by public opinion and by legal restraints, of the apparatus of the state which constantly expands with the increased public demand for more social welfare services and with the growing burden of national defence in a world of increasing peril.
Liberty in such a world can be nourished only by the full and effective
functioning of the political and legal restraints on abuse of power.
Then it continues as follows:
As noted throughout this study, there can no longer be any justification for the aura of secrecy which surrounds the business of government. Access to government information is essential to participatory democracy. And access must be a meaningful legislative right rather than a sham. There is no compelling reason why the courts in Canada should not be entrusted with the responsibility to review all information requests which the government has denied.
In another way this states the basic purpose and principle of the motion before us. I commend it to all hon. members of the House, especially those who have any pride in calling themselves Liberals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that a roll call be taken. There is no quorum.


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought there was some agreement on the part of various members that I would be the next person recognized by the Chair. There had been consultations with the hon. House leader of the New Democratic Party on this point. Indeed, I understood that I had the right to rise and exercise my responsibility to speak, after the initial speech by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). At that time I did not rise to speak because of my desire to hear the comments of the various official representatives of opposition parties, before responding to some rather constructive remarks. Therefore I was a bit surprised when Your Honour recognized the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones). 1 thought there was a disposition on the part of the House to hear me at this stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are only 19. You had better keep talking.


John (Moody) Roberts: I did not hear the interruption by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are only 19 members here now.


Mr. Beatty:: I think we should count. Perhaps the hon. member is wrong.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The Chair has just counted, and there are 20 members in the House. The hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts).


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order. When 1 requested a roll call, there were less than 19 members in the House. There were four Liberals, nine Conservatives, two NDP, and one Independent. I think the roll call should have been conducted when I asked for it.


Mr. Kempling:: That is not a point of order.

June 22, 1978


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Chair recognizes that there are 20 members in the House. The hon. Secretary of State.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with those hon. members who have previously pointed out that many of our distinguished colleagues have taken an interest in this subject, greatly to their credit. I want to associate myself with the compliments which have been extended already. This continuing and important question of freedom of information has been brought before the House over the past year or so. Particularly I cite the contribution which was made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
I must confess that my heart sang with delight when the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) promised to be not only non-partisan but short, in order for other interested members to be able to take part in the debate. I think he made a very constructive contribution to the debate. I regret that there were one or two moments when he lapsed from the promise of non-partisanship. I hope I shall be relatively nonpartisan and relatively short, because 1 know there are other hon. members who wish to take part in the debate.
I was somewhat disappointed that the hon. Leader of the Opposition attempted to suggest the very title of the green paper, which the government has brought forward, indicated some kind of assumption on the part of the government that it was separate and superior to the public. There is no basis, either in the title or in the document, for making such a charge. If the government had been so separate and superior to the public, as was suggested by the hon. member, it could not have possibly survived in office for so long in this century. It is because this government is close to and represents the interests of the public that it has received the support of the public impressively in this century.
I do not think it was worthy of the hon. member to ascribe various motives to the government for wrestling with two very difficult questions concerning freedom of information. The first is the definition of what exemptions should apply to the general principle, which we accept and urge, that government documents should be open to the public. The second is the question of the review process to establish whether those exemptions have been applied properly within the government, and whether the review process is properly constructed. I say this in a non-partisan way: these are difficult questions to resolve. They are not easily resolved. Unfortunately the hon. member lapsed into a description of motives on the part of the government which simply do not exist. However, with the exception of those two lapses, he made a very constructive presentation to the House. I hope the debate will continue on that level.
To some extent I was disappointed with the intervention of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). In his speech he misconstrued what the purpose of the government was in bringing forward the green paper on legislation on public
Freedom of Information
access to government documents last spring. He talked about the green paper proposal. I am not sure if I am interpreting his view properly, but it seems to me he was suggesting that what was put forward in the green paper was proposals for government action. As in the essence of a green paper, we were putting forward proposals for discussion. In many cases we put forward alternative wording of what the exemptions could be. We solicited the advice of the House, and indeed the advice of the joint committee, which is performing an extremely valuable role, as to how the exemptions could be made more precise, or which of the various approaches to the review of exemption applications should be accepted. I hope the hon. member listened to me in the past. Perhaps he will take more heed of me today.
I am being completely straightforward in saying that the purpose of the green paper was to solicit debate and discussion in the House, joint committee, and on the part of the public. It has been successful in that objective.
As I said before, the activities of the joint committee have been valuable. Both the ultimate report of the committee, which I expect in the next few days-it may have already been prepared, but I have not yet received it-and the briefs presented to the joint committee, have been stimulating and useful in the deliberations of the government as to how a proper freedom of information or access to public documents policy should be conceived.
As was indicated earlier by the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), we are largely in agreement with this motion presented by the Leader of the Opposition because we know and accept that there is a need for changes in this area. This I think is accepted and recognized by members on all sides of the House and, certainly, it is recognized by members of the government.
We are not holding back from confronting the challenge of meeting that need. There are undoubtedly abuses which have occurred in the past, but I do not think that they are abuses which stem from the long life of this government. If one, for example, regards the situation in Australia or the situation in Great Britain, one finds a situation of comparable difficulty. I suspect that the tradition of confidentiality stems much more from the traditions of parliamentary government than it does from the life of any particular government.
We accept the fact there is a need for reform in this area, and we urge it. If I have to do so again, I will make the commitment which I made less than two weeks ago in this House in my speech on June 9, 1978, as reported on page 6254 of Hansard, that we are committed to bringing forward in the next session effective freedom of information legislation. On the government's part, there is not a great deal of disagreement with the motion presented by the hon. Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, if the members of the House are good enough to look at the speech I made less than two weeks ago, they will find presented there-no doubt because I am subjectively biased-in a more eloquent form, essentially the same

June 22, 1978
Freedom of Information
arguments which have been made in this House this afternoon both by the hon. member for Greenwood and the Leader of the Opposition, a description of why it is essential that there be freer access to public documents, and of the principles which should guide us.
1 noted with interest the comments of the Leader of the Opposition during his speech, and I jotted down what I thought he described as the essential points.

1 hope I am not distorting the meaning of his remarks. [English]
I think I have jotted them down correctly; I tried to do so. He thought it was, first of all, necessary to establish that there is a public right to access to these documents. I agree. Secondly, he said that the exceptions to this general right should be presented in a limited form. I agree entirely with that. Third, he suggested that these exceptions to the general principle should be put in extremely clear language, and I agree with that. He said-I hope I am quoting him correctly, but 1 may be paraphrasing a little bit-there should be a procedure for resolving disputes as to whether a document should or should not be released, and that this procedure should involve persons or a body-he did not at that time say the courts-but persons or a body which is independent. There, too, 1 am in accord with the four essential principles which, if 1 understood him correctly, the Leader of the Opposition presented for the consideration of the House in what I thought was very useful way.
Why then is there some reluctance on my part-and a reluctance that I will urge on my colleagues on this side of the House-not to accept this motion? It stems essentially from the fact that this motion contains a representation that the method for independent review should be that of a judicial review. If time permits, perhaps I will be able to say a few words about that in a moment or two.
The Leader of the Opposition poses two specific challenges or points on which he asked me to comment, and I will therefore do so. He ascribed to the government an argument that there was a necessity for confidentiality of documents in order to protect the-I am not sure whether he said anonymity or neutrality of civil servants-perhaps neutrality of civil servants-and implied that one could deal with this problem by the simple process of blacking out the name of the civil servant involved. My comment on that would be that it is not simply a question of neutrality, or perhaps even anonymity, of civil servants; it is a question of whether there is to be surrounding the decisions of cabinet the kind of confidentiality which leads to frankness in advice and frankness in questioning. I would suggest it is desirable to have this confidentiality and that it is in the public interest when the executive government takes its decisions.
While this is certainly a debatable point and one on which I hope the joint committee will give us some precise recommendations. It is not irresponsible to be concerned about the context in which advice is given to the cabinet so that it may
make its decisions as quickly as possible in as free an atmosphere as possible.
I hope that I am not contaminating him with any sort of guilt by association, for instance, in saying that when the hon. member for Peace River presented his proposal for legislation on this subject in 1974-and I think it was a very useful step which he did take-he put forward as desirable in the legislation an exemption on page 3, section 4, sub-section (g), "where the information on record is of a confidential nature exchanged by public officials within the government or between public officials of the government and any other government, and is expressed to be confidential." That describes a rather sweeping exemption. Myself, I would want a rather narrower one. I do not cite that particular paragraph to criticize the hon. member, far from it, but simply to say that there is an area of decision making in government where it is extremely important to have, not only the names of civil servants protected, but where the essential advice given or the range of advice given may be desirably held back from public view in the interests of a more efficacious, speedier and more wide-ranging process of decision making.
The second point the hon. member asked me to comment upon is that of the question of ministerial responsibility. His remarks were later joined by the points of view presented by the hon. member for Greenwood. It revolves around the question of how the process is to be designed which will review those decisions which are taken within the exemptions, which I think all members of the House will admit are necessary. No matter how fundamental the principle that the public should have access, there must be some exceptions. I think all members will admit that, with the possible exception of my friend from Saskatoon-Biggar speaking in committee-I am not sure whether it was simply for the purposes of argument or description or whether he sincerely believed it. I think almost all members in the House believe that there are some areas where exemptions are necessary. The question then is how do you judge whether the exemptions or the exceptions have been properly applied.
As I said earlier, there must be some process which is independent of ministerial decision in order to make the process credible. Both the hon. member for Greenwood and, I think, the Leader of the Opposition-although he may have perhaps had a bit more latitude on the question than I am now ascribing to him-suggested that the courts were an essential element in such a process of review and, indeed, that it was the proper function of a court to apply such a review to this application of the exemptions. It is that thought as expressed in the motion before the House which causes us on the government side some difficulty.
Why are we cautious on this side of the House that judicial review is the appropriate way to supervise the application of the exceptions? I think the phrase of the Leader of the Opposition was that it was natural that the courts should make an adjudication of the rights of the citizens. I would suggest that the proper question is not simply a question of adjudication of rights, but an assessment of the public interest. It is

June 22, 1978

that which gives some of us on this side pause as to whether the courts are the appropriate means of independently reviewing the question of how the exemptions or exceptions are applied.
I would like to elaborate on that point for a few moments. Why are we cautious about this? Perhaps the best way of describing my own mind at the moment would be to say that I am as yet to be convinced that the process of judicial review is an essential element in establishing an independent review process. The hon. member for Peace River and others who participated in the joint committee know that this is the point of view I expressed when I appeared before it. 1 certainly did not want to make up my mind on that important matter before I had a chance to study and reflect on the report which the committee will present.
We are cautious, first of all, because the court process tends to be both expensive and time consuming. That has been the experience in the United States. Our estimate is that the cost of applying a judicial report procedure would be $10,000 or so for each judicial test. In such a case the judicial review is likely to favour those who can afford to tackle the question that way, such as large corporations which have an interest in obtaining information and can handle the necessary cost of taking the matter to court. This has been the experience in the United States.
There is a question in the mind of the government of the appropriateness of this in relation to what parliament has decided in other areas. Parliament has established, for instance, the Human Rights Commissioner as an officer of parliament, and the Commissioner of Official Languages as an officer of parliament. In both cases these officers will be called upon to apply rights, if you wish to describe them as such, in disputed areas, and to assess whether those rights have been properly met or accepted by government. It may very well be that in the parliamentary system this kind of decision can be reviewed. Because of the separation of power in the congressional system, this is not open to the United States. In Canada we have an instrument in the offices of the Auditor General, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Human Rights Commissioner, which would make it more appropriate to have an officer of parliament perform such a function, rather than an appeal to the courts.
There is also the question of consistency in a rather different way. If we instituted a system of judicial review there would be a variety of decisions taken by different judges on the same kind of question. I would suggest to the House it might be more useful to have an officer of parliament or some officer whose job it is to concern himself continually with this kind of question, so that decisions taken about the application of exemptions or exceptions would be reasonably consistent.
There is a fourth consideration which will weigh heavily with the government in coming to a decision, though not necessarily decisively. We must ask if this is the kind of decision it is appropriate for judges to make. I am not sur-
Freedom of Information
prised that the hon. member for Greenwood, who is a lawyer, thinks that it is, and I am not surprised that the Canadian Bar Association thinks it is appropriate. I am not even surprised that the hon. member for Peace River may think so, although I thought his experience with the courts over the last few weeks might have tempered his conviction in this regard. I would have thought that the hon. member for Greenwood, if not the hon. member for Peace River, would have been concerned about the views of their National Anti-Poverty Association which specifically rejected the idea of a judicial review because of its cost, its delays. They recognized it would mean a process of review was not open equally to the poor and the wealthy.
I suggest we must at least consider whether this is the kind of decision it is appropriate for judges to make. We are not talking about whether a set of designed procedures have been followed in taking a decision. It is clear that courts would determine whether procedures for taking the decision had been appropriately followed. Nor are we considering an assessment of fact by a court. We are not considering the application of "black letter" law, the interpretation of what the words of a law mean or what the motivation of parliament was in placing those words in an act. What we have here is an assessment pf the public interest.
We would often have a question of assessing conflicts in public interest, for instance, a conflict between the desirability of knowledge to be given an individual which would conflict, perhaps, with the right to privacy of another individual. I think this is an argument which has to be met, discussed, and perhaps refuted if that is possible. I want to cite the way in which this particular point was presented to the joint committee by the Parliamentary Press Gallery and quote from a letter on the same subject by the well known journalist, Anthony Westell. I only cite these so that I may be brief, because I think they put the argument in succinct form, and I am anxious to allow others to take part in the debate.
First of all, I should like to quote from a brief presented by the Parliamentary Press Gallery to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. In issue No. 14 of the committee proceedings at page 14A: 18 there appears the following passage:
But we do not think it is a sound argument to say that because the ministers are not fully accountable to parliament-
Parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, I think this is the argument the Leader of the Opposition made a few moments ago.
-they should be made accountable to judges. Such a step would further weaken parliament. The role of the Commons would be reduced because one of its functions would have been transferred to the courts-courts which in the end are responsible to no one.
If it were merely a matter of giving the courts power to examine disputed documents to see if proper legal procedures had been followed in classifying them as secret, there might be no great objection. But the suggestion seems to be that the courts should also have the power to review and reverse the judgment of a minister that the publication of the information might, or would, be injurious or damaging to national security or to foreign relations, or to cabinet secrecy and so on. Such a decision would rest not on fact or interpretation of the law, but on political judgment. Ministers are elected and mandated precisely to make such judgments, and are responsible for the consequences. If judges were to be empowered to overturn the decisions of ministers, who would then be responsible

