1979-11-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson):
That this House congratulates the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the dean of the House, on his impending appointment as a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, recognizes this as his first step toward membership in the Senate, and urges the government to consider similar honours for the well respected hon. member for Peace River who is the last excuse for the use of the word "progressive" in the name of the governing party.

[ Translation]


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an urgent matter of pressing necessity.
Considering the growing dissatisfaction of Longueuil residents about the quality of services provided by the Societe Cablevision Nationale, a dissatisfaction increased by the presence in the constituency of two cablevision companies, namely Telecable Videotron and Cablevision Nationale which do not provide the same services to their subscribers; and considering the superior quality of the picture and programming given by the Videotron Co. Ltd. to meet the needs of the residents of Longueuil, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger):
That the House urge the Minister of Communications to make the necessary representations to the CRTC so that this federal organization strongly intervene with the Societe Cablevision Nationale Ltee and make it come to an understanding with Compagnie Videotron Ltee so that the citizens of the constituency of Longueuil will enjoy a consistent service.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, in order to be presented such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE PARLIAMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a serious motion to present under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House notes the solemn declaration in the government's position paper on the reform of Parliament, tabled on November 23, that the House of Commons is worthy of more than the cynical cliches, "rubber stamp", "flock of sheep", "trained seals", but that this solemn declaration has been torn up like a scrap of paper by the announcement yesterday that the income tax forms for 1979 have been printed and will be mailed before this House has even voted on Bill C-20, the provisions of which are already in the forms that have been printed and are to be mailed shortly, and that this House registers its strong protest against this blatant contempt of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be presented for debate at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the

November 29, 1979
unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
In view of the accusation of the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) concerning the embezzlement of funds paid by the federal government to labour unions for educational purposes and in view of the fact that the hon. member did not prove his allegations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the House request the hon. member for Longueuil to withdraw his accusation and apologize to the workers for having irresponsibly cast aspersions on their integrity.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a serious matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the strong expression of community opposition to the development of non-public uses of Cartier Square in Ottawa, in view of the soon to be finalized decisions to be taken by the federal government in this regard, and in view of the fact that no public or community input was sought by the federal government prior to last night, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. McCauley):
That this House supports the request of the residents of Ottawa and instructs the government to freeze for three months all final decisions on Cartier Square in order to allow full public consultation, discussion and input into future land use.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be presented for debate at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SMALL LOANS ACT
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to seek the unanimous consent of the House. As a result of the high
interest rate situation in Canada and restrictions in the Small Loans Act which place limitations on co-operative credit associations and caisses populaires, it is financially impossible for them to lend amounts less than $1,500.
This situation tends to drive the small loan borrower to either borrow more than $1,500, an amount in excess of what he needs, or to seek out other lenders, both scrupulous or unscrupulous, therefore threatening the existence of the co-ops and caisses populaires, the very organizations designed to help the small borrower. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Wightman):
That this House commends the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for having commenced urgently needed studies of the inadequacies of the Small Loans Act and that it urges the minister and the Minister of Finance to repeal quickly the said Small Loans Act which unduly restricts the lending capabilities of the co-operative credit associations and caisse populaires and, in so restricting them, reduces and even eliminates their inability to provide appropriate lending service to their lenders and small loan borrowers, thus denying needed funds, forcing greater borrowing-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member would not want me to encourage the use of Standing Order 43 for members to commend members on their own side of the House.


An hon. Member:: Send them flowers.


FISHERIES
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an urgent matter.
In view of the representations made this morning to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry by the Quebec commercial fishing delegation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais):
That the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announce immediately that large fishing vessels of 100 feet or more can no longer fish cod commercially in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[Mr. Nystrom.J
November 29, 1979


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DR. RAFAEL SALAS, UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Speaker:: Before beginning the oral question period, may I ask hon. members to join with me in signalling the presence in our gallery of a distinguished visitor on an official visit to our country, in the person of the Undersecretary General of the United Nations and Executive Director of the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, Dr. Rafael Salas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, earlier in this House, the Prime Minister indicated that he had an oil pricing agreement with the government of Alberta. Today we have a statement by Mr. Merv Leitch, the minister of energy for Alberta, who specifically said the following:
An oil pricing agreement is months away and certainly will not come in time for the December 11 federal budget.
Will the right hon. Prime Minister tell us who is telling the truth in this game, what the people of Canada can really expect, and where he stands on this issue?


An hon. Member:: Who speaks for Canada, Joe?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, when there is some quiet on the other side, I can assure the hon. member for Outremont-as I assured members of the House yesterday-that when the budget is brought down on the eleventh day of December, it will reflect the fiscal elements of an energy package. I can assure him, also, that on the basis of the discussions we have had with Alberta we are proceeding directly and immediately with planning and bringing into place elements of a national energy package far more comprehensive than any envisaged by the former government when they were in office.


Marc Lalonde: The one thing that is clear, Mr. Speaker, about the energy package is that the Canadian public is going to be hit with a massive tax increase, particularly in the form of an excise tax which it appears will increase the price of gasoline by at least 25 per cent in one stroke. I want to ask the
Oral Questions
Prime Minister, in light of his previous statement, how he can justify such an appalling increase in the price of gasoline, particularly in light of his own statement in this House on July 18, 1975, when he objected to any excise tax on gasoline and stated specifically "that an excise tax on gasoline applies unfairly to the weakest elements of society."


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the details of the energy package we have been working on, in the absence of that kind of comprehensive work having been done by the former government, will be known fairly shortly. As I indicated yesterday, we have agreement on all of the major principles and are working now on the development of a mechanism to ensure the effective collection of a tax that will allow the federal government to engage in and to help the private sector of Canada engage in energy developments in the country.
We believe that kind of proposal and that kind of package is essential now, because we cannot accept the legacy we received from the former government of increasing Canadian dependence upon insecure foreign sources of oil.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, since we cannot get a straight answer from the Prime Minister, may I go to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources?


An hon. Member:: You won't get anything from him, either; it's a waste of time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: 1 will try. As it is becoming more and more obvious that the Prime Minister was taken to the cleaners by the Premier of Alberta during their meeting last Monday, and as it is quite apparent that the government is intent on proceeding with its "baseball bat" approach to energy conservation in this country, will the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I see the spokesmen for Imperial Oil are agitated on the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Will the minister, rather than bad-mouthing Canadians, as he did last night, impress upon his colleagues in cabinet the necessity of increasing old age pensions and other social benefits by an amount that will be at least equivalent to the unconscionable increases they are talking about in terms of oil and gas prices?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I can only respond to the hon. member by telling him that as part of the energy package we are, indeed, and will be, looking after considerations in respect of the macroeconomic effects of any price increase. I want to assure the hon. member that this is very much in our minds.

November 29, 1979
Oral Questions
There will be a cost exacted in respect of obtaining energy self-sufficiency. This country cannot rely upon offshore oil. The hon. member may point to people on this side of the House or on his side of the House as being representatives of Imperial Oil, but that is much better than being a representative of Seagram.
[DOT] (M20)


An hon. Member:: You can't drink oil.