June 22, 1978
Freedom of Information
if in fact the result of the publication proved to be injurious to the public interest? We would be asking the courts to make what are essentially political judgments.
I should also like to quote from a letter which appeared in the Globe and Mail of June 7, 1978, from Mr. Westell who, I believe, was instrumental in writing the press gallery brief. The final two paragraphs of the letter read as follows:
I can understand why the Bar Association should wish to transfer jurisdiction from parliament to the courts, and 1 suspect that the lawyers have influenced their clients in big business and big labor. But I can't understand why Mr. Stevens-
That is another journalist.
-should believe that Canadian judges, most of whom seem to be highly conservative fellows, are likely to be more liberal than parliament in dealing with the release of information.
The decision on whether to release information may often involve a conflict between public interests: The so-called right to know and the proper protection of privacy and security. If judges are better equipped than elected politicians to make that sort of decision, why bother with parliament at all? Let the judges with their superior wisdom run the country.
1 admit there are arguments on the other side of the question to the effect that the benefits of further reducing the doctrine of ministerial responsibility may be greater than the disadvantages of so doing. It is, however, not an artificial problem which confronts the government but a real problem which I hope and am convinced the joint committee will wrestle with. It is one of the reasons 1 await their report with great expectation.
1 believe that all of us in this House have a conviction and determination to press forward in this matter and bring to parliament and pass through it effective legislation on freedom of information. That has been the purpose of our policy and was the underlying reason for the presentation of the green paper which was an honest exposition on our part, soliciting the debate which has taken place. 1 know that the joint committee has performed valuable work, and many of the witnesses before it presented valuable contributions to the debate. We now await the report of the joint committee, and I will remake today the commitment which the government has made often in the past, that we are determined to bring legislation on this matter before the House in the next session.
I will not today counsel this side of the House to accept this motion because I believe that it is unwise, particularly before we have seen the reasons and arguments brought forward by the joint committee. Let us not assume automatically that the most appropriate way of achieving the kind of independent review that we all wish to have is through a judicial review. Before I make up my mind on that question 1 certainly want to have the counsel that the joint committee will present to us.
It is on those grounds that 1 am reluctant to accept at this stage something that-with fuller experience and fuller knowledge which the committee provides-may not prove to be prudent, and I will oppose the resolution before the House. I would hope that no members of the House and certainly members of the public would not interpret that opposition to be any lessening of our determination to act in this area in the next session of the House.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure to be able to speak in support of the motion moved by my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).
In a democracy no issue is more central to the survival of democracy itself than people in a country being able to have information they need to make informed judgments on issues of the day. I think James Madison, a former United States president, probably stated that principle much more articulately and profoundly than any member of this House could today. He described it in this way:
A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but the prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
Surely there is no issue which is more central to democracy itself than ensuring that the people of Canada have access to the information they need in order to make informed decisions about their government.
Over the course of the last several years government in Canada has grown in size and pervasiveness, so that today virtually no aspect of the average citizen's life is left untouched by government in one form or another. Just yesterday the Toronto Star ran a Gallup poll in which Canadians were asked to respond to questions about the extent of government involvement in their lives. When they were asked whether they felt the federal government affects their lives to a greater or lesser degree than it did ten years ago, 69 per cent of Canadians said that they felt that the involvement of the federal government in their lives was greater today than it was ten years ago. When they were asked the question "Do you think the level of influence of the federal government today in the way of life of the average Canadian is too great, too little or just about right" 51 percent of the Canadians polled indicated that they felt the level of involvement of governments in their day to day lives is too high.
The very size of government itself and the complexity of decisions which have to be made by government today make it that much more difficult for citizens of this country to discharge their responsibilities, to appraise judiciously the activities of their government, and to be able to make sound judgments about the political issues of the day. As the power of big government grows and as its pervasiveness grows, as its involvement in the day to day lives of Canadians grows, the stature of the government increases, but the stature of the average citizen, his power to affect his day to day life, diminishes.
Governments today have a tremendous advantage over everyday citizens and over parliament in trying to state their point of view. If one takes a look at the difference in resources which are available to government today, there are several. First, the government has virtually unlimited resources in terms of spending to promote its particular point of view. In 1978 the government spends hundreds of millions of dollars to put across particular points of view on issues which it supports. It has large staff resources at its disposal which are able to do
June 22, 1978

research for the government and are able to put a particular viewpoint across by making speeches on behalf of the government across Canada. The government has access to computers and other research facilities which allow it information which the average citizen just does not have. Finally and most important, all too often governments in Canada have the ability to operate in secrecy without public scrutiny, without giving the average citizen an opportunity to know how decisions are made which affect his life and affect the way in which his tax dollars are spent.
The brief to the Joint Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments which was presented by the Canadian Bar Association makes the point that today in Canada there is no statutory right that Canadians have to freedom of information. There is no principle involved there that is enshrined in the law which allows Canadians to know how their money is being spent and how decisions affecting public policy are being made. Today, the principle seems to be that information about how the taxpayer's money is being spent and how public policy is being made is the private property of the government. The principle seems to be that the onus is upon the citizen to prove that he should be entitled to know how his life is being affected by government decisions, and not upon government to justify withholding that information from the average citizen.
The Canadian Bar Association summarizes the problems which are inherent in the present situation and the difficulty that there is for the average citizen to have proper access to information, in the following way. They make this statement, "In short, therefore, the legal obstacles to disclosure reinforced by the civil servant's tradition of secrecy have created a climate of secrecy which surrounds even the lower ranks of the bureaucracy." That is the way it is for the average Canadian today. When a person is faced with decisions made by government on a daily basis which impact on his life, he finds that he is not allowed access to the information which is absolutely essential if he is to discharge his responsibility as a citizen properly.
In 1965 the first bill was presented in the House of Commons to provide for a legal right for citizens to have access to public information. It was in 1969 that my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), first introduced his private member's bill on freedom of information. Today, 13 years later, after the first bill was introduced in parliament, parliament is still reduced to the position where we are led to debate the principle of freedom of information, and the government has yet to come back to parliament to place before it comprehensive legislation which will protect the rights of our citizens to have access to this information.
It is the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts), who spoke just before me, who has the responsibility for freedom of information. He indicated that the Liberal party would not support the motion that was moved today by the Leader of the Opposition in an attempt to gain all-party support for the principle of freedom of information and for the principle of ensuring that
Freedom of Information
where decisions are made by a minister in which he is one of the parties to a dispute, an impartial arbitrator should have the right to determine what the citizen's rights should be and whether the minister acted properly or not. The minister indicated he has yet to make up his mind as to what the principle involved really is, and as to which side he will choose to support in this particular question. He has indicated his party will rise tonight to vote against this motion which would give citizens of Canada this right.
The minister has indicated that in the next session of parliament he intends to introduce and to pass a freedom of information act. I do not expect, and I think that most members of this House and most Canadians do not honestly expect, that this government will pass a freedom of information act before the next election. If it were his priority to do so, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had ten years to bring before parliament a tough and comprehensive freedom of information act. He has not done that. We know from the attitude of this government that its members see it is in their partisan interest to put themselves on the side of the angels by claiming they support the principle of freedom of information without actually having to come forward to parliament and pass legislation. That is essential. It is not introducing a green paper or even a bill to parliament that is essential, but passing legislation which would enshrine the rights of Canadians to have access to information.
The green paper which was tabled by the Secretary of State a year ago outlines very well the concerns of this government. It describes at great length some of the difficulties the government sees that are inherent in the concept of freedom of information. I quote one statement from page four of the report:
As well, advice contained in such documents might be construed in the press and parliament as embarrassing to a minister or be used to try to break down the unity of the governing party, even though such advice did not represent government policy or a course of action acceptable to the minister.
Where are we in Canada today if it is acceptable to withhold information because the government is afraid it might be potentially embarrassing to it? That is the record of this government. There are many instances where, if the government had only levelled with the Canadian people, let the facts be known, and given them the opportunity to make sound and informed judgments about the activities of the government, the government simply refused to let that happen because of potential embarrassment of partisan disadvantage that might accrue to it.
My leader made it clear that a first priority of a Progressive Conservative government led by him after the next election will be to introduce a tough and comprehensive freedom of information act. It will enshrine this right in law for all Canadians, and will ensure that cover-ups do not take place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: It has to be a priority item. I think my leader feels the same way. Any government which, irrespective of

June 22, 1978
Freedom of Information
political affiliation, operates in secrecy, begins to develop its own secrets that could be embarrassing to it. The pressure builds day after day to withhold information on the grounds that it could be politically embarrassing to release it. That is why a new government should, as a first priority, and our government will, introduce a freedom of information act before many days have passed in a new parliament.
Even parliament finds that its hands are tied in trying to obtain information from this government. In February, 1973, the government House leader tabled in parliament 16 principles for refusing to produce papers which were requested in motions for the production of papers which were placed on the order paper by members of parliament. Nos. 4 and 14 are so broad as to allow the government to refuse to give parliament virtually any bit of information that it does not want to give. It does not even need the other 14 provisions. Those two provisions alone would give ample justification for refusing to produce any documents of any kind to parliament.
I asked my office to do some research on what has happened since this session of parliament began with regard to motions placed on the order paper by individual members of parliament requesting the production of papers. My office found there were some 75 notices of motions for the production of papers placed on the order paper. Of those 75, 12 have not yet been answered by the government. Of those, 63 have been dealt with by the government. Of these 63, 49 requests have been rejected by the government and no documents were produced. Therefore, on only 14 out of 75 requests has the government satisfied the member by even producing some or all of the documents, of giving sufficient reasons why the documents were not produced that the member withdrew his request.
We do not need in parliament a new freedom of information act for the government to begin to relax the security that it puts upon government documents today. The government could today begin to free up the restrictions it puts on those documents. It could prove by its relationship with parliament that it is prepared to share information with the people of Canada. I submit this government has, through its behaviour over the last several years, proven it is not serious about the whole question of freedom of information.
No freedom of information act has any value for our citizens unless it includes a citizen's right to appeal a decision made by the executive of the government to refuse to produce information that is requested. Unfortunately the government's green paper makes it clear the government has no intention whatsoever of allowing Canadians to challenge a cabinet minister's right to give information to the Canadian public.
In the green paper there are five options listed as a means of appealing or considering decisions made by cabinet ministers to refuse to release information. Of those five, the green paper itself lists serious arguments against four of them. That leaves only one option which it does not criticize in any way, that is, that an individual information commissioner be created who would act as an arbiter between the government and the public. However, he would have no authority to overrule a

decision that has been made by a cabinet minister who wants to hide information to which the public is entitled.
The government argues that it is somehow improper for the judiciary to have the right to evaluate a refusal by a minister of the Crown to make information available. I want to read the words in the green paper because they illustrate the mentality that is involved here. It says this about the judges:
To require that he became a judge of a minister's actions, that he should have the power to replace the opinion of the minister with his own opinion, is to change his role entirely and to bring him into the political arena where he cannot properly defend himself. All of this could seriously threaten the independence of the courts and thereby place in jeopardy our present judicial system. Under our current conventions, it is the minister who must remain responsible for deciding whether to refuse or grant access to documents and this responsibility is a constitutional one owed to his cabinet colleagues, to parliament, and ultimately to the electorate. A judge cannot be asked, in our system of government, to assume the role of giving an opinion on the merits of the very question that has been decided by a minister. There is no way that a judicial officer can be properly made aware of all the political, economic, social and security factors that may have led to the decision in issue.
What more clear statement could there be of the government's position on this question? What more damning answer could there have been than that presented by the Canadian Bar Association to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments when they included the study done by Professor Murray Rankin of Victoria on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association? This is what they had to say in their brief to the standing joint committee:
Professor Rankin's study also condemns as a "self-serving myth" the contention in the green paper that there is no way a judicial officer can be properly made aware of all the factors that may have led to a decision to withhold a document. This assertion must be based on one of two assumptions, Professor Rankin concludes: "either that the evidence or arguments that a minister can advance to support non-disclosure are so insubstantial or ephemeral that he could never hope to persuade an independent person of their worth, or, alternatively, a judge lacks the intelligence or capacity to understand the evidence or arguments and to give them appropriate weight. That either argument could be seriously advanced by a present day government is eloquent evidence of its determination to avoid any meaningful legislation on the subject.
The study concludes, based on British and American experience, that to hand the final decision on disclosure of documents to the unreviewable discretion of a minister, "who is hardly a disinterested party" would make a sham of any system of access to government information.
Legislatures enact laws, ministers administer legislation and courts independently interpret the legislation and rule whether it is being obeyed. Hence, once parliament has exercised its jurisdiction to pass legislation, the government must comply with its terms. It is therefore obvious that some institution other than the government must be charged with making the final ruling concerning whether the government is correctly interpreting the obligations to comply which the legislation imposes.
Surely that is the principle embodied in this motion today. That is the principle which members of parliament are called upon to support.
What position has been taken by members of parliament up until the present on this particular question? The all-party committee on freedom of information surveyed members of parliament and senators and issued a report to every member of parliament. That report contains the following information: "A surprising 90 per cent said they favoured such legislation. Furthermore, 73 per cent favoured legislation with teeth, i.e., they wanted legislation with some form of judicial review
June 22, 1978

which by its very nature would be binding on the government of the day. This is in direct contrast to the position of the government taken in its green paper on freedom of information, despite the fact that the survey was conducted after the green paper had been tabled."
That report, produced by the freedom of information committee of parliament, was signed by members of parliament of every party, including the Liberal party. It is incumbent upon Liberal members of parliament, as well as upon those on this side of the House, to prove that they meant what they said when they said that parliament should have that right, and that built into freedom of information legislation the public should have the ability to have an independent review of decisions to hide information which have been made by ministers.
In the past ten years this government has indicated in many ways that it has slight regard for civil liberties in Canada. We have seen that in the Peter Treu case where a secret trial was conducted. We have seen that in the prosecution, perhaps persecution would be a better word, of the Toronto Sun, which is currently charged under the Official Secrets Act and which was raided on the order of this government. We have seen it in the invocation of the War Measures Act. We have seen it in so many other areas that I think parliamentarians should examine the record of this government, and should have the right to question whether this government is truly serious when it claims it believes in freedom of information.
I began my remarks today by saying that access to information about how the public's money is being spent and about how public decisions are being made is essential if democracy is to survive in a healthy form in Canada. 1 continue to feel that way, and I think that the motion which has been placed by the Leader of the Opposition before parliament today gives members of parliament on all sides of the House the opportunity to prove that they believe that democracy in Canada should be kept vital and that the indispensable right of citizens of Canada to freedom of information should be protected and enhanced.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, the subject of freedom of information in a parliamentary democracy is an immensely complicated one which is not susceptible to simple solutions. Obviously, this House will wish to continue to affirm its support for the principle of freedom of information as a prerequisite to open and responsible government. I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) for his personal references earlier, and I want to assure him and other hon. members that hon. members on this side will reaffirm that principle of freedom of information as a prerequisite to open and responsible government as fully and as strongly now as we did on February 12, 1976.
This affirmation will have the fundamental but, nevertheless, limited effect of providing a framework for as much openness as is consistent with responsible government. The governmental system should be so oriented as to provide a
Freedom of Information
maximum of openness, and in all cases of doubt the presumption should be in favour of public disclosure.
However, because of the complexity of governmental operations and public needs, the general principle of openness cannot by itself resolve the problems of detail.
The absence of valid precedents increases the difficulty of the problem. We have Swedish and American precedents. They are probably the most extensive in today's world, but neither one is very close to our system of government. If they are of value to us, it must be because they commend themselves to us by reason of their application as individual elements rather than as part of a general system. Indeed, one would want to look at the American experience to see to what extent the freedom of information law there has benefited large corporations for their private interests more than any other sector of the population. I think these precedents would obviously have to be looked at with a great deal of care.
The consideration of this issue by the MacKenzie commission was not very satisfactory either. That commission dealt with only part of the problem, that part dealing with official secrets, and the principle which it advocated is, to my way of thinking, rather inadequate. I would like to quote from page 77 of that report. Paragraph 209 says the following:
We have given some thought to the ideal content of an official secrets act. In our opinion, such an act should in the first place protect all classified information from any unauthorized dissemination, whether or not the purpose of such dissemination is prejudicial to the interests of the state and whether or not the information is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to a foreign power;
Just reading that much of the attitude of the MacKenzie commission regarding this part of the problem, we can see that there is an acceptance of an unfettered discretion of the executive to classify documents, backed up by the criminal law power, and the criminal law power would be used to punish espionage and general leakage on an indiscriminate basis. To my way of thinking that type of approach is not at all satisfactory. It is far too general and gives far too much power to the executive of the day.
Much more satisfactory, from my point of view, is the approach of the Franks committee in England. I would like to quote briefly from page 101 of volume one of that report where the committee recommends that:
Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 -
Which is the equivalent of section 4 of our act, I might say parenthetically.
-should be repealed, and replaced by a new statute, called the official information act, which should apply only to official information whicha.	is classified information relating to defence or internal security, or to
foreign relations, or to the currency or to the reserves, the unauthorized
disclosure of which would cause serious injury to the interests of the nation; or
b.	is likely to assist criminal activities or to impede law enforcement; or
c.	is a cabinet document; or
d.	has been entrusted to the government by a private individual or concern.
In the view of the Franks committee the use of the criminal law would be limited to those categories of information, and beyond that the secrecy-"confidentiality" perhaps is a better word-of government would be maintained by internal disci-

June 22, 1978
Freedom of Information
pline, the various forms of discipline which are known to public services the world over, including the risk of discharge if the offence is of that serious a nature.
However, even if one accepts the Franks recommendations, they cover only a part of the subject of freedom of information. They cover the part which deals with unauthorized release of information, but they do not cover the more difficult question of authorized release, and what information should, and even must, be made available by the government to parliament, to the press and to the people.
With respect to this large problem, as hon. members are aware, there are two principal issues. First, granted the principle of openness, what should the exceptions be? I think there would be no disagreement anywhere in the House that there would have to be exceptions to the principle of openness because certain activities of government require confidentiality and even secrecy. Second, granted that the initial decision as to confidentiality should be made by the government, what should the review process be? I would like to take each of those questions in turn and deal with them, not as fully as 1 would wish, but as fully as time today will allow.
I suggest, with respect to the first question as to exemptions, that perhaps four principles should be operative, and perhaps we would wish to protect confidentiality in four categories. The first of those would be where the security of the state or the safety of the people is involved-this would involve matters of national security, so-called, and also matters of law enforcement; second, the ordinary confidentiality of the internal processes of government; third, the private affairs of people and business; and fourth, that private gains should not be allowed to be made as a result of the release of information.
The greatest difficulty, it seems to me, is with respect to the second of these principles. Obviously these are large principles, and certainly 1 would not maintain-and I suspect few would-that all the internal processes of government should enjoy confidentiality.
With respect to the exemption principles advanced by the government in the green paper, the most controversial would be No. 8 which deals with the area of ordinary confidentiality in the ordinary operations of the government. I suppose that there might also be some questions raised about No. 6 of those exemptions. It is obviously possible to raise questions on all of them, but it seems to me that those are probably the exemptions about which the largest number of questions might be raised.
What I would try to strive for in elaborating a theory on the basis of which we could distinguish between documents which should be released and those that should not be released to the public, is as follows. What 1 believe should be protected from disclosure is working documents, documents which are directly part of the process of governmental or ministerial consideration. Here I would go beyond the recommendations of the Canadian Bar Association, which, I believe, would restrict these to governmental consideration.

What I believe should not be protected and should not have exemptions to cover them are a number of categories which I would like to mention. I believe there are four of these categories. First of all, factual data, such things as surveys, environmental studies, feasibility studies or consumer test reports, should not be exempted. All of those documents are of a factual nature, or at least their factual aspect can be isolated to the extent that it is predominant. Second, I do not think we should protect from disclosure internal directives and administrative policies respecting matters which may affect the public, except for reasons such as security and safety. Third, I would not grant an exception to opinions of a general nature that are not directly and immediately concerned with decision making, and here I would exclude from exemption general legal opinions which are not directly related to actual or expected litigation. Fourth, I suggest that all documents, even those in the exempt categories, should be published after a lapse of time. Perhaps the ten-year period suggested by the Canadian Bar Association would be a good period in that case.
The distinction I am trying to draw is that if a document is part of something which is in process, if it cannot be isolated and is an integral part of the continuing operation of the government, it should not be subject to disclosure. But if it is something that is severable, which, even though it may have an indirect relationship-certainly everything has an indirect relationship to the processes of government-but is not directly related to the work of the government at the time, then that is a matter which should not be protected by an exemption and which should fall under the general principle of full disclosure. I would repeat that in all cases of doubt I adopt the presumption that disclosure should take place.
With respect to the second question as to the review mechanism, we come to a more difficult problem, one on which we will have perhaps less agreement with others in the House. What form of review is appropriate? Is it an external review, which I suppose would be considered to be a judicial review because it is certainly the most unbiased form of external review, or is it some form of internal review?
The argument for a judicial review is essentially that the rule of law in our system requires judicial determination, that in the protection of the judiciary they find, one might say, an essential characteristic of the rule of law. That is true in the traditional area of law, certainly in the private law, but it has not been generally considered to be true in the twentieth century in the area of administrative law. In the area of administrative law we have made distinctions, and we have said that some things are subject to judicial review and some things are not. Factual matters are not subject to judicial review and matters of law are, while questions of mixed law and fact can go either way, but we have found it necessary to make distinctions of that kind. Unless hon. members will maintain that this new tradition which we have evolved to deal with areas of administrative law is not a proper one, we can see there that the rule of law does not always mean judicial determination.
June 22, 1978

Here, of course, we are dealing with something which is really entirely new, something which has not developed any tradition. We are discussing what the rules should be. We have a dilemma to face. We have an argument for judicial review which rests on an analogy, which stresses an analogy between the usual processes of law which do allow a judicial decision to be the ultimate test of the validity of anything in our society and certainly any governmental act or any law. On the other hand, the argument against a judicial review is normally made in terms of responsible government, the feeling being that the principle of ministerial responsibility cannot be squared with the establishment of a judicial review. It seems to me that neither approach is satisfactory, because 1 believe that neither goes to the heart of the question, neither the analogy to the older law nor the resting on ministerial responsibility or responsible government.
The fundamental question seems to me to be whether the matter in question is justiciable or not. To be justiciable, that is, capable of judicial determination, something must be able to be resolved by fairly precise criteria. Judges through their powers of interpretation are inevitably legislators in an indirect way. I think all sophisticated jurisprudents would admit that. But, it seems to me, they must not be asked to assume the responsibility to be legislators directly, to make directly political decisions.
1 find that the courts are appropriate as decision makers when the kind of questions that are involved are between a subject and the state, and where the subject is asking for some information from the state which is directly relevant to him, where his freedom or his rights or his property are in some way imperilled. But with respect to general questions, I would have great difficulty in finding to my own satisfaction that there is justiciability which I believe could be dealt with by a court. 1 am strengthened in this attitude by some words of the Franks committee, and I would like to quote from pages 54 and 55 of the first volume. The Franks committee said:
In relation to these basic functions of government, the question of injury to the nation is essentially political, in the broadest sense of the term, not judicial. It is essentially a government responsibility to assess the importance of informa-tiont. .. The government is accountable to parliament and the electorate for its discharge of these basic functions. Any system which placed this responsibility elsewhere would detract from the responsibility of the government to protect the security of the nation and the safety of the people. It would remove the element of constitutional accountability.
The committee went on to say:
The questions arising in these cases would, by definition, concern matters which the government wished to keep secret. It might be impossible to show why the information disclosed by the defendant was secret, except by revealing other secret matters in the evidence. Cases of this kind have arisen in the past and will arise in the future. It might not be sufficient for the court to sit in camera, since the accused himself, his legal advisers and the jury would all remain present. The government might not be prepared to take the risk of letting them hear the secret evidence. Yet it is basic to natural justice that an accused person should know the evidence against him.
I am impressed by those words. It would be a serious mistake for us to present the courts with issues which, because of their very nature, cannot be properly decided by judges.
Freedom of Information
That is the question. Can these issues be properly decided by judges or not? Are they political issues which must be placed before parliament and the people?
Therefore, I recommend an information commissioner with ombudsmanlike powers to consider complaints, but more importantly, to scrutinize government documents in general. Just as government accounts are open to the Auditor General, all government documents must be continuously available to him. I should like to propose five characteristics of this office: First, it must be independent. Second, it must have total permanent access to all government documents. Third, it must be an internal examination conducted within the walls of government itself. Fourth, it must give public advice to government, not only in general periodic reports, but in specific reports which pinpoint particular documents-It should say whether such a document should be released to the public. Fifth, it would be an advisory rather than a compulsory body, which would employ the powers of public opinion.
A spokesman for the Ontario government, before its royal commission looking into these matters, said that all these issues cannot be solved by legislation. The power of public opinion is the final protection in these areas. Mr. Justice Brandeis of the United States once said the following:
Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial disease. Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant and electric light the most efficient policeman.
Publicity could be mobilized by an information commissioner with the powers I have described. His powers would be greater than any other government official, even the Auditor General. As a representative of parliament and the people, he could keep us adequately informed on areas where the government was not living up to the general principles and categories of exemptions otherwise laid out. In the final analysis, this is not strictly a legal matter. It is a political matter and, as such, there must be a political solution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 have been listening with a great deal of interest to various spokesmen who have participated in this debate. The first spokesman I listened to was my leader. He made a very masterful presentation of an eminently sensible proposition which I thought would not obtain the full support of the House of Commons, and I have been reinforced in my thoughts.
I participated in the all-party committee on freedom of information. The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) indicated that 90 per cent of the responses to a questionnaire which was put out by us supported in essence the proposition contained in the motion before us.
As I listened to the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) and the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), who has some influence in his party with regard to this particular topic, I am now convinced that the issue of freedom of information unfortunately is becoming a matter of partisan politics. Now there seems to be a clear statement on the part of the Liberal party, notwithstanding any resolution passed in