OIL SUPPLIES FROM VENEZUELA
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the minister knows, on March 29, 1979, a telex was received by his department from the minister of energy of Venezuela, wherein the minister stated that he hoped to strengthen energy relations with Canada through state-to-state energy arrangements, and to increase the volume of oil supplies to customers of Venezuela.
In view of that country's announcement to cut back its oil supplies by 6 per cent, what has the minister done to gain assurance from Venezuela that Canada will have the supplies we were promised and that Venezuela will follow through on the promise it gave last March?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, before any speculative stories get into the press with respect to the possible intentions of Venezuela, I personally visited with General Alfonso Rivard, the head of Petroleos de Venezuela, on Monday of this week to discuss the general relationship between our two countries. General Alfonso informed me that he has a very high regard for the relationship which has existed between our two countries over the course of the last 30 years, and he assured me that Canada would receive priority attention with respect to oil supplies coming from that country. I hope that this information will put the hon. member's mind at rest.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be reassured by what the hon. minister has said, but it is difficult in view of his denial yesterday of the accuracy of a report by CTV that oil supplies to eastern Canada are in fact worse than previously estimated, and his confirmation of this very fact today as reported in the newspapers.
Can the minister tell the House what precautionary measures he has taken-such as getting written assurances from the oil companies that they will not divert oil supplies from Canada-to assure Canadians that oil supply will meet the demand this winter?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I have taken a number of initiatives with respect to the oil supply situation for this winter. There is no question about the fact that we are in a very tight and fragile situation, but we are attempting to build up our inventory. I pointed this out yesterday to the hon. member when I was before the committee, and that we in Canada cannot assume that there are limitless supplies of oil.

The people of Canada must co-operate to conserve supplies. I make that statement now to the hon. member and to the people of Canada in general. It is a situation that we can overcome with co-operation, and I am sure the people of Canada will do everything they can to get us through the winter.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It appears that there is a scandal in the making with regard to the fighter procurement program. Has the minister received a confidential memo from a senior departmental official indicating that vital information pertaining to the purchase of new fighter aircraft is being kept from cabinet? If he has seen that memo, what action is he taking, and is he prepared to table it in the House?


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I saw the memo in question about two weeks ago. The memo was addressed by an individual to his superior within the department and was never intended to go higher than that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: When I heard about the matter, 1 asked for the memo and I received it. The memo does not say that there is a scandal going on with regard to the procurement of the new fighter aircraft-far from it.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there has been some stonewalling and cover-up with regard to the purchase of the new fighter aircraft. Is the minister prepared to place a moratorium on the purchase of these aircraft, and refer the whole matter of this $4.5 billion purchase to the standing committee for a full and complete investigation and analysis, in order that the Canadian taxpayer will not be saddled with a flying white elephant?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I disagree entirely with the thesis and the delusion under which the hon. member is operating. As far as debating it in committee is concerned, the hon. member was at the committee, I believe, the day before yesterday and had an opportunity to raise the matter. He will have another opportunity, I believe, within the next five days to do the same thing.
The progress of the new fighter aircraft purchase is proceeding. I see no reason to put it on the shelf, as the New Democratic Party would like us to do to ensure that the armed forces of Canada are completely disarmed.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's answers to my first two questions, and in light of the govern-
November 29, 1979

ment's commitment to freedom of information, would he answer the first question 1 asked? Will he table this memo in the House?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I do not see much value in tabling it in the House.


An hon. Member:: Open government!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: It was almost entirely a rephrasing of Peter Ward's article that ran some three weeks ago. I will be glad to show it to the hon. member in confidence, if he does not have it already.


DISPOSITION OF BILL C-20
Mr. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: My question is for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. On November 20 I asked the first minister if his government was prepared to accept amendments to Bill C-20. His response was:
-this government, naturally, will consider reasonable amendments-
Yesterday, the government House leader indicated that the government was going to proceed with Bill C-20 without accepting any amendments whatsoever and, in fact, is going forward with printing tax forms without giving any consideration to representations by members of the opposition, thus making a sham of the parliamentary process.
I should like to know from the Prime Minister if he has once again reversed his position, as he has before, and gone back on his statement of November 20. Or is he prepared to repudiate the statements made by the House leader yesterday and allow this House to continue the honourable and orderly discussion of Bill C-20, including the representations and amendments put forward by members of Parliament, as they have a right to do?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are, naturally, prepared to have consideration of the bill and of amendments; but the House should know that given printing deadlines-which are well known to members of the former government-it is necessary for us to issue and to put in the mail tomorrow tax forms based upon certain premises. That is a practice that has been followed before, and it is a practice that is being followed now.
If hon. members on the other side want to delay progress of this bill, then we will-as the government House leader indicated the other day-be forced to indicate to the people of Canada that the reason they have been denied the benefits of the tax credit program has been-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Blackmail.
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: -an attempt by members of the opposition- who even now are trying to shout me down and, indeed, by their conduct throughout this matter have been trying to delay passage of legislation which we believe is very much in the interests of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the Prime Minister is going to the people with these kinds of allegations, is he also prepared to explain why his government waited 41 days into this session to bring the legislation forward? Is he prepared to tell the people of Canada why his government refused to vote on the bill, as this party asked to do yesterday, and prepare to move the bill into committee so it can be given proper consideration? Is he prepared to tell the truth to the Canadian people about the sham allegations he is suggesting now?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I certainly am prepared to continue to tell the people of Canada the truth. The truth is-


An hon. Member:: Start.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I am interrupted by the hon. member for Out-remont, that expert on the truth-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -whose expertise is such that when it is noted, it is celebrated by one of his former colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The fact is, as is well known to the House, that the reason the tax credit legislation was introduced when it was, was that members of the Liberal party in particular delayed substantially consideration by this House of Commons of budget measures carried over from the budget introduced by the former Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: We were obliged, Mr. Speaker, to deal with business that they could not get dealt with before calling the election. Once that was dealt with, we introduced the tax credit legislation so that there would be a wide and adequate opportunity for the House to debate it and for Canadians to receive the benefits of the program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
1822

November 29, 1979
Oral Questions


BILL C-20-SHELTER ALLOWANCE FOR THE ELDERLY AND SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. In the debate on Bill C-20 we have tried to demonstrate the extravagance of the bill and to propose reasonable alternatives, such as a shelter allowance for the elderly and single-parent families, which would have a relatively small cost of $145 million per year according to CMHC estimates. Can the Prime Minister tell us when he will introduce legislation to provide for a shelter allowance for people in need?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that information now. I can say to the hon. member that the question of shelter allowance is actively being considered within the government. I welcome the indication of interest on the part of the hon. member and 1 hope it is shared by several of his colleagues in co-operating with the government in taking this first step toward helping Canadians-the first step being the tax credit program. Other measures we are certainly prepared to consider, including a shelter allowance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Chretien:: Start with the rich.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the information that seven teenagers are reported to have died after inhaling fluorocarbons from pressurized cans of cooking oil, in view of the fact that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs refuses to regulate spray-on cooking oil cans under the Hazardous Products Act, and in view of the fact that some uses of fluorocarbons are already in the process of being banned under the Environmental Contaminants Act, I ask the Minister of the Environment to tell us whether he is prepared to add fluorocarbons in cooking oils to the list of uses of fluorocarbons to be banned under the Environmental Contaminants Act, for the protection of human health and the environment?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I will consider the representations of the hon. member.
[ Translation]


LABOUR RELATIONS
Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I put a question to the Minister of Labour. In spite of the problems he had understanding it, can he tell us now whether he has received, as provided for in agreements signed by labour unions of Canada, the financial statements on expenses for labour education under the $10 million labour education program covering a five-year period? Can the minister tell us now whether there were any irregularities and, if not, can he confirm that he has received the report and will table it?