June 22, 1978
Freedom of Information
open conference at Ottawa in February, that it is coming down on the side of a refusal to accept any form of independent assessment and adjudication on freedom of information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This really distresses me. As a former dean of law, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville should have a fuller and better appreciation of the speciousness of the argument against an ultimate judicial review. I listened to his argument about the limitation of exemptions. I understand and commend him for some of those observations. I thought his observations were responsible. On the basis of his presentation in that regard, I do not think we differ substantially.
But I detected great difficulty in his presentation when he attempted to defend the indefensible. I felt he was struggling to bring logic to an illogical proposition. He attempted to justify his argument by indicating that whether a person is entitled to some government document is beyond the ken of any judicial officer. If that proposition was taken to its logical conclusion, the judiciary would have a very limited area in which to pass judgment. I think the hon. member knows this in his heart of hearts.
What is a judge supposed to do when he draws any conclusion on a matter of national security? What is he to do when he reads thee definition of "national security" in the Federal Court Act? Is he not drawing conclusions which are very political in nature? Is the hon. member suggesting in the judge's interpretation of section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act that he is not involved in a political decision by deciding what does or does not constitute national security? What about the Official Secrets Act? There are many instances and examples in our laws where in fact judges are required to pass judgment on matters which I consider to be political in nature, or are required to take into account matters which perhaps are sensitive or secret. The argument that judges or independent arbiters of whatever stripe are somehow not qualified, or could not understand the implications of an application, just does not warrant any support.
Also I detected a strain on the part of the Secretary of State during the course of his remarks. He came out clearly against independent judicial assessment of these applications. He was careful not to say that he was against independent assessment, but his argument gave us some indication of what might come forward as a government bill. I hope I am wrong in this respect, but he left the impression that it will be something in the nature of what was presented by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.
I notice the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville made reference to the information commissioner being of the same nature as the Auditor General. I do not know of a better example to illustrate the pitfalls that might occur with respect to a true freedom of information act and endorsement of that principle than trying to suggest that we have an information commissioner on the same basis as we have an Auditor Gener-

al. We know that in some instances the recommendations made by that officer of parliament have fallen upon the deaf ears of the government, and I would venture to say that more times than not his recommendations have not been acted upon. We know that the Auditor General has absolutely no powers of endorsement with respect to any recommendations he may have, however sensible they may be. If we are talking about that kind of final assessment of applications, we are not doing the concept of freedom of information any good at all, and it would be counterproductive, as far as I am concerned, in ensuring true freedom of information.


Mr. Baldwin:: They didn't like one Auditor General. They tried to fire him.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is the problem, as my colleague has pointed out. We need someone quite independent of any pressure exerted by the government. In the final analysis, it is the majority that would appoint this officer. Whether he is an officer of parliament or not, the practical fact is that the majority party will be able to exert certain pressure on that appointment, which will probably be limited to the usual term of seven years.
The reason I ask members on the government side to give support to this motion is that it is not a partisan matter, nor should it be, to support a proposition put forward by my leader. What I am suggesting is that it is as much in the interest of the government as in the interest of the members of the opposition to have truly effective freedom of information legislation in force in Canada.
I would like to remind hon. members who are interested in this particular debate of a statement made by a recently departed cabinet minister, the hon. Mitchell Sharp, who said in a speech he made in Fredericton in March, 1977:
In the political sphere... senior civil servants are much more powerful than ministers. "In the main, ministers are amateurs in government while the civil servants are professionals"-
He was talking about civil servants who advise ministers on policy matters.
It is as much in the interest of ministers to ensure there is an adequate and free flow of information as it is in the interest of the members of the opposition. I contend that in the complexity and the labyrinth of the administrative processes we now have in government there be some measure, if I can put it in parochial terms, to keep everybody in the government operation honest.
It was interesting to read a speech made by a public servant of some seniority and distinction in the government, Mr. Gordon Robertson, on November 19, 1977 entitled "Confidentiality in government". Mr. Robertson is secretary to the cabinet for federal-provincial relations. I know the man and have had correspondence with him, and I think it is fair to say that he was not stating the government's point of view in connection with the speech. It was his own point of view. He did not ask to speak at the lecture in Kingston, Ontario, for which the speech was made, but he was asked to speak specifically on this topic.
June 22, 1978

Mr. Robertson drew certain conclusions in that speech which, after listening to some of the comments from the spokesman of the government side, have a familiar ring to them. 1 would say that Mr. Robertson is not exactly enthusiastic about freedom of information legislation. For instance, he said:
I submit that much of the popular interest in freedom of information is directed by curiosity about the internal processes of government that does not have much purpose behind it except curiosity.
I suspect that this is a belief that is firmly held by some, if not many, senior public servants at the present time. I can understand the point of view, but the difficulty is that this idea has by some process of osmosis been transmitted to government ministers and to the government itself. 1 am concerned about this because we are veering away-I think that this has been generally conceded by most members of parliament- from the opportunity to speak out and discuss a matter without the constraint of the whip on the government side. This sort of position is acceptable to the majority in the House of Commons, and this is why 1 say there should be a process of independent review.
Mr. Robertson also said that the demand of the public for more information about the processes which govern them would be simply a waste of money. He went on to say:
I am sceptical of whether their satisfaction (demand for information) ought to be financed to any large degree by the public or ought to be given priority over other requirements for the energies of ministers of public servants.
It is my firm submission, Mr. Speaker, that the great balance of any expenditure the government may incur with respect to freedom of information will be less than the phenomenal amount of waste that goes on in government spending. A greater access to the workings of government would shine the light of day on some of the more glaring aspects of waste, and the cost of freedom of information in relative terms would be insignificant. The prospect of looking in and finding out precisely what is going on in the government, either by members of the opposition or the public, would have a very therapeutic effect on government operation and the administration generally.
Mr. Robertson put forth the proposition that confidentiality is needed to protect the public service, which he described as:
-the preservation of a non-partisan professional public service-
There has been a rather curious development in the short time that I have been here in so far as confidentiality and faceless public servants are concerned, and that is that ministers themselves, in attempting to avoid responsibility which they would have traditionally accepted, are more and more resorting to the tactic of blaming the public servant for any mistakes that may occur. The Hon. Mitchell Sharp has recently been quoted as saying something to the effect that in this day and age public servants should more and more bear the responsibility for their actions as opposed to the traditional concept of ministerial responsibility.


Yvon Pinard: You are blaming Mr. Robertson. What are you doing?
Freedom of Information


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am not blaming Mr. Robertson, because I think he has his own point of view. I am suggesting that it is a point of view which is now being accepted by members on the government side. I suggest, with all deference to Mr. Robertson, that he is mistaken in his own conclusions, as the government would be mistaken if they were to accept the attitudes enunciated by him. I have every respect for Mr. Robertson, but I think he is wrong on this issue, and I do not want to see the government take up the cudgels on his theory because that would be a mistake. I say to the members on the government side that they are going to back themselves into a corner if they are going to make freedom of information a partisan issue.
Mr. Robertson also said that to preserve ministerial responsibility there should be no mandatory powers either of the courts or a freedom of information commissioner to demand and secure a document. He went on to say:
I would also like to suggest that to have the final decision taken by any agency other than the responsible minister when a document relates to decision making or to the integrity of the state will be destructive to the clear identification of executive responsibility which is one of the best features of our parliamentary system of government.
There is a ring of truth in what Mr. Robertson has concluded and in what has been said by members on the government side. If we shy away from the independent review of applications we will have second rate, unsatisfactory legislation. The arguments put forward today indicate why there has been something less than wholehearted enthusiasm on the part of this government to bring forward this legislation, notwithstanding the protestations of the Secretary of State and other spokesmen.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has presented legislation for consideration. The topic has been studied to death-it has been before the House for 13 years. Since I have been here I have been involved in a study of the whole proposition through the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments and in other ways.
To see how this government operates on this matter gives me a new appreciation of the word "eternity". I do not think they are anxious to go ahead with this matter. I do not know that we can wait for the government to bring in effective legislation. The Secretary of State quoted two dissenting briefs that were presented to the joint committee on the question of an independent review of applications for documents under freedom of information legislation. He omitted to say that everyone else who came before the committee, including the vast majority of members of parliament, supported the proposition as being fair and reasonable and did not regard it as an intrusion.
Freedom of information legislation has been introduced in Australia and some hon. members referred to the position taken by Sweden and the United States. I think the problem is the serious and deep division within cabinet on the question of

June 22, 1978
Freedom of Information
how far they should go. This was evidenced yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) who initially was in favour of the motion before someone got him to point out there was no consensus in cabinet.
I hope members of the government will exert pressure to make sure the point of view presented in this motion will be adopted.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to make a short contribution to this debate and I hope you will not notice the time too intently. I have a committee meeting at eight o'clock so I hope I can carry on for a minute or two past six o'clock.
I listened with rapt attention to the hon. member for Wind-sor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) who continues to be given a very special role in the Liberal party. He is one of those people with credibility in the area of civil liberties and in the area of freedom of information. He is becoming the token to be put forward by that party to convince the Canadian people there are still some small "1" liberals left.
If you reject the concept of judicial review, as has been done by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville and by the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts), you continue to reject the view of the Canadian Bar Association which has given this matter intensive study, the views of most constitutional lawyers and the view of the Canadian Labour Congress.
I should like to direct my specific attention to the remarks made by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville about the need for an independent review rather than a judicial review. In order to do that 1 want to refer to the study done by a very learned man, Mr. T. Murray Rankin, of the law school of the University of Victoria and published in his book "Freedom of Information in Canada". His study was adopted by the Canadian Bar Association and it replies to the argument that under our system you cannot have a judicial review of matters that are essentially political in nature.
The government's position has been to shun this idea of using the courts as arbitrators. It rests on the conviction that final responsibility for the release of government documents must remain with cabinet ministers since the matter is fundamentally of political concern, and that permitting a court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction would violate the convention of ministerial responsibility.
That objection is based on a self-serving myth which Mr. Rankin deals with at page 122 of his book, as follows:
-based on a self-serving myth that is sought to be perpetuated in the 1977 green paper: that "there is no way that a judicial officer can be properly made aware of all the political, economic, social and security factors that may have led to the decision in issue." If the American experience has indicated anything, it has indicated the hollowness of this assertion.
What one is talking here is not a substantive political decision such as the location of an airport, a nuclear plant or a pipeline-although even in these cases the executive has frequently called on the judicial arm for assistance and advice. What one is discussing is essentially akin to a procedural decision on whether certain information or documents useful in assessing the location of an airport, a nuclear plant or a pipeline should be produced, based on criteria which can be carefully spelled out by parliament in legislation. The judicial branch is uniquely suited to this task, and discharges similar duties in Canadian courts every day.