Hon. Lincoln M. Alexander (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to my attention once again. The hon. member is quite right when he indicates that there is a $10 million program regarding labour education over a period of approximately five years. I can assure the hon. member that those who have entered into contracts-that would be the CLC, the CSN and others, including other teamsters-under the contract have to submit progress reports, or reports on their activities. These are audited by the audit service.
I can further advise the hon. member that with respect to the contract, as he very well knows, after the second year that the program has been in place there should be an evaluation study made by independent, impartial people. There are three people who are doing just that. Also, after the fourth year, notwithstanding the interim study, there will be a full study as to the effectiveness and the efficacy of the program.
With respect to the member's important question-as he may think-whether there are any irregularities or investigations, I have had a thorough interview with my officials with respect to this matter: we have found no irregularities, and as far as we are concerned there are no investigations in progress. But I think, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, if the hon. member wants to help-and I know he does because this is the role he plays as an opposition critic, as I did-he should perhaps indicate to me-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -the people he thinks-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


LABOUR UNIONS-AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH RCMP INVESTIGATED ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES
Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, first, it is precisely because the cause of labour education is very important to me that I asked these questions. Second, I expected the minister to state his position and deny these accusations. My
(Mr. Clark.]
November 29, 1979

supplementary question is for the Solicitor General. Under what authority is this inquiry being carried on? Are RCMP officers actually investigating under the pretext or on the assumption that there have been irregularities within labour unions regarding the labour education program? Can the Solicitor General tell us why they are using that pretext and, if such is not the case, under what authority can they investigate certain procedures used by union officers?


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the member's general inquiry the other day, I made inquiries at the commissioner's level and the headquarters' level of the RCMP about these general allegations. They professed as much ignorance as 1 professed as far as any investigation at the headquarters' level is concerned. There may well be some criminal investigation at a detachment level across this country about which headquarters knows nothing, about which the commissioner knows nothing and, subsequently, about which 1 know nothing.
It would certainly help me if the hon. member, either publicly or privately, would be more specific as to the particular union he is concerned about and what particular funds. 1 would then be able to give him a much more specific answer.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a very gentle question to direct to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark Willson Rose: Yesterday, the Prime Minister, in response to a question by the hon. member for York Centre, said he would look into a $100,000 patronage contract obtained by Decima Research Limited which is associated intimately, 1 am told, with the Progressive Conservative Party. I would like to ask whether he will, as well, look into why Decima also received- again without competitive tender-a $50,000 research contract from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in late August, early September; and is the Prime Minister now prepared to tell the House that he is going to stop the use of patronage in awarding government contracts and services which are paid for by all the taxpayers of our country?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member. We are continuing to look into the question raised yesterday by the hon. member for York Centre.
I shall certainly report to the House the results of that inquiry. I can now give the hon. member and the House of Commons the undertaking that because of the very real confidence the government has in the competence of the organization referred to, and to allay any suspicion as to the effective-
Oral Questions
ness of the work or the uses of the work, we will be quite prepared to make available to hon. members-or, indeed, to the House, if that is desired-the results of the polling once that polling is completed.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, while we are on this lovely, tender topic, I would like to ask the minister whether he would now investigate, as well, the awarding last summer of a $30 million contract to Media Buying Services Limited, headed by one Peter Swain who directed the Progressive Conservative advertising campaign during the recent federal election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark Willson Rose: Would he explain to the House why this contract was awarded-again without competitive tender-to provide services which are presently and currently being supplied by the Department of Supply and Services?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a little confused as to the details of some of the allegations he has placed before the House. But I can indicate to the hon. member and to the House that, because this government was determined to reduce the amount of spending on advertising by the Government of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -and because we were determined to bring some pattern and co-ordination into the advertising programs of the Government of Canada, we instituted a new agency, working through the Department of Supply and Services, which we are convinced will, among other things, increase the effectiveness of government advertising and reduce the possibilities of abuse.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister on the same subject. It arises out of a visit I paid this morning to the Agency of Management, on Albert Street. Since the election, that firm has opened two large offices in different Canadian cities to give away government contracts for advertising and for research. In spite of the allegation by the Prime Minister that this is being done to establish things on a more businesslike basis, no contract has been signed with the Agency of Management.
Does the Prime Minister feel that he has friendly enough relations with the owners of this private company to ensure that, after all the work they have done and the investment they have made, he will be able to enter into a contract with them that will be fair to them and to the Canadian taxpayers as well; or does he intend at the end of it to make them an offer they cannot refuse?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 29, 1979
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's concern for the company. I can assure him that, simply as a result of the high reputation of that company, there is no concern about their position. I can also indicate to the hon. member that it is a deliberate decision of the government- and a view to which we adhere very strongly-that the Agency of Management approach which we have introduced, as a government, to the field of federal government advertising is significantly preferable to the positions that prevailed previously in their ability to reduce abuses and in their ability to reduce the costs of advertising to the government and to the people of Canada.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, we will see about the costs of advertising toward the end of the year. My supplementary is to the minister responsible for multiculturalism, whose official said, in his presence, at a meeting on his estimates that the $100,000 which was being paid to Allan Gregg would not be coming out of the half-million dollar advertising budget allocated usually and by the past government for advertising in the ethnic press.
I now have a document from the Agency of Management indicating, in fact, that that $100,000 is coming out of the advertising budget, and that that frozen fund has been reduced from $500,000 to $400,000. Will the minister take steps to protect that fund which has always been used for advertising in the ethnic press and which supports the viability of the ethnic press as a voice of an important part of the Canadian people? Will he take action to ensure that the ethnic press will continue to have the support of the Government of Canada?


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the reason we do this type of research is simply so that we can get various departments of government to take a very active part in advertising in the ethnic press. That is the reason we have revised the estimate, to look at it very carefully.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As a Canadian delegate to the Conference on Human Rights, National Security and Peace, held in Seoul, South Korea, three years ago with the aim of alleviating the plight of persecuted Christians held in jails there, I was distressed to learn that there have been two mass arrests in Seoul during the past four days, primarily of Christian students, outside the Christian Building and outside the YWCA. Can the minister advise what steps the Canadian government has taken, or plans to take, in order to alleviate this deplorable situation?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.


An hon. Member:: Give him a medal.


Miss MacDonald:: I want to tell him that in the cause of human rights-and 1 trust this will be of interest to members on the other side who seem to be making jokes about this subject-in this case we have already followed up with our ambassador in Seoul, South Korea, and have asked him to bring to the attention of the Korean authorities our concern about the way in which the human rights of these 96 people have been violated.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Jean-Louis Leduc (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. This week the government awarded a contract for the construction of an ice-breaker to a company operating in Port Wheeler, Ontario. According to the Quebec Minister of State for Economic Development, Bernard Landry, this $60 million contract was awarded without a call for tenders. Is this true?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, 1 answer this question with great pleasure. First, I urge the hon. member to get information from a more reliable source than this one, since it is not true that this contract was awarded without a call for tenders. When the hon. member finds out how wide is the gap between the bids, he will understand why the Ontario firm got the contract.


INQUIRY WHETHER QUEBEC SHIPYARDS WILL OBTAIN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Jean-Louis Leduc: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Supply and Services. The government is supposed to provide $150 million to alleviate the critical situation prevailing in the shipbuilding indutry. Since $60 million out of $150 million has already been allocated, can the minister tell us whether the amount left will go to the shipyards in Quebec?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, 1 assume that hon. members are familiar with the tendering procedure. I think everybody is. The Quebec shipyards have been required to submit their tenders. I follow very closely the critical situation prevailing there and like all my colleagues, I hope that the Quebec shipyards can make acceptable tenders and I will be most happy to recommend them at that time.
November 29, 1979


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of the broadcasting problems in the province of New Brunswick, specifically with respect to equipment and facilities of the CBC, and in view of the general decline in moral standards in broadcasting generally-speaking specifically of the CTV program "Pyx", prime-time family viewing-can the minister tell the House when he expects to name the new chairman of the CRTC and who that gentleman, or lady, will be?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is not possible at this time to indicate who the new chairman of the commission will be. I can inform the hon. member that we have had excellent co-operation from a number of the provinces, people in the industry and in the general public in terms of giving us their best suggestions so that we can make a first-rate appointment to this post.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In April, 1978, Ottawa and Quebec signed a $76 million agreement for tourist development in Quebec, including $11.6 million to be allocated to the lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe areas. Among those projects there was one regarding the Gaspe national park which was to take $5 million and now we hear that this project has been set back another year. Could the minister talk to his counterpart in the province of Quebec so that the funds available to the Government of Canada be used without undue delay to start work in the Gaspe national park and create jobs in that area which has such a high unemployment rate?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to thank the hon. member who gave me notice of his question.

Also, 1 want to report to the hon. member that the administrative responsibility, as he knows, is with the Quebec ministry of recreation. I am informed, or given to understand, that the first phase of this project will begin next summer. The work will take place in the La Galine-Lac Cascapedia region. There will be a reception area, sanitary facilities, parking facilities
Oral Questions
and a small campground commenced. Estimated preliminary costs for this phase are around $600,000. It is a beginning.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Considering that more than 40 per cent of our status Indians are living off reserves in large cities, that that number is growing, that these people are joined there by many non-status Indians, Metis and Inuit, that they confront many serious economic and social problems in the cities and that the most effective, sensitive and understanding services for those Indians in the cities is given by the Friendship Centres, would the minister consider exempting the budget for the Friendship Centres from the government restraint program, so they can meet these very serious commitments in the cities? And would the minister also consider, or will he make the Migrating Native Peoples Program a permanent program so that the friendship centres can plan ahead and make their work even more effective?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I agree very much with the importance the hon. member has attached to this question. There is no doubt that we have a major responsibility, as Canadians, to the Metis and non-status Indians who are living off reserves in this country. The hon. member referred specifically to one program, the migrating native peoples program and, in particular, friendship centres.
1 had an early opportunity to meet with the national organization of friendship centres to explore their particular situation. We are very conscious of their budgetary requirements, and I can assure the hon. member that we will not make the kinds of cuts he has indicated might be projected in an area which provides a basic and important service to people who are very desperately in need.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of representations by the city of Saint John and others regarding the status of the Saint John airport, and can he give this House some indication as to his department's intention with regard to upgrading this facility?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the consultations which have taken place between the Saint John representatives, particularly the Board of Trade, and Transport Canada. I would also like to

November 29, 1979
Oral Questions
inform the hon. member that representations were received by my office from officials of the community of Saint John in connection with the airport.
The airport development concept is part of a master plan study which was concluded in 1976. Because the traffic projections into the year 1985 are being re-evaluated, the whole concept is being re-examined with a view to ensuring that we can establish the best facility to meet future needs. In the meantime, there are ongoing improvements such as the building of a new maintenance centre. The matter will be evaluated. The evaluation will be concluded very shortly and we will be in a position to make an announcement shortly as to timetable and concept.


ATOMIC ENERGY
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and it concerns the Brinex uranium mine in Labrador. The provincial government in Newfoundland has volunteered to co-ordinate environmental impact studies on the mine. However, the majority of the data is being provided by Brinex. This data is technically deficient and contradictory information has been submitted to the Atomic Energy Control Board.
As the AECB is responsible for issuing the licence to develop this mine, what will the minister do to ensure that an adequate assessment of environmental impact is carried out; and will he support the implementation of an environmental assessment review process?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the hon. member that the Atomic Energy Control Board, in the course of its deliberations on licensing with respect to this particular matter, will of course ensure that full and sufficient environmental impact studies are carried out, ones on which the data can be relied upon. I want to indicate to the hon. member that my information is that the process is now taking place. There will be public hearings with respect to a provincial application with regard to that mine.
So I can give the hon. member the assurance that the Atomic Energy Control Board is very much concerned, as I am, about the environmental impact studies. I hope that will satisfy the hon. member's inquiry.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question concerns the case of Mr. Richard Stanc-
[Mr. Mazankowski.j
zyk, who is a Canadian citizen and who is believed by all concerned to be jailed in Poland. Mr. Stanczyk came to Canada, by way of Germany, from his native Poland-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member put his question.


Jesse Philip Flis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister what the government is doing to help Mr. Stanczyk return safely to Canada, since I drew this question to her attention on October 17, five weeks ago.
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct some inaccuracies in the hon. member's statement, and I appreciate the concern he has raised. I would like to tell him that Mr. Stanczyk is a dual Polish-Canadian citizen. He travelled to Poland in July of this year on his Polish passport. Having done that, he exposed himself or became liable to the charge in Poland of having departed the country illegally because he was on his Polish passport. Under such circumstances, there is very little Canadian authorities can do. People who travel on dual passports are warned beforehand about what might occur.
Nevertheless, having said that, we have asked our embassy in Warsaw to try to follow this matter up and to offer whatever services it possibly can to Mr. Stanczyk.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister. Considering that we know now from the report of the Economic Council of Canada that the majority of elderly Canadians are living under the poverty line, and considering also that such a situation is very drastic, is the minister in a position to advise the House and take steps to settle that problem which is becoming more and more serious?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is absent but I can answer that question. It might be, however, that the minister himself will give a more elaborate answer. We think the best we can do to help older persons in this country is to take steps to reduce the inflation rate. That is the primary objective of our policy. Furthermore, as I have indicated in the House on many occasions, the energy policy will include a program aimed at helping Canadians, including the elderly and the poor, meet the pressures which will result from that policy.
November 29, 1979


REQUEST THAT $200 MILLION RECOMMENDED BY ECONOMIC COUNCIL BE APPLIED TO ELDERLY PERSONS
Hon. Monique Begin (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr, Speaker,
I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if this assistance designed to protect elderly persons against inflation, those who have remained below the poverty line, could reach the amount of $200 million required and recommended by the Economic Council of Canada in its recommendation No. 1, in order to bring these persons above the poverty line.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, progress has been made by the minister in his review of recommendation No. 1 of the Economic Council of Canada. In view of the present state of the economy in this country, I doubt, however, that we will be able to agree to such a proposal. Of course, if we are more successful than the former government in our fight against inflation, not only the elderly but all Canadians will benefit by it.