That is the view of the Canadian Bar Association and they are not unaware of the political ramifications of that position. We are not asking a judge to make a political decision but a judge can make a judicial decision based on criteria set down in the legislation and presented to parliament. I am disappointed that my distinguished colleagues at the Bar, such as the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, would make this old-fashioned, specious argument.
About two years ago I took the trouble to go to the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington to find out how the freedom of information legislation in that country was operated. 1 expected to see layers of bureaucracy and expensive duplication. Such was not the case. Instead, I found some civil servants and bureaucrats who understood that the information they had belonged to the people of the United States; it did not belong to them and it did not belong to the government. Through their taxes the people of the United States had paid for this information. They had a right to it but it took freedom of information legislation to turn the bureaucracy around and make them understand they were the servants of the American people, not their masters.
That is why it is so important that the motion should be supported on all sides of the House. The government had a wonderful opportunity in the motion before it but to get picky about the one question of appeal to the courts when we could have made some very real progress in this House I think is disappointing to every member who wants to see this matter go forward, who wants to see a change not merely in terms of gaining information in which we are all interested, but maybe a change in the atmosphere of the bureaucracy and as well in the attitude of politicians who serve the constituencies. It is the people's property; they have paid for it and by God, Mr. Speaker, they have a right to that information. The onus must be turned around.
This government I think has failed to accept or to see that particular principle. The legal back-up on it is overwhelming. There is no question that judicial review is the right answer. There is no question that independent review will still be an in-House review of some kind and far more likely to be a biased decision, biased against the applicant for the information.
As I say, I come late to this debate. I do not think there is another issue more important than this one if we are to talk about protecting democratic principles. We have the example of the American experience. It is working extremely well. It is not costly and it is providing a very useful service.
I simply say in closing that it is a unique situation in Canada where we cannot get information about our own Canadian corporations without going to the United States Security Commission under their freedom of information legislation. Our reporters across Canada cannot get information from this government, but they can cross the border and get that information from the United States government in order
June 22, 1978

to provide themselves with back-up for fulfilling their duties to their readers.
Surely it is time to move on the legislation. There is a member of parliament who has done something to his everlasting credit that may be more important than all the fine years he has spent in this place; 1 refer to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). He has done the Canadian people a great service and I give him full credit for the work he has done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6.04 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago we debated a motion put forward by this side of the House with regard to the Official Secrets Act. Today we are debating another motion put forward by the official opposition on freedom of information. The subject matter of both these debates is very closely related. This point was succinctly made by the hon. member for Windsor-Walker-ville (Mr. MacGuigan) when he took part in the debate a couple of weeks ago. He stated in that earlier debate:
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 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.
I presume he was referring to highly classified or highly sensitive documents touching on national security. He went on to say:
Official secrets legislation is, therefore, the completion of the doctrine of freedom of information.
That might be the ideal but it is not the reality. The Official Secrets Act which we have in Canada is, as my colleague for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) pointed out in the earlier debate, enormously sweeping and catches up virtually everything anyone would think of.
Our present Official Secrets Act is not the completion of the doctrine of freedom of information. It is the antithesis of any principle of freedom of information. As it stands now, that act could serve to make any freedom of information legislation meaningless. More than that, our Official Secrets Act, which the government seems so loath to put up for revision, stands as an attitude of secrecy which pervades the government and its employees. The Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) referred to it as an unfortunate tradition, one which even he in his green paper is doing very little to dispel.
Freedom of Information
I want to take a look at this attitude of secrecy. I prefer to call it a presumption of secrecy and compare it to its opposite, a presumption of openness. Whatever form the principle of freedom of information is to take will be determined by whether it is based on a presumption of secrecy or a presumption of openness.
1 do not doubt the sincerity of the Secretary of State when he expressed before the Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments his concern that "government is too enclosed, that too much is hidden behind doors". Nor do I doubt that he truly desires to do something about the present situation. But I do doubt that he will go far enough, and I doubt that he will start from a presumption of openness.
The all-party committee on freedom of information expressed a similar reservation in its brief to the joint committee. Referring to the green paper's statement that exemptions should be confined to the genuine need for confidentiality, should be clear and few in number, the brief stated:
The all-party committee is in complete agreement. However, the committee does not think that the green paper has observed its own wisdom. The exemptions proposed in the green paper are fewer in number than the ones used in the notices for the production of papers, but are just as wide in their implications. In other words, if a member of parliament has had trouble with the notices for the production of papers, she or he would likely have just as much trouble with the freedom of information legislation that the government is presently in favour of introducing, no matter what form of review were adopted.
That was the stand of the all-party committee on freedom of information legislation.
The problem at hand is not whether there should be more open government; 1 think there is unanimous agreement that there should be. The problem is more subtle, and it deals with the attitude from which the more open government will arise. It deals from this basis: either an attitude of secrecy or an attitude of openness.
The attitude of the minister responsible for the green paper-and, unfortunately, it is shared by too many of his colleagues-is that of a government which owns its documents and must decide which of those documents it can release to the public.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) spoke about that very clearly this afternoon when he indicated that the government sees itself as being on one side and the public on the other. As he pointed out, even the title of the green paper is a reflection of that attitude on the part of the government. The title is "Public Access to Government Documents".
These are public documents. Government business is public business. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who we all know has been eloquent and outspoken on this subject, made that point succinctly in a recent article when he wrote:
Everything the government does is the public's business and the public, through its representatives in parliament, has the same right to information as the government decision makers ... The onus must be on the government to justify every instance of official secrecy.
6676

June 22, 1978
Freedom of Information
Stated in that way, that is an attitude of openness. It is a recognition that information in the hands of the government is public information. Not only does the government have a duty to provide that information to the public, but the public has a right to access to it.
The minister, unfortunately, is not operating from that presumption of openness. If he were, he would not have drawn up a list of exemptions which was so broad as to encompass anything the government wants to put in it. Nor would he be so eager to keep the review process within the control of ministers. I find it somewhat ironic that the minister justifies that position by trotting out a concept so often ignored by this government, the concept of ministerial responsibility. No, sir, the minister is operating from a presumption of secrecy. His green paper is just an extension of the present policy whereby the government decides what the public should know and what it should not know. It makes these decisions, we are told, in the public interest or for reasons of national security. These nebulous terms, "public interest" and "national security", turn out, more often than not, to mean the interest of the government.
A stunning example of this penchant for secrecy in the interest of the government is a reply of the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) in the House of Commons on June 8, just a couple of weeks ago. When asked to table a report on the operations of the Post Office, the 1975 Hay report, the minister replied with these words:
If that confidential document were made public it might embarrass some components of the Post Office Department that did not operate properly at the time, for various reasons.
It seems to me that whether or not certain components of the Post Office operate properly is a matter of public interest, and the public interest would best be served by making the report available. It is the government's interest that is being served by withholding it.
This example reaches absurd proportions when one reads in a Canada Post bulletin called "Com Team" that, and 1 quote:
We must remember that, in spite of what the press may say, these studies are not secret... It's true they are not made public, but there are good reasons for this.
What that bulletin said was that the documents are not secret, they are just not available.
This morning's newspaper gives another glaring example of where this attitude of secrecy has taken us. Last year in this parliament we enacted human rights legislation with a provision to allow individuals access to personal information about them which is contained in government files. This was a much needed and much heralded step toward countering the growing interest of government in the personal lives of citizens.
This morning we read about a case which illustrates a complete distortion of the intent of that legislation. A person was permitted to see government files about himself only on condition that he sign a pledge never to divulge what he saw. In addition to that, he was warned, if newspaper stories are correct, that if he violated that pledge he could be charged under the Official Secrets Act. This man was fired from his job for unspecified security reasons. He has been effectively

blacklisted in his occupation, and he cannot clear his name because he cannot divulge what information the government has about him, whether it is true or not.
Given the possibility of similar occurrences and given the broad categories of exemption in the green paper, I do not have much faith in this government's commitment to freedom of information. If the government were to have the final discretion in a dispute over releasing such documents, what would be its decision? What would be the decision of the minister?
Much as I welcome freedom of information legislation, I would welcome it more if I was convinced that it would allow for independent judicial review and if I could be certain that the final decision in cases of dispute would rest in the courts. I would not welcome freedom of information legislation which left the final decision in the hands of a paternalistic government minister who thought he or she knew best what was in the public's interest to know or not know, or in the hands of a protective minister who would protect the interests of a department over those of the public.
Open government does not have to be a threat to those in power. An informed public is able to rationalize the information it receives and come to intelligent conclusions about the workings of government. Access to reports on the operations of the Post Office, for example, might serve to make the public more aware of the difficulties which are involved in such a gigantic department. It might make citizens more confident that something is being done about them and that someone really does care about their mail delivery.
Similarly, with regard to nuclear safety, a matter of critical significance to all of us which is very much in the news these days, the public might be more trusting of the government if it could be made aware of all the facts and information rather than getting bits and pieces of alarming information through leaked sources and leaked documents. People would be less apt to jump to conclusions or to offer simplistic solutions if they could be certain that the government was levelling with them and treating them with trust and respect, no matter how difficult, dangerous or technical the subject matter and the situation.
Ignorance, contrary to the popular aphorism, is not bliss and the people who live in Pickering or Douglas Point do not rest easier knowing that there are any number of facts about nuclear safety that are being withheld from them, and they are told that it is presumably for their own good. They might, however, feel more secure knowing all the facts instead of leaving so much to imagination.
Knowledge is power, and unless a citizenry has knowledge, it is powerless. In order to assert themselves, in order to take part in a democratic process, individual citizens and organizations must have access to the information they need. Without adequate information, citizens are alienated from the decisionmaking process.
June 22, 1978

Not only does this break in the outflow of information and the equally pervasive overclassification of information in government hands work to the detriment of the democratic system, but as well it places conscientious civil servants in a difficult position. These people, who have a sense of what is right and of what the public has a right to know, are, because of an ingrained and overrestricted syndrome of secrecy on the part of the government, being forced to invoke their own brand of civil disobedience through the anonymous brown envelope. The continuous aura of secrecy creates a dilemma for them and they are forced to deal with it as best they can. That does not say a great deal for the openness of government.
As members of parliament seeking to get information to meet the needs of the individual Canadians whom we represent throughout this country, we probably all have our own set stories of ludicrous examples as to what can happen when this aura of secrecy is carried to the extreme. Just recently my own office attempted to get a copy of a magazine from a government department. We had read in the newspaper that a certain issue of the British magazine, The Economist, was available because of an article it contained on the Canadian economy. My office called for a copy of it and was told that the department had copies, indeed had lots of copies, but it took several calls back and forth to several different people because no one was sure if it was quite proper to release a copy of that magazine to me. That edition of the magazine was one of over a year ago.
Most Canadians are intelligent and mature people who are able to understand and sort out the myriad pieces of information with which they are bombarded every day. It comes at them through all sorts of media and in all sorts of situations. They absorb complex and technical facts constantly, but to date they have not been done in by this information explosion, and 1 do not expect that they will be.
I think it is time that the government recognized that they are able to handle information on their own and that they do not need the experts in government to do it for them. A little more faith in the ability of the ordinary Canadian would go a long way in changing the entrenched attitude of secrecy with regard to information that the government could provide. So 1 say, let us attempt to make such faith the basis of our freedom of information legislation.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate because I think it is a very important topic that is of concern to Canadians. 1 am somewhat surprised when I hear speakers for the opposition trying to lay at the door of this government the tendency to secrecy and the protection of government information. This is not something that can be dropped at the doorstep of one party or one government in this country, and that can be demonstrated by the fact that there are all across this country governments of various political persuasions which are less willing to release information than the federal government.


An hon. Member:: There is only one federal government.
Freedom of Information


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I might remind the hon. member that there is also only one federal official opposition.
We have introduced in the House Bill C-12, the purpose of which is to provide legislative authority for the collection of certain statistics relating to Canada's petroleum industry in order, first, to enable the Government of Canada better to plan and develop policies for the management of Canada's energy supplies and resources and, second, to provide the Government of Canada with the detailed knowledge necessary to give authoritative assurance to the Canadian people that those policies are being effectively pursued in Canada.
That bill has been opposed by the official opposition, for what reason 1 do not know, but it is an attempt by the government to obtain information which can assure Canadians that information on the development of our natural petroleum resources is made available to the Canadian public. As I say, the bill has been opposed by the official opposition, so again it is not something that can be laid at the door of any particular party.
Someone across the way thinks it is a joke. 1 do not know what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) finds so funny, but if he continues to follow the course he has followed in the last month-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the hon. member has inquired, let me tell him that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said that if the hon. member was defending us on a murder charge, we would be charged with attempted suicide.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite are the obvious experts in the House on suicide, at least political suicide. As I was saying, if the Leader of the Opposition continues on the course he has been following in the last few months, he will probably become the only Leader of the Opposition in Canadian history known for having lost his job by the seat of his pants.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: If you want an explanation, it is because he talks all the time from the seat of his pants.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: There is an obvious need in this country, as there is in any country, for some secrecy, and I would like to deal very briefly with some of the situations in which secrecy or curtailment of information is required. Obviously, national security is one of those areas. The hon. member who preceded me referred to national security as being a nebulous term. It does not seem to me a particularly nebulous term. It seems to me to be a very important term because the security of our nation, after all, should be the first priority of any government. It is obvious that if there is no confidentiality of information with regard to
8004 5-5 5 'A

June 22, 1978
Freedom of Information
national security, the government and the security services of this country will not be able to gather information in order to protect the freedoms we enjoy in this country; and despite the charges that are made, there is no country in the world that enjoys more freedom than we do in Canada.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You should ask Dr. Treu.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: 1 do not have to ask Dr. Treu, who is being defended quite ably by the white knight from Peace River.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Thank you. The second area where confidentiality of information and secrecy are necessary is national defence. The armed forces of the nation must have some assurance that their operational, tactical and strategic plans have confidentiality. Otherwise, there is no point in their making such plans. Of course, the same rule should apply to police and security force investigations.
It goes without saying that no government can function at cabinet level without knowing that the discussions which take place within the walls of the cabinet room are confidential and privy to the members who participate therein. Also it would be extremely difficult to carry on international or federal-provincial negotiations completely in public. There has to be some confidentiality and a degree of confidence on the part of those who participate in the negotiations that what they say in those sessions will remain confidential. Obviously there must be some give and take. The nature of politics being what it is, the leaders of various governments who participate in these negotiations will want to know that the concessions or the compromises they make at the expense of a smaller constituency, in order to advance the interests of a larger constituency, will not be held against them.
Another area where secrecy is required is in the preparation of the budget. Of late we have seen the efforts of a rather innovative Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). He attempted to consult other levels of government in the preparation of a budget and was charged with violating budget secrecy. That is somewhat of an about face in that it comes from a party which is calling for absolute openness. In the preparation of changes in monetary or fiscal policies, the government must be careful not to give away what it plans to announce on budget day, so that some individuals will not be able to take unfair advantage of that information.
Having dealt with the negative side of freedom of information, or the lack thereof, I should like to deal with the necessity for information. The public at large must have access to sufficient information to make rational decisions concerning the actions of governments at both federal and provincial levels, and in order to be able to make rational decisions in the casting of their ballots. It is only by this process that the electorate will have a full appreciation of the actions taken by government and will be able to make sensible and logical

decisions as to which candidate they should support during elections.
The public has an interest in the information accumulated by the government in the exercise of its responsibilities. In the final analysis, that is the only way we can have responsible government. Free elections will not mean very much if the public does not have access to sufficient information in order to make a rational and sensible decision on election day.