OIL-TANKER TRAFFIC FROM ALASKA
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Given today's decision by President Carter to delay his recommendations on the movement of additional Alaskan oil to the lower 48 states, can the Prime Minister assure the House that he will communicate to the president that this government intends to proceed with tough legislation to minimize the risks posed to Canada by existing and new tanker traffic from Alaska?


Charles Joseph Clark: I will certainly consult with the Minister of the Environment regarding new measures that might be contemplated by the government that should be communicated to the United States. But I can give the hon. member the asssurance, now-as I have given it before in the House-that it is the intention of this government, and my own personal intention, to be in touch with President Carter to indicate our very serious concern about the consequences to Canada, particularly to the west coast, of tanker traffic.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said:
Nobody has developed a technology that can deal effectively with oil spill clean-ups-
That is a direct quotation. Can the Prime Minister indicate exactly what action is intended for the existing tanker traffic, as well as the potential increases in that traffic?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, through the Department of the Environment and through other agencies of the government we are looking for means that can improve our technical capacity
Point of Order-Mr. Baldwin
to deal with problems of that kind, should they arise. We have no new programs that we can indicate at the moment.
We believe that the most effective action we can take is to continue to make the government of the United States aware of our very real reservations regarding tanker traffic along the west coast of Canada. Naturally, if the hon. member has any specific proposals that he thinks should be considered seriously by the Government of Canada and communicated to the United States, we would be delighted to receive them.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Raymond Dupont (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Last July 31, a letter was sent to all married quarters informing tenants of a 50 per cent raise in rents. Could the minister tell the House whether he intends to review his position as soon as possible, considering the uncertainty suffered by the families concerned who live on military bases throughout the country?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member asked me that question, because I can correct the misconception from which he is suffering. I remember no time when we considered increasing the rental for married quarters by 50 per cent as an average of the rent increases. Now we have put caps on the amounts that rents can be increased at various ranks and income levels, and 1 have asked the department to provide me with what I would consider a more equitable way of setting rents on married quarters.
As soon as I get the report-which I expect will be in the next day or so-I will be taking it to Treasury Board. I am not against our paying the going rates: it is simply that we have some terrible inequities in the system that I have inherited.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I did send Your Honour notice of a question of privilege and I also notified the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker), but it seems to me that with a view to a more expeditious and orderly conduct of the business of the House I might well at this time reserve that question of privilege and bring this up as a point of order. It is based on the following circumstances.
On October 18, the House was good enough to pass a motion that a standing committee be established and given

November 29, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. Baldwin
terms of reference to review the terms of the present Official Secrets Act and, inter alia, that no claim of Crown privilege be allowed to limit the extent of the inquiry by the committee. On November 8 1 asked my learned friend, the President of the Privy Council, if he could proceed with the engrossing of a form of motion because it would be very sensible to put this motion together with the second reading of the bill on the freedom of information. Within a day or so I did receive from the President of the Privy Council a proposed draft motion, but it contained no reference to the question of Crown privilege.
I am told that an opinion has been received that it might not have been proper for the House to have passed the motion in the form that it did. This is something that I reject out of hand and it would form the basis of a question of privilege if 1 were to bring it up. If not, I will acknowledge that any motion which passes in this House must be subject to the statute law of Canada, but, in my opinion, when a motion of this kind has been passed, there is no inherent right of prerogative by which Crown privilege can be exercised against a committee of the House. That is something with which we can deal later.
Unfortunately I think the fault may be mine because I was unable to get in touch with my friend the President of the Privy Council to work out the details, and I assume he had his problems as well with his counterparts opposite. However, 1 understand that last night the hon. gentleman indicated that second reading of Bill C-15, the freedom of information act, would commence this evening at eight o'clock. 1 think it would be most sensible for that debate to take place contemporaneously with the debate on the question of the Official Secrets Act. The hon. member said himself that having a freedom of information act without challenging the Official Secrets Act is like flying with only one wing, and I agree with him.
So I hope that between now and eight o'clock, or certainly by no later than tomorrow, something can be worked out so that this motion can be incorporated in terms acceptable to other House leaders, and 1 think I should have some interest in it so that when we commence that debate, we can be debating both these issues at the same time. I know my hon. friend faces the inexorable tyranny of the clock and the calendar; he is learning this problem and he is not being helped too much by hon. members opposite. But I hope that it would be possible and sensible to have both the motion for second reading of the bill and the motion for the establishment of the committee debated together, so that when the committee does receive the bill, it will also receive the terms of reference. I think it would be idle to proceed with one and not the other. So I will leave it at that, reserving the right to bring up the other issue at a later date if necessary.


Hon. Walter Baker (President of Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for his kindness in giving me notice of the question of privilege. It might be very helpful to see, if this could be resolved, the authorities upon which he relies. I want to say to him that I would have no objection at all to indicating to him the opinion that has been expressed to me because I think the

issue is an important one. So it might be that this matter will be resolved. If possible, I want him to know that he would have my co-operation in attempting to resolve it. If not, I want him to know that 1 regard the consideration of the Official Secrets Act to be very important with respect to the freedom of information law, and I think he was there when I made that statement.
Perhaps we can leave it at that, for the moment, Mr. Speaker, and we will see what we will do with that.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, in reviewing Hansard of last week, the debate of Friday afternoon, I read that following my speech the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry (Mr. Huntington) said:
I could probably take the hon. member to the very desk at 235 Queen Street where that speech was written for him, but I will resist.
Mr. Speaker, 1 find this comment to be a personal insult because I am quite capable of writing my own speeches. Second, I find it is also an insult to the employees of this government, and I would like to comment on that if possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will realize that while he might not like what has been said, there is nothing in it that is unparliamentary or contrary to our procedures. Therefore, I cannot call on the minister to change that statement which, while critical, is entirely within our parliamentary precepts.


MR. OLIVIER-ALLEGED ATTACK BY MEMBER FOR YORKTON-MELVILLE
Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This afternoon we have seen that Standing Order 43 can be used to attack the reputation and integrity of an hon. member who cannot reply right away and show how vicious and dishonest these attacks are. In fact, they are moved by intellectuals who know nothing about labour relations and who actually use the rules of the House to show that they are concerned about the workers when in fact they are really interested in finding electoral support.
Mr. Speaker, in the motion introduced under Standing Order 43 by the hon. member for-where does this big dope come from, wait-the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), this lesser hon. member, said, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Longueuil had deliberately insinuated, to have the House and the public believe, that there had been fraud against the workers, against the government and against the credibility of the workers. And I quote from the last part of the motion under Standing Order 43 calling on the hon.
November 29, 1979

member for Longueuil to withdraw his accusations and apologize to the workers for questioning their integrity.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, 1 must remind you that under the provisions of our Standing Orders I asked a question on November 27. It appears at page 1737 of Hansard and anyone who reads it will see that not only did 1 not question the integrity of anybody, but aware that a very good government program was being jeopardized by this kind of accusation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will certainly understand that there is a great difference between a remark made during a debate and a motion. It very often happens that an hon. member moves or tries to move, under Standing Order 43, or any other section of our Standing Orders, a motion containing allegations against another hon. member or a minister, and the minister will always disprove these allegations. And this is exactly the case now, where it can be suggested that the House should debate the terms of the motion. That is one aspect of the problem. If an hon. member, during a debate, puts forward allegations such as these, it is a different matter, but it is very difficult for the Chair to eliminate or reject the ideas put forward in a motion which, after all, must be accepted or refused by the House pursuant to Standing Order 43. Even if the House allows a motion to be put, the ensuing debate or a negative vote by the House have nothing to do with the terms of the motion. A motion must be duly moved by an hon. member to be dealt with by the House. That is the situation in which the House finds itself this afternoon. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) was refused the right to put a motion criticizing a minister or the government in general. That is the problem.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: I am ready to abide by the Chair's ruling, but I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member-that big dope from Yorkton-Melville-has imputed motives to me, and if on that basis you feel that my question of privilege is founded, then I would like to pursue it.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 will examine the wording of the motion to see if it is really as reported by the hon. member for Longueuil, because no member may transgress the rules or the precedents of this House either by a motion or by a statement, although it is difficult to prevent such statements made in a motion.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I do not have on hand the motion I proposed under Standing Order 43.

But I am sure that if Mr. Speaker looks at the motion, he will find that there is nothing contrary to the rules of the House. What I said in the motion was very simply that the member could not prove his allegation; therefore, he should not make an allegation and should apologize to the workers because the allegation he made was a bit of a smear against
Privilege-Mr. Olivier
the working people of this country. That is the only thing I said in my motion.
It is no different, as Mr. Speaker said, from many other motions made in the House. In fact, in question period today the hon. members posed similar questions to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander) and the Minister of Labour said, "If you have allegations, make them". He posed a similar question to the Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lawrence), if I recall. Again the Solicitor General said that there have been no concrete allegations made and that he knew nothing about it. My motion really indicated that it is fine to make allegations, but if one makes those allegations, please provide the facts and the proof. He did not do that. My motion called upon him to do so, and also called upon him to apologize to the workers.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I understand you are going to look into the questions and the motion. But the point is whether the hon. member who introduced the motion used that procedure to impute motives to the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) by virtually accusing him of attacking the integrity of the workers. If you read the two questions put by the hon. member for Longueuil on November 27, 1979, to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander), you will see all the hon. member did was ask the Minister of Labour if he was aware that an investigation had been made by the RCMP as to whether or not funds had been used for labour education. That is not attacking the integrity of workers, quite the contrary, the hon. member for Longueuil was standing up for the workers. As to the question, 1 am getting to it, because 1 do not want to misuse the time you are giving me. I appreciate your courtesy, Mr. Speaker, but when the hon. member uses a motion he may well be in order in introducing it but that does not give him the right to use that procedure to make insinuations, attack the hon. member for Longueuil and impute motives to him. That is contrary to our parliamentary procedure, and to the spirit of Parliament. And I agree with you, Mr. Speaker. You should take time to read the questions of the hon. member for Longueuil, to analyse the conclusions of the motion which are very serious and attack the integrity of the hon. member for Longueuil and indirectly also really attack the workers.
So if someone is doing a poor job in defending the interests of workers in this House, it is not the hon. member for Longueuil, it is the hon. member from the New Democratic Party who introduced this kind of motion which is unacceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Members will realize that I have great difficulty in ruling out the text of a motion, particularly when a motion is being put to the House pursuant to Standing Order 43. First of all, it must be accepted by the House with unanimous consent before it can be debated; and then, of course, if it is accepted, it can be debated and refused.

November 29, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Kaplan
Within the application of that rule, it is still necessary to stay within the bounds of parliamentary precedence. But it is quite a different matter to put something of that sort in a motion which is to be debated, than it is to include it in a remark by a member, which in fact is an actual accusation. Nevertheless, 1 still have the obligation to the hon. member to examine the text of the motion to see whether anything contrary to our practices has been done. I will do so and advise the House of my decision tomorrow.
The last notice of a question of privilege which I have is from the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).


MR. KAPLAN-BUDGET FOR ETHNIC ADVERTISING-ALLEGED MISLEADING STATEMENTS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of a clear, apparent misleading of the House in two conflicting statements coming from two sources about a $100,000 payment which is being made by the Government of Canada to Allan Gregg, a former or present Progressive Conservative worker through a contract to him.
The estimates of Canada provide for a $500,000 advertising budget under the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism (Mr. Paproski) for advertising in the ethnic press. At the committee meeting on estimates, 1 asked the minister if the $100,000 to which I have referred is coming out of that $500,000 fund and if, as a result of giving that $100,000 to Allan Gregg, there will be $100,000 less for advertising in the ethnic press. I received an answer at the meeting on November 27 from Mr. Orst Kruhlak when he referred to the $100,000. He said:
The funds are coming out of a special budget allocation called Professional and Special Services where we have funds reserved for research activities. It is not coming out of the advertising vote.
Now, I have a document under the letterhead of the Agency of Management, 75 Albert Street, dealing with that $100,000 contract and authorizing it to Decima Research International. It indicates-


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Privilege over order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I have indicated in the past, the hon. member will have to persuade me that in fact he has a question of privilege. 1 understand that he has a contradiction. 1 have to hear how he has a question of privilege.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: This document suggests that two ministers, the Minister of State (Treasury Board) (Mr. Beatty), and the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. LaSalle), have directed that the $100,000 is to come out of the half a million dollars provided in the estimates for advertising. It states that the balance of advertising program is $400,000 and the balance to remain frozen at this time. Someone is misleading the House, either the two ministers who have authorized this $100,000 to
come out of the advertising fund, or the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism and his officials, who denied at the committee meeting that it is coming out of the advertising vote. Which is true and what has happened to that $500,000 advertising fund?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize that while a contradiction remains a matter of debate and argument, or perhaps in the area of political sanction, it does not fall within procedure unless there is an allegation that there has been a misleading of the House in a deliberate way. There is no such allegation in front of me at the present time. In fact, the answer the hon. member got is not an answer which was given in the House. The hon. member may want to take some advice or give some consideration in respect of vehicles that are left open by which he can pursue the matter, and there are several. However, 1 have to tell him that one of those is not a question of privilege in the form in which he presented it today.