Howard Earl Johnston: The government told them that wage and price controls would not be brought in.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: We did not say
any such thing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: That is another example of the type of fallacy hon. members opposite have been spreading over the last four years because they were burned on their own policy of freezes.
Another reason for the public having access to information is that they can determine whether there is honesty and forthrightness in the administration of public good. If information is not made available, the public will not be able to decide whether the rumours, reports, stories, and so on, which they hear and read are accurate.
Whatever government may be in power, it is in its interest to make available all possible information in order for the public to make a rational decision concerning the actions of government. The federal and provincial representatives chosen by the people must have access to the information they require in order to carry out the responsibilities which were assigned to them on election day. It is impossible for any member of parliament or any member of a provincial legislature to make adequate representations on behalf of his or her constituents unless the detailed information on which to make those representations is available. They must have access to the information which the bureaucracy of the various ministries holds, whether it is correct or not.


Howard Earl Johnston: How about Treu?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: In far too many cases that information must be dragged out of the bureaucracy with a great deal of effort on the part of the representatives.


Benno Friesen: And the cabinet ministers.


Howard Earl Johnston: And the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Hon. members opposite seem to be interested in making representations from their seats rather than rising to make speeches. I hope they will listen to my remarks in order for them to learn something, and perhaps we will receive some consistency in the representations they make.


Howard Earl Johnston: Our trouble is that we have been listening.
June 22, 1978


Maurice Adrian Dionne: In my comments I was not referring to any particular party. We have only to witness what happens in the provinces, as well as in the federal capital, to see that the penchant for secrecy is not confined to any one party. Many problems could be averted if there were consultation and a free flow of information. For example, the waste of public funds in industrial adventures which are poorly conceived and executed-might be avoided if the public knew what the government was investing from the beginning, and what future plans the government had for the investment of public funds in those ventures.
Over the past quarter of a century, the developed world has experienced an absolutely phenomenal increase in the information which has become available through scientific study and the complex problems that has created. Representatives such as myself have not been able to keep pace with the complexity of these issues because we have not been given the tools to do so. Again, if anyone is to blame it is ourselves, and perhaps the public at large, for not demanding of government that their representatives be given sufficient staff and research assistants in order to keep fully informed of the complex issues we face.
Government, on the other hand, has been able to more or less keep pace by hiring in the public service in its jurisdiction the experts it needs to deal with these complexities. Because of the complexities of the problems we face and because society itself has become much more complex in the last 25 years, bureaucracy has grown at a rather phenomenal rate and there has been a passive usurpation of power that should belong to the elected representatives of the people into the hands of the bureaucracy, which very often seems to be accountable to no one. That seems to me to be the crux of the problem. We should be talking about accountability rather than freedom of information.
I have no objection to the term "freedom of information", but when we have absolute accountability we will automatically have freedom of information, it seems to me. We have in this country many public servants who are extremely dedicated and knowledgeable and who are in many cases making personal financial sacrifice, personal family sacrifice and personal leisure sacrifice to serve their country, so I do not want my remarks to be misconstrued as an attack on the bureaucracy. But over the years the power base has shifted, in my opinion, from the elected representatives of the people to the continuing invisible government that is known as the bureaucracy. Until that power base is shifted back into the hands of the people who are put here by the public at large to represent them, we will continue to have a problem in respect of freedom of information.
What must happen, in my view, is that members of elected legislatures have to be given the tools, and they must receive adequate compensation. 1 am not complaining about the compensation level of federal members of parliament, but at the provincial level, particularly of some of the provinces of this great and wealthy nation of ours, the recompense offered is a disgrace.
Freedom of Information


Howard Earl Johnston: Let's hear it for the federal members while you are at it. Don't chicken out.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: 1 understand the hon. member would not be interested because he is quitting. In any event, I am not complaining about my level of recompense, but I do complain about the fact that, although we are considered responsible enough to represent constituencies containing anywhere from 45,000 or 50,000 people to 120,000 or 130,000 people, we are not yet considered by this institution itself to be sufficiently responsible to control a budget for the employment of personnel in our own offices. If the institution in which we serve has no confidence in us, I wonder how the people are to have any confidence in us.
I have tried in my few brief remarks to point out that the problem, in my view, is one not of freedom of information but of accountability. I am referring to the accountability of the invisible government which cannot be changed by any election, no matter what party is elected to office. Until that situation is changed, and until the elected representatives of the people have control over that invisible government, we will continue to have a problem in respect of access to information.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I respond first for just a minute or so to the speech of the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne). I agree with him that there is a problem regarding accountability; this is a problem of all democratic governments today. But that accountability will never be achieved in the system under which we operate until there is available to the elected members, whether they be of a legislature, of a city or of this federal parliament, the knowledge and the facts upon which they can challenge government and make it accountable. Accountability will follow knowledge and the capacity to challenge and scrutinize the actions of government and the executive branch of government, whether it be the elective or the appointive. That is the problem we face in Canada and which legislators face all over the world.
I agree with the hon. member on another aspect. We do not restrict this criticism to Ottawa alone. I am glad to say that in the province of Nova Scotia my old friend, Premier Regan, enacted a freedom of information bill. I think that is the first parliamentary institution, following the Westminster tradition, which has done so. I give him credit for that and I have told him so. I would have had a better bill, I hope, but at least it is a bill and a start.
I have every reason to believe that the legislature of that province from which the hon. member comes will shortly introduce a freedom of information bill. Mr. Davis of the province of Ontario has established a royal commission which is making enquiries into the matter, and white papers are being prepared elsewhere. This is essential because the people demand it. The people are frustrated, sick of and dissatisfied with the system of government that has controlled them so far.
I want to extend my thanks to hon. members who have spoken about the limited contribution I have been able to make in this regard. Many of us come to this institution with

June 22, 1978
Freedom of Information
the genuine intention of making a contribution, not only for our own constituencies and provinces, but for the people of Canada. Many of us have had the opportunity of taking up causes which others have initiated, taking up the torch and carrying it forward, and perhaps handing it on to someone else. 1 have had that privilege. Many of my friends sitting on both sides of the House have had the same opportunity; and I pay tribute to all those who preceded me, including Mr. Barry Mather and others, who supported this cause and made a genuine impact in parliament with the first legislation.
I also want to pay tribute to the Joint Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. That is an example of a committee where members of this House and the other place of all parties have worked together zealously and will produce a report shortly. In a way this will inhibit my speech today. I have the honour to be one of the co-chairmen of that committee, and a report has been drafted by the steering committee and will be presented shortly to the main committee. With knowledge of what is in that report I think I should restrict my remarks to matters not dealing with what might be the content of the legislation. 1 pay great tribute to that committee and all its members, because not only have we had that task, we have had the other very onerous responsibility of dealing with statutory instruments and regulations.
As a simple indication of that, I say to the House through you, sir, that since February 1 we have examined almost 1,000 regulations and statutory instruments. We had five, six or seven people sitting in a dusty little room down in the basement once a week. Just today we examined 75 or 80 of these statutory instruments. The very fact that this committee exists is an indication that if there are good people who believe in a cause, it is possible for members, and not necessarily members of the government, to promote it and bring it to fruition.
The gestation period of reform is always lengthy, and with regard to statutory instruments it was probably 23 years from the time we first debated this in the House until the late Lester Pearson first established a committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Mac-Guigan). That committee reported and legislation was introduced-imperfect legislation, but legislation. A committee was established, counsel were finally persuaded to come to the committee to lend their services-excellent counsel-and at the present time this is an effective working committee which protects the people of this country by examining in detail and challenging, where necessary, orders in council and regulations which form by far the great mass of laws that have an impact on the people of Canada. And so it will be with freedom of information. I want to extend my gratitude to the members of that committee for the services they have performed.
Sometimes I wish that there was sitting up in the gallery tonight some familiar names, Walter Rudnicki, Dr. Treu, Bernard Maguire and other people who have suffered from inability to obtain information or government transgressions, but people who have had the intestinal fortitude and capacity

to fight back. But for every Dr. Treu, for every Bernard Maguire, how many hundreds are there who have suffered from this inability to find out information, to secure facts which have had an adverse impact upon them, and to fight the battle to try and secure a remedy? How many people are there who say, "We can't beat city hall, we can't challenge it," who meekly accept the facts, submit to the indignities, the loss of reputation, and the loss of money or jobs? How many hundreds and thousands are there in that category in this country?
It is only now that we are beginning to find out, through the experiences of the last few months, what the situation really is. It is a dangerous one and we have to do something about it. For example, the other day when I was speaking in the House the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said to me that I should go and plead the case of Dr. Treu in the courts of Quebec. He was being facetious. But I seek no allowance from the Prime Minister in this House to speak up for what I think are the requirements of justice and equity for any man.
I would suggest to the right hon. gentleman if he were here that it is not Dr. Treu who is on trial so much as this parliament that is on trial. It is on trial in the minds of the people of Canada. We cannot wait because time does not wait, because there is present in the minds of many people in this country today the feeling of dissatisfaction and frustration that the government is no longer there. They talk about "we and they"; there is a lack of understanding, sympathy and co-operation, all of which must exist if the government wishes to produce the kind of rules, laws, equity and decency essential today in this very difficult world that we live in.
I literally shudder, Mr. Speaker, when I think that this party will be called upon to form a government after the next election, with the problems and the limited tools which exist. For that reason, I was gratified to hear the leader of our party say today that it would be a matter of urgent priority to undertake to bring before this House a freedom of information bill to make it possible for this House and the people of Canada to know what is going on. I was gratified, not only because of the idea itself, but because it is in earnest. It is an understanding, a beginning and a sign to the people of this country that there is at long last a government which understands that it governs by and with the consent of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: When that happens there will, at long last, return to this House the essential element of confidence which is lacking in this country today. There is money in the banks, there is talent, there is knowledge, there is experience, there are resources; but there is a lack of confidence in the mind of the average person in Canada in the capacity of this government and this parliament to operate for and on their behalf, to pass the rules of conduct which will make it possible for them to live the life they should. It is a simple thing and yet a very precious and important thing. If that confidence is brought back, I have no hesitation at all about what will happen in this country.
June 22, 1978

I made mention of Mr. Bernard Maguire, as did my hon. friend for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). I think I should pay a little attention to that case. Some months ago in a committee of this House we dealt with human rights legislation, which was good legislation. Part IV of that bill provided for, allegedly, the right of individuals to have access to their own files. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) with eloquence and skill both here and in the committee said, "This is a great thing; at long last people who want to look at their own files have the right to do so and to correct them if the information is wrong".
What has happened in the case of Maguire? It is a typical illustration of the failure of this government to bring to fruition the promises which were made at the time this legislation was introduced. Mr. Maguire was dismissed three years ago and told after he challenged it that it was for security reasons. His union took all the grievance procedures it could, but they were rejected. He was told through the grievance procedures to go to the courts, whereupon he went to the supreme court trial division and then to appeal but got nowhere.
Suddenly, at long last, there appeared on the scene part IV of the Human Rights Act. Mr. Maguire went through the offices of a former colleague of ours, the chief commissioner, Mr. Gordon Fairweather, who is doing an excellent job, and secured what he thought would be the right to examine his own file under section 52 of the act. At the time he had to sign a document, a copy of which I have here, which says that he reviewed his personal file, including folio so and so and initialled each folio accordingly, and then says, "I recognize that folios"-and there are eight numbered folios-"are classified and that the contents are not to be divulged to third parties." Then he signed that. He could not go there with counsel or with an adviser, only with a security official who is a sub-official of Mr. Jenkins, an employee from supply and services connected with the Treu case. Mr. Maguire found in those folios what he considered to be certain proof that he was not a security risk and that the job from which he had been dismissed did not require security clearance in the first place. So he had been lied to about that.
What does he do now under this famous right of access to one's file? He has no opportunity to try and redeem himself or to repair his good name. He can make no attempt to recover the loss he sustained and is condemned to go through life with this blot on his name.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) has not committed himself definitely but I judge from what he said that the government leans heavily toward the idea that if there is a freedom of information law, it will not provide for an appeal to an independent judicial tribunal. Exactly the same reasoning was advanced when the human rights legislation was debated in the House and in committee. We were told that we had good, kind, intelligent, honest ministers who would give out information and that appeals could be made to a privacy commissioner. The commissioner had no power to compel the
Freedom of Information
ministers to produce documents, however, and there were too many exemptions in the privacy provision of the human rights legislation. If we have a freedom of information act without a firm declaration of ultimate appeal to the courts, the situation will be exactly the same.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that I have only a few minutes left but I wanted to make a suggestion. Some time ago a task force was established to inquire into government services. In the summing up in volume 1 of its report there appears the following recommendations:
The right of Canadians to full, objective and timely information and the obligation of the State to provide such information about its programs and policies be publicly declared and stand as the foundation for the development of new government policies in this field. This right and obligation might be comprehended within a new constitution in the context of freedom of expression.
As we proceed in the next weeks and months to a consideration of the new constitution and the bill of rights which is to be embedded in it, 1 suggest that we should examine this recommendation very carefully. Most international charters on human rights contain a provision for freedom of speech and freedom to receive and impart information. I should like to think that there would be embedded in our constitution-with the bill of rights which I hope will emerge in due course-a declaration that the people of Canada have a right to be informed on what their government is doing, much like the Swedish right of information.
I am not alone in that view, Mr. Speaker. On February 10, 1970, when the Prime Minister tabled the theme of the Information Canada program which he obtained from the task force report, he made the following statement which is reported at page 3405 of Hansard for that day:
The task force made 17 major recommendations. We accept those recommendations in principle, with two exceptions. Recommendation number five proposed the establishment of a citizens advisory bureau and neighbourhood councils. The government is sympathetic toward this proposal but feels it warrants further study. Recommendation number ten suggested that a government agency undertake a role as public advocate which we feel more properly belongs to parliament.
I will pass up the opportunity to comment on the last phrase, Mr. Speaker. In that statement, as I understand it, the Prime Minister accepted implicitly the recommendation of the task force that a provision for freedom of expression should be written into the new constitution. I lay this before the House at this time and hope that it will be implemented.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I hope that some hon. members opposite will be persuaded to vote for this motion. No government will fall on issues of this kind. It is not likely that enough members opposite will vote for the motion for the government to be defeated, but if any of them honestly feel, as 1 know some do, that there is a need for a right to know, that right ought to be hedged by adequate protection. If they feel this way, let them say so with their vote and let the people of Canada know that there are members on both sides of the House who believe in this principle and its protection.

June 22, 1978
Freedom of Information


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, to speak of freedom of information is immediately and logically to refer to a truly democratic administration. In our parliamentary system, the people elect governments and the latter exist only through the will of the citizens, will expressed without constraints, without pressure, and therefore in all freedom and full awareness during democratic elections. Consequently, when a citizen is poorly informed, or not informed, badly or incompletely informed, he runs the danger, though unconsciously, it is true, of contributing to the election of a government he would not wish to have, or which the majority really does not wish the country to be stuck with. The opening sentence of the green paper on public access to government documents, tabled by the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) on June 29, 1977, states that clearly, and I quote:
Open government is the basis of democracy.
May 1 be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to read the first two paragraphs of the introduction to the green paper, and I quote:
It is an essential consequence of the extension of the franchise to all adult citizens. For a democratic society is one in which the exercise of governmental power is undertaken not by an elite according to its own precepts, but by an executive accountable to the public itself for the goals of goverment action and the effectiveness of government performance in their achievement.
Democratic government must be government acceptable to the collectivity of citizens. To ensure that it is acceptable, there must be a political system to establish that government is accountable. Effective accountability-the public's judgment of the choices taken by government-depends on knowing the information and options available to the decision makers. Assessment of government depends upon a full understanding of the context within which decisions are made.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, despite those beautiful ideal evocations about open government, and consequently a democratic government, it is a secret for no one that a host of decisions made by the government are hatched in the great secrecy of departmental dens where the thinkers, those great mandarins of the public service, do their thing.
Consequently, the product we get, aside from the intentions expressed in election programs, speeches from the throne, white, green or yellow papers or whatever colour you want, press releases, speeches by ministers, the various information provided by members of parliament, the media and other means of information, the product we get, Mr. Speaker, escapes the prior influence of the public. So the knowledge of the process used at arriving at a government decision which can affect the daily lives of the public, the citizenry, for years to come is practically, not to say absolutely, nil. Such a secretive attitude is not unique to the Government of Canada; most governments, indeed all provincial governments in Canada, most western governments suffer from that morbid fear of making public information that could further enlighten people on the existence of certain government measures which they consider unduly coercive and which sometimes seem to interfere seriously with their freedom.
[Mr. Baldwin.)
However, Mr. Speaker, it must be recognized that governments, particularly the Government of Canada, never did so with a view to knowingly hiding anything from the people to harm them. Never! On the contrary, and this is why those who favour greater access to government information-and 1 am one of them-have serious reservations, when national security, which has not yet been defined, so requires, certain information is considered confidential and up until now the policy of the government has been that such information cannot be divulged for important reasons. The same applies to the duty of the state, which possesses much information about individual citizens, to protect the right to privacy of those individuals.
Mr. Speaker, freedom of information is an issue which interests everyone, and especially our constituents, the citizens of Canada. By passing such legislation as the Human Rights Act, which was referred to earlier, and by introducing recently Bill C-43 concerning the ombudsman, the government clearly shows that it wants to keep the commitment that it made in the green paper to protect by legislation the basic rights of Canadians. The Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) reasserted recently in the Joint Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments the commitment of the government to introduce legislation on public access to government papers and stated that, as minister responsible, he was prepared to submit as soon as possible to the cabinet a recommendation on the position of the government in this matter and to introduce a bill during the next session of parliament.
Mr. Speaker, these are serious indications that the government wants to act in this area and we should be happy about this. Since I am a member of the standing joint committee, I have had the opportunity to study in depth the green paper on this issue and to hear the many memoranda submitted to the committee. I wish to point out that the committee is drafting a report, as the vice-chairman mentioned it a while ago, and it should be tabled in parliament in the near future. The green paper which was tabled in the House on June 29, 1977 and referred to the joint standing committee to be considered thoroughly provides a framework to discuss the basic questions and the issues which should be taken in consideration in any legislation on the freedom of information. Its purpose was to provoke criticism and in a certain way to launch the debate. I can tell you that we were successful judging by the many submissions and the comments made by the witnesses.
The groups which appeared before the committee made up a fine sampling of the Canadian public; there were some spokesmen for the professional classes, for various organizations and movements. In several cases, a new aspect of that most complex question was shown to us. To introduce a bill on public access to government documents is to pull out official decisionmaking from under a veil of secrecy. But, as I said earlier, this is only one of several steps which the government has already taken or will take to preserve the fundamental rights of the
June 22, 1978

people, while maintaining among Canadians the necessary atmosphere of openness and confidence.
Therefore, this is not, as a number of groups have suggested, a means to remedy the shortcomings and imperfections of our current democratic government. The purposes of this bill is merely to make available to Canadians the documents which private citizens and groups wish to look into in order to understand better the mechanisms of government. Freedom of information is part of our human rights; when considering it, one must take into account the current legislation and bills which aim at protecting the fundamental rights of all Canadians and at favouring respect for these rights.
Some witnesses who brought evidence before the committee seemed to attach too much importance to the mechanism of the administration of a piece of legislation on freedom of information. Of course, this is an important principle to consider in view of any piece of legislation but we should bear in mind the important thing, which is to give good service to the public. On the evidence of the experience we acquired through the implementation of relating pieces of legislation, namely the legislation on individual rights, we noticed that, to obtain the expected results, a piece of legislation should be understandable and accessible and be directed to all Canadians rather than being an instrument for certain interest groups.
1 should also say that this is the appropriate time, because we can take advantage of the experience of those countries which already passed legislation on freedom of information, namely Sweden and the United States. We can also take into consideration the ongoing deliberations and the discussions on this complex issue both in this country and abroad. But we must not forget that, while drawing a lesson from that experience, we must shape our legislation to the particular needs of Canadians.
Because of the open-mindedness that was present at the committee, its deliberations, I repeat, drew active participation. However, three main issues dominated the briefs which were presented: the exemptions, the cost and the review of complaints. By exemptions, we mean cases where access to documents would be justifiably forbidden. By cost, the expenses resulting from the implementation of the legislation on public access to government documents. The review of complaints would be done through a process inherent in any appeal procedure. As some of my colleagues will speak on the two first points, exemptions and cost, 1 would like to briefly touch upon the complaint review. It would only come into play-I mean the complaint review-when access to a document in refused. Those who suggest a judicial review seem to consider the whole matter within the framework of our present system of opposition between the prosecutor and the defendant. After all, the judicial review is but one of the solutions proposed in the green paper. And the review of the complaints will be only one of the elements, among many others, of the proposed legislation.
Freedom of Information
A number of witnesses before the committee seemed to be wanting to deal only with the complaint review board, thus attaching more importance to this board than it might ever have. The Bar, in particular, has expressed the opinion that any law on public access to information which would not require a judicial review of the matter would only be a hollow commitment on the part of the government. I fully appreciate the point of view of the Canadian Bar Association and the comparison they make with what is being done in the U.S., but I maintain that there are other solutions that are just as good.
It must be noted that this government, with the Human Rights Act, the Official Languages Act and the proposed legislation on the ombudsman, has proved by actual measures that they strive to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens, which is akin to the concept of a commissioner. For any bill relating to freedom of information, which is an analogous issue, one must also take this notion into its conception.
The green paper carries an extensive survey of the various possible ways of appeal. The witnesses have all tried to present the ideal solution to the standing committee. They have actually put forth a certain number of new ideas. One, for instance, Mr. Speaker was to give the Prime Minister the ultimate say in such matters. The press gallery proposed in its brief the designation of a commissioner for information who would be accountable to parliament and who would have the power to review the documents in camera but not power of invalidating a ruling. As for the National Anti-Poverty Organization it proposed instituting a parliamentary commission whose members could become the attorneys of those who seek the release of information.
It goes without saying that in order for that law to really produce its effects, an independent review commission must be established to pass rulings on cases where information will have been denied because the law would not otherwise be fair. Therefore a review commission for the hearing of complaints must be set up and characterized by its firmness and efficiency.
However I want to remind those groups who have strongly supported the principle of judicial review based on the United States model that the average cost of an appeal is $10,000 and that even on a priority basis the time needed to get a case before the courts varies from six months to two years. One must not forget either that a relatively small number of documents is involved. For instance, the Secretary of State who testified before the committee revealed that there are about 4.5 million documents out of which barely 2 per cent are classified. It is understood that a high percentage of government documents are absolutely not sensitive and do not therefore constitute an issue. The recommendations contained in the report presented by the committee to parliament will surely deal with these complex issues and will put forth solutions.
In closing my remarks I wish to reiterate that the only thing which concerns me and I think concerns most if not all the
6684

June 22, 1978
Freedom of Information
members of that committee is the desirability of bringing about before the end of this decade a good legislation which will give all Canadians access to government documents without causing any prejudice to the smooth operation of our democratic regime. The ultimate objective is on the one side to have a reasonable and receptive government and on the other side an active and dynamic citizenry.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with great interest to my colleague on the statutory instruments committee, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard). 1 think I caught in his words an acceptance of the idea of a great deal of openness in government beyond that which we now have. I heard him say that he would be in favour of some type of independent review procedure which I, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and most members of this House favour. However, I did not hear the hon. member for Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine make a statement with regard to the last part of the motion before the House today, which reads:
-subject to a review process with ultimate appeal to the courts.
I hope that was an omission from his speech. I have been his colleague on that committee for some time. I know him to be a man of fair and open mind. 1 know that is not confined only to the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine in terms of the other side of the House, but rests in the minds of other members both on and off the committee.
I would like the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine and others who feel that way to demonstrate their commitment to openness tonight by supporting the motion. I use the word "demonstrate". 1 want them to demonstrate by deed that commitment to openness tonight by supporting the resolution before the House standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). It will not be the first time that members of this House have done that. It was done on February 12, 1976 when a unanimous resolution was adopted by this House of Commons.
The motion before us tonight asks the members of this House to take one more step. It is a simple step, but a profound one in terms of the whole meaning of freedom of information. That is to assure the citizen, the bureaucrat, the politician, the supporter of the government and the opposition, and, most important, the members of the executive and the cabinet, that there has been a commitment in this parliament to an ultimate review of the question whether documents will be released or information will be forthcoming to an authority outside the political or bureaucratic process.
That is the important part of this resolution. I ask the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine-and I will look at him when we vote in a few minutes-to stand in the affirmative on this resolution.
I listened to the speeches today. Years ago for members of parliament and members of the public the issues that affected us, moved us and caused debates in this and other legislative