POINT OF ORDER
Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, as you know, we are discussing today for the third time a motion under Standing Order 43 passed unanimously by this House on October 24 requiring the government to table immediately the so-called Lazar report on pensions. It is now five weeks since this was requested. Is the government breaking the rules of Parliament or what is happening? The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) was absent today, but he told us yesterday that he had lost the report. He did not know where the report was. We asked the President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Baker) to look into the matter. We were vaguely told that it was at the printer's. I would like to have a date as to when this report will be tabled.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I was here yesterday and heard the hon. member, and I indicated I would look into the matter. I am, in fact, looking into it. I want to assure her that I will report to her outside the House so she will know in advance when it will be available and when we will be answering what I think is a legitimate point made by the hon. member in the House of Commons. I do want to assure her that I am attempting to get that answer for her.

November 29, 1979



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I am pleased to table two copies in both official languages of the Canadian Petroleum Industry Monitoring Survey for 1977-78.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos 5, 42, 60, 153, 222, 257, 259, 275, 293, 300, 314, 543, 554 and 565.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Department of Public Works arrange and authorize the painting of a picture of the former Governor General and his wife by Mr. Lemieux of Sillery, Quebec and, if so (a) on what date (b) what is the name of the highest ranking government official who authorized the painting (c) who was the Minister of Public Works at the time?
2.	(a) On what date did the artist commence painting and on what date did he complete his work (b) on how many occasions did he personally attend the former Governor General and his wife?
3.	Was the sum of $35,000 paid to Mr. Lemieux and (a) if so, for what reason was this amount charged (b) if not, what was the amount paid?
4.	What are the exact dimensions of the portrait and where is it located?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Yes, after the work was reviewed as being suitable.
(a)	Authorized January 5, 1976.
(b)	Hon. C. M. Drury.
(c)	Hon. C. M. Drury.
2.	(a) Painting commenced in late October 1975 and was
completed in mid-January, 1976.
(b) Mr. Lemieux did not personally attend the Governor General and his wife, as it is his custom to research and work with photographs.
3.	Yes.
(a)	The fee was considered fair and reasonable value for the work performed. Advice in this respect was sought from the National Gallery and outside sources.
(b)	Not applicable.
Order Paper Questions
4.	The portrait is 495/s inches x 71 inches and is presently in storage at the Lome Building.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice-presidents of the Atomic Energy Control Board?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows:
1.	(a) J. H. Jennekens
(b) There is no provision for such a position.
2.	(a) $48,500-$65,500 (b) Not applicable


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice-presidents of the Centennial Commission?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case?


Mrs. Diane Stratas (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: 1. The Centennial Commission was formed to celebrate Canada's 100th anniversary of confederation. It ceased as a commission in 1968. The commissioner was Mr. John Fisher, and the Associate Commissioner, Mr. Gilles Bergeron.
2.	Not applicable


Mr. Herbert: What were the grain demurrage charges for the period (a) October 1976 to October 1977 (b) October 1977 to October 1978 and, what were the charges for (i) West Coast ports (ii) Great Lakes ports?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Demurrage charges paid by the Canadian Wheat Board during the periods (a) November 1, 1976, to October 31, 1977, and (b) November 1, 1977, to October 31, 1978, were:
(a)	November 1, 1976, to October 31, 1977
(i)	West Coast ports	$ 1,054,009.12(ii)	Great Lakes ports	None(b)	November 1, 1977, to October 31, 1978(i)	West Coast ports	$4,431,750.28(ii)	Great Lakes ports	None
Note: The phrasing of the time period in the question has
been interpreted in the above answer as being November 1 to October 31.

November 29, 1979
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Caouette: Poste-d-la-Baleine New Post Office Modifications and Warehouse
341,317
Did the Department of Public Works (a) carry out any projects on the present boundaries of the Constituency of Abitibi between 1974 and 1978 (b) plan any projects for the current fiscal year and, if so, what are they?


Erik Nielsen: The list below of projects over $5,000 are both Public Works and other government departments-funded. Please note that as per our policy on the provision of historical expenditures for constituencies, the information for 1974-75 through 1978-79 uses the old constituency boundaries for Abitibi while the forecasts for 1979-80 use the new constituency boundaries for Abitibi.
Amos Post Office Modifications
Amos
Canada Manpower, Interior landscaping
Baie James (Joutel)
Instal Postal Module
Clerval/Lac Abitibi Tourist Wharf
Clerval/Lac Abitibi Repairs to Wharf and Ramp
23,000	14,000
2,572
15,245
23,520	109
25,599
Duparquet
Wharf Repairs	18,432	489
(a) Expenditures in the Constituency of Abitibi (Old Boundaries) Projects over $5,000 1974-75 to 1978-79
1974-75	1975-76	1976-77	1977-78	1978-79Radisson (Baic James) Interior Fits-ups	2,086	21,547St. Marc de Figuery Farm School Heaters	28,029	St-Mathieu de Figuery Lac Figuery Wharf Repairs	13,756	487	Taschereau New Post Office	158,000	5,000	Val d'Or Enlargement and Renovations to Federal Building	111	20,360	Val d'Or Fit-ups, Federal Building	9,243	218Lac Mourier (Malartic) Wharf and Approach Repairs	22,193	Lac Preissac Tourist Wharf	15,177	Laferte (Lac Lois) Wharf and Approach Repairs	7,011	LaSarre 223 rue Principale Fit-ups-2nd Floor-CMC	66,000	54,000	LaSarre Post Office Modifications	20,000	12,000	Launay, Lac Chicoby Wharf and Approach Repairs	9,977	Matagami Improvements to Post Office	257	18,417	Palmarolle (Riviere Dagcnais) Wharf Repairs 	7,794	
Fort Georges
Protection Work	1,291,000
Great Whale River Purchase of Mobile
Home	9,000
Joutel, Riviere Harricanna Wharf and
Launching Ramp	22,602
Lac Chibougamau Tourist Wharf	23,645
(b) Expenditures in the Constituency of Abitibi (New Boundaries) Projects over $5,000 Planned for 1979-80
Cadillac
Wharf and Ramp Repairs	20,000
Mobile Clinic, Health and Welfare	35,000
Val d'Or
550 3rd Ave. Interior Fit-ups	272,000
Val d'Or 903 2nd Ave.
Conveyor Installation and Minor Modifications	45,000


Mr. Knowles: 1.	What was the total amount at credit in the Public Service Superannuation Account as at March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1977 (c) 1978?
2.	What rate of interest has the government paid for the use of this money during the fiscal years ending on the dates noted above?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Public Service Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1977 (c) 1978?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Public Service Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1977 (c) 1978?
November 29, 1979

1.	The total amount at credit in the Public Service superannuation account as at March 31,
(a)	1976 is $7,312,248,146
(b)	1977 is $8,147,817,891
(c)	1978 is $9,041,851,849
2.	The rates of interest earned by the Public Service superannuation account during the quarters ending
June 30, 1975	1.6612
September 30, 1975	1.6742
December 31, 1975	1.7109
March 31, 1976	1.7209
June 30, 1976	1.7471
September 30, 1976	1.7488
December 31, 1976	1.7707
March 31, 1977	1.7891
June 30, 1977	1.8102
September 30, 1977	1.8204
December 31, 1977	1.8372
March 31, 1978	1.8508
3.	The amount of interest credited to the Public Service superannuation account during the fiscal years ending March 31,
(a)	1976	$263,884,375(b)	1977	$297,217,070(c)	1978	$336,428,4384.	The	total amount paid out of the superannuation account
during the fiscal years ending March 31
(a)	1976	$211,647,033(b)	1977	$280,409,339(c)	1978	$287,329,035