chambers were relatively simple. I guess it was appropriate in those days for this House and members of the public to make judgments more or less on instinct or reach an understanding of a set of facts or technical factors which were relatively minor or uncomplicated. But as society changed, so did the relationship of the government to parliament and the relationship of the government to the people. Governments for better or for worse-and the situation we deal with is for worse- intruded into the lives of the citizens in a democratic country. Issues have become more complex.
The tools and machinery of eighteenth and nineteenth century parliamentary government are inadequate for their role today. They are inadequate for our job as parliamentarians and inadequate to supply information so that the people of our country can be informed exactly what government is doing, why it is doing it, whether something should be changed and, more important, to make government more accountable to the people and to parliament.
That is why in this day and age we talk about openness as a concept that is desirable. We can discuss the role of the ombudsman because the bureaucracy, even if it is well inten-tioned, tends to roll over people and push them aside. It thinks of them as statistics rather than human beings. Because of this intrusion of governments, the development of the computer and the facility of exchanging information almost as rapidly as it is created, we call for legislation for the protection of privacy.
Because of this complexity and because there is a growing need in this parliament, it is recognized that this and other parliaments are inadequate to do the job of bringing government to reasonable account-not to impede or obstruct, but to make it account.
We talk about the reform of parliamentary procedures because it is important that the power which is contained within knowledge is shared in a free society. Because that is not happening today, we talk about freedom of information laws, laws that will not impede or stop a government from governing reasonably but which will give those who are governed, the people who entrust the power of government to a group of men and women for a period of time, a sharing of power and a lessening of the concentration of the power which is contained within that knowledge.
There are exemptions which have been set forth in the green paper. My friend the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine outlined some of those exemptions. I do not intend to deal with them all. I do not agree with them. I think the paper is far too restrictive in this the beginning of the pursuit of openness by government.
Be that as it may, a committee of this House is working on a report which I think will be a landmark in terms of providing something new and bringing part of our procedures into tune with the first part of the twentieth century, if not the last. However well intentioned a cabinet minister, deputy minister or those below him who would make a decision as to what information could be released to an inquiring member of the
June 22, 1978

public, it is axiomatic that from time to time information will be withheld, not on the ground that it is confidential, that it affects national unity, national defence, the involvement of the criminal law, personal business affairs or a whole host of exemptions which have been talked about, but simply on the ground that what may be released may embarrass, upset, tend to politicize the public service or a whole host of reasons.
I suggest that in a free society with the healthy scepticism which ought to be the hallmark of a free society all those things are irrelevant to the question whether that information should be released. It is against this whole tradition of closet politics and closet bureaucratic operations that this resolution, the work of the committee and, I hope, the vote of this House tonight will move.
Today the Leader of the Opposition took the position that this motion was not considered by the official opposition-the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) supported this position, and I did so yesterday in my capacity-to be a matter of confidence. In other words, what we are trying to say to the government-perhaps not articulately but, I think directly-is that what we want today out of this resolution is a buttress and support for the committee which is now drafting a report on freedom of information.
We want this parliament to act openly, notoriously and freely in terms of the party whips. We do not want hon. members to be pressured in terms of their votes. Like certain other things which go on here regarding freedom of information, we want this vote on freedom of information to be a matter of the conscience of each hon. member. We want each hon. member to decide for himself or herself whether he or she believes in this concept, and that ultimately the question of judicial review is not repugnant to the idea of open government. We stand by that, and 1 repeat it as House leader of the opposition.
I invite my hon. friends opposite who believe firmly in this resolution to support it. If they do, I guarantee that there will be no calls for this government to resign. Indeed, if hon. members opposite support this resolution, they will do themselves, let alone parliament and the people of the country, a great service. That was the spirit in which this resolution was advanced.
There are some who say that judicial review is a bad thing, that judges are not fit and that they do not have the knowledge necessary to deal with the complex issue of documents. The experience in this country is exactly contrary to that line of argument. We have trusted judges such as Mr. Justice Berger in dealing with the complex matters of native people and pipelines. These are things which are normally foreign to what we think judges might deal with. We have trusted judges to conduct hearings regarding labour relations. We have trusted judges to conduct royal commissions and commissions of inquiry which have nothing to do with the law, but which have much to do with complex technical questions and other matters. Judges are capable of dealing with such matters. There are some who say that courts would be plugged with freedom of information matters. That has not been the case in the
Freedom of Information
United States which, I am sorry to say, is a much more open society than ours.
I ask my hon. friends who may be considering voting for this resolution to look at the word "ultimate" which appears in it. The resolution refers to "a review process with ultimate appeal to the courts". That word "ultimate" relating to appeals was put there for a very important reason. It may very well be that the committee, and ultimately this parliament-or the government when it drafts the legislation-will establish a commissioner of information or some other office to which the great bulk of appeals could be taken, before which procedures would be summary and matters would be completed quickly and easily. It may be that only a minimum of those matters would ultimately go to the courts.
I do not see how we could sit idly by and let this moment pass without standing in our places and speaking on behalf of an open and free society, to which we give lip service on so many occasions. I invite the government to give more than lip service to this concept, to stand behind the courts as appropriate authorities and to take this step in giving not only to parliament but also to people, not the secret and confidential information which is passed from a public servant to a minister or the conversations or the memoranda which may go into the decision-making process ultimately, but all the factual documents which lead up to the suggestion of options.
1 invite the government to take this step and to make available background documents which inform ministers and are used by the public service to advise ministers with respect to various options in particular matters. Why ought not those be released, especially in a day when we feel so strongly about access to courts that we fund pressure groups to take actions against governments? It would not be a much larger step to provide information with which those pressure groups and other groups in society could operate.
I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on this motion and on the principles which are contained therein.
I also want to say that it is an honour for me to follow in debate for a few moments the hon. member for Peace River, who has become the advocate of openness in Canada and as such has brought honour to this House. He has always acted in the highest tradition of this House and the profession of which he is a member.
This can be one of two kinds of days in parliament. It can be a day upon which the government does not accept an unusual invitation by the opposition not to treat this as a matter of confidence or follows its ordinary course of suggesting that motions which come from the opposition side ought not to have any attention paid to them. Or, it can be another kind of day. It can be a very historic day when this parliament, to aid the committee which is now drafting the legislation arising out of the green paper, takes positive action and stands behind a principle which is not foreign to a parliament in a free and open society.
80045 - 5614

June 22, 1978
Freedom of Information
We need freedom of information legislation for more than the reason commonly given, namely, that people are entitled to information gathered by public servants at public expense. That in itself is not sufficient reason, in my mind, to justify the complications which we may create as a result of such a bill. The real reason lies behind the basic theory and purpose of democratic government. Democracy thrives on the competition of ideas, argument, criticism and visions of the future. It depends not only on the electoral and parliamentary competition of political parties, but on the contribution of other voices in society acting fom altruistic or selfish motives. As a parliamentary democracy we encourage organized probing of government actions through the formal structures of the House of Commons. As a pluralistic society we believe in the value of those organizations referred to as pressure groups.
What I am saying to my colleagues in the House tonight, and 1 say it earnestly and strongly, is that if this parliament is to function, if groups in society are to function, if the people of the country are to be able to judge in a knowledgeable way, then some of the tools of power must be shared. One of the great tools of power is not only the ability to probe all the structures within this place, but also to have the knowledge by which that probing, that investigation, that calling to account of a government, can be done effectively based on information and knowledge rather than instinct.
If the government are prepared to move in that direction tonight, then they will not only have done themselves and this parliament a service, but for once we will be able to say to them that perhaps they made the country a little better because of the decision that was made here. I invite them to share in the concept of openness of government and support our motion tonight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section (10) of Standing Order 58(10), to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion, main estimates, and for the passage of all stages of the bill based thereon.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20, ANTI-INFLATION BOARD
Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That Vote 20, in the amount of $20,426,000 under Finance for the Anti-Inflation Board-program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979 (less the amount voted in interim supply), be concurred in.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to make it clear that I take no objection to the way in which this matter is set up on the order paper. 1 think it is unfortunate and that something ought to be done about the fact that unless one rises on a point of order there will be nothing in Hansard or in Votes and Proceedings to show why the House voted on two items in the estimates by themselves and then voted for all the rest of them in one vote.
I should like with this point of order to make it clear that the reason we are going to vote now on the items on the Anti-Inflation Board and the Senate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member realizes, as do other hon. members, that he has taken the floor on a valid and serious point of order with respect to the procedures which we are locked into, as it were, to take an item in our estimates that has been objected to and singled out for special treatment because it has been opposed. Nevertheless, a motion in opposition to that item is not the question that has to be put; it has to be a motion in support of it for rather technical reasons, and following our procedures.
The hon. member's point is well taken, namely that those who oppose are not identified in the procedure; neither is the motion or question put. That is a difficulty we have to face in order to conform with our procedures. 1 recognize the validity of the hon. member's point; we have agonized over it many times but have not found a solution. To go on and allow the hon. member to give his reasons would be to go beyond the point of order. I recognize the hon. member's concern but I do not think I can allow him to state his reasons.
Therefore, the motion is that Vote 20 be concurred in. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Estimates


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House prepared to take this vote without further ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1, PARLIAMENT
Robert Knight Andras: That Vote 1, in the amount of $7,664,501 under Parliament for the Senate- program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979 (less the amount voted in interim supply), be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we follow the same procedure?
Crouse	Knowles	McRaeCullen	(Norfolk-Haldimand)	MitgesDanson	Lachance	MunroDaudlin	Lajoie	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Dawson	Lalonde	MunroDe Ban*	Lambert	(Hamilton East)Demers	(Edmonton West)	MurtaDionne	Lamontagne	Neil(Northumberland-	Landers	Nicholson (Miss)Miramichi)	Lang	OberleDouglas	Langlois	O'Connell(Bruce-Grey)	Laniel	OuelletDuclos	Lapointe	PaproskiDupras	Lawrence	ParentDuquet	Leblanc	PattersonElzinga	(Laurier)	PearsallEthier	LeBlanc	Pigott (Mrs.)Fleming	(Wcstmorland-Kent)	PinardFriesen	Lee	Prud'hommeGauthier	Lefebvre	Railton(Ottawa-Vanier)	Lessard	RainesGendron	Loisclle	ReidGillespie	(Chambly)	RitchieGillies	Loisclle	RobinsonGoyer	(Saint-Henri)	RocheGrafftey	Lumley	RompkeyGray	MacDonald	RooneyGuilbault	(Cardigan)	SavardHalliday	MacDonald (Miss)	StanfieldHarquail	(Kingston and the	StolleryHees	Islands)	TessierHerbert	MacFarlane	TowersHnatyshyn	MacGuigan	TrudeauHolt (Mrs.)	Maine	TrudelHopkins	Martin	WatsonHorner	Masniuk	WhelanHuntington	Mazankowski	WhittakerIsabelle	McCain	WiseJamieson	Mclsaac	YanakisJarvis	McKenzie	Young-143Johnston	McKinley	Kempling	McKinnon	NAYS	Messrs.	Benjamin	Douglas	LeggattBrewin	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-	PetersCaouette	The Islands)	Rodriguez(Villeneuve)	Firth	Saltsman-12Dionne	Hogan	(Kamouraska)	Knowles	(Winnipeg North Centre)	
Messrs.
Friesen
Gillies
Grafftey
Halliday
Hees
Hnatyshyn Hogan Huntington Jarvis Johnston Kempling Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand)
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Lawrence Leggatt
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
Masniuk
Mazankowski
McCain
McKenzie
McKinley
McKinnon
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Oberle
Paproski
Patterson
Peters
Pigott (Mrs.)
Ritchie
Roche
Rodriguez
Saltsman
Stanfield
Stevens
Towers
Whittaker
Wise-58


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.	Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Andras), which was
agreed to on the following division:	motion for concurrence in main estimates
(Division No. 56)
++YEAS
Messrs.


Robert Knight Andras: That the main estimates for the year ending March 31, 1979, except those items disposed of earlier this day, and less amounts voted in interim supply, be concurred in.
Abbott
Alexander
Alkenbrack
Andras
(Port Arthur)
Andre
(Calgary Centre) Andres
(Lincoln)
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Baker
(Gander-T willingate) Baker
(Grenville-Carleton)
Baldwin
Basford Beatty B*chard Begin (Miss)
Blais
Blaker
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Brisco
Bussi&res
Caccia
Cafik
Campagnolo (Mrs.)
Campbell (Miss)
(South Western Nova) Campbell
(LaSalle-femard-Cote
Saint-Paul)
Caron
Clark
(Rocky Mountain) Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Clermont Comtois Corbin Corriveau C6t6


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


An hon. Member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Andras thereupon moved that Bill C-61, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1979, be read the first time and printed.
[Stage Direction]

June 22, 1978
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Robert Knight Andras: that the bill be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Chairman, may I have the usual undertaking from the President of the Treasury Board that this bill is in the usual form of an appropriation bill at this time on main estimates and that it contains nothing out of the ordinary? We have had some rather unfortunate examples in the past. Can the minister tell us whether the bill contains anything out of the ordinary?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Chairman, I can give the hon. member and the House the usual assurance.


Gérald Laniel: I might add that the bill was made available to hon. members this afternoon.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Estimates
Schedule agreed to on division.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Knight Andras: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.37 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, June 23, 1978