Mr. Knowles: 1.	What was the total amount contributed (a) by employees (b) by the government, to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account during the year from April 1, 1977 to March 31, 1978?
2.	What was the total amount paid of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account, during the year from April 1, 1977 to March 31, 1978, in the form of pension supplements, and to how many individuals were such pension supplements paid at any time during that period?
3.	What was the balance at credit in the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account as at March 31 (a) 1977 (b) 1978?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of Treasury Board):: 1.	(a) $64,260,542 (b) $64,260,542
2.	Pension supplements totalling $170,236,195 were paid to 125,538 individuals during fiscal year 1977-78.
Of this amount $5,539,234 was charged to the supplementary retirement benefits account and $164,696,961 was charged to the consolidated revenue fund.
3.	(a) $205,928,464 (b) $345,512,632
Order Paper Questions MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT-PENSIONS


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many former members of Parliament are not eligible for pensions resulting from their parliamentary service?
2.	What percentage was paid as interest on pension monies contributed by and then returned to such MPs?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 1.	Five hundred and four since the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act came into force on November 20, 1952.
2.	Since 1975 interest on returns of contributions has been paid at 4 per cent. Five MPs did not receive any interest because they had insufficient pensionable service.


Mr. Herbert: Of the 552 persons released from the Public Service in 1978, how many were released for incompetence and how many for other reasons?


Diane Rose Stratas: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows:
Persons released for:	Incompetence	22
Incapacity	82
Breach of discipline
or misconduct	110
Abandonment of position 338


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In each of the past five years, what amount was carried in the Estimates under the Department of Public Works for the Post Office Department's construction program?
2.	For the same years, by province, what is the breakdown of the Figures?


Erik Nielsen: 1. For the years 1974-75 through 1978-79, the actual costs incurred and funded from the Accommodation Capital Program of Public Works Canada for the Post Office Department were as follows:
	($000's)
1974-75	72,322
1975-76	82,927
1976-77	88,814
1977-78	114,033
1978-79	80,227
Total	438,323

November 29, 1979
Order Paper Questions
2. The breakdown, by province for the above figure is as follows:
(SOOO's)
Province	1974-75	1975-76	1976-77	1977-78	1978-79Newfoundland	3,701	4,444	1,164	393	239Nova Scotia	188	129	2,446	8,171	4,572New Brunswick	3,886	4,072	257	1,400	195Prince Edward Island	-	14	5	8	-Quebec	15,617	38,593	58,713	80,374	54,355Ontario	43,774	28,654	14,444	13,748	14,113Manitoba	412	597	167	1,396	977Saskatchewan	283	685	623	755	1,064Alberta	2,662	403	812	2,540	1,593British Columbia	1,684	5,336	10,112	5,185	2,878Northwest Territories	115	-	66	63	241Yukon Territory	-	-	5	-	-Total	72,322	82,927	88,814	114,033	80,227
Corrected reply:


Mr. Herbert-Tabled 77-08-04-page 8010: In the preparation of the reply to question No. 300 of this session, it was discovered that a similar question, although not by province, was asked by Mr. Herbert in March 1977.
Due to a clerical error in the compilation of the regional data, the answer to the previous question was not correct.
The answer to question No. 2223 is hereby amended as follows:
	(SOOO's)
1972-73	28,952
1973-74	69,346
1974-75	72,322
1975-76	82,927
1976-77	88,814
Total	$342,361


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What was the balance in the Public Service Superannuation account on March 31, 1979?
2.	What amount was (a) added to (b) paid from the account in each of the past five years?
3.	For each of the same years, what average rate of interest was paid by the government for the use of the funds?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 1. The balance in the Public Service Superannuation Account on March 31, 1979 was $10,092,716,663.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	(a) What was/were the rate/rates of inflation used in calculating the financial requirements for each of the five years of the Discovery Train program (b) in each case, how and where were these figures obtained?
2.	(a) How many display items are on the Train (b) how many of these items were specifically commissioned for the Train (c) what is a description of each item commissioned?
3.	(a) Were all of the items commissioned/requested for use in the Train in a usable and/or acceptable condition upon completion and, if not (i) how many were not (ii) what were they (iii) what was the average cost of these unusable/ unacceptable items (b) what was the average cost of all the items purchased for display (c) were any of the unacceptable/unusable items replaced and, if so, were additional funds expended and what was the amount of these additional funds?
4.	How many contracts were involved in the establishment/setting up of the Train in its' first season of operation on the (a) operational (b) capital side?
5.	How many of the contracts were based on oral arrangements on the (a) operational (b) capital side?
6.	On oral arrangement contracts, were any basic or maximum ceilings of expenditure established from the time of the original discussions and (a) if so, what were they (b) if not, for what reason?
7.	(a) Did any of the Train contracts have a maximum ceiling of expenditures outlined in the contract and, if so (i) how many (ii) did any of the contractors exceed the maximum outlined in their contract (b) in contracts where max-imums were outlined, was any penalty established for exceeding the budget?
8.	Did any of the Train contracts have a quality of workmanship type clause to protect a portion of the investment on any item the corporation might not find acceptable upon receipt and, if not, for what reason?
9.	Did the corporation ever consider adding items to the displays over the five year period in order to have more control over both financial and quality matters in the very short lead time available before June 22, 1978 and, if not, for what reason?
10.	On what date (a) was the Train purchased (b) was it decided that an additional four cars would be required (c) were the additional four cars purchased (d) did the corporation find out that the CNR would not upgrade these cars as was agreed they would do for the original cars purchased from the United States?
11.	(a) How many people in the National Museums Corporation were involved in the program (b) what were their job classifications (c) did the Corporation second any assistance from other government departments other than the CNR and, if so, how many and what were their job classifications from the date the corporation took over the program to the end of the first season?
1974-75	1975-76	1976-77	1977-78	1978-792. (a) Amount added to the Public Service Superannuation Account	$1,177,627,004	$1,103,597,288	$1,115,979,084	$1,181,363,872	$1,395,031,425(b) Amount paid from the Account	$ 184,831,352	$ 211,647,033	$ 280,409,339	$ 287,329,914	$ 344,166,6113. Average rates of interest paid by the government for the use of the funds	6.6 per cent	6.9 per cent	7.2 per cent	7.5 per cent	7.9 per cent

November 29, 1979

12.	How many people does the Corporation estimate will be directly involved in the (a) technical (b) administrative operations for the program in each of the next four years?


Diane Rose Stratas: I am informed by the National Museums as follows:
1.	(a) No rates of inflation were used in the calculation of
the five years of the Discovery Train Program. The estimates were submitted to Treasury Board in 1978 dollars and so specified.
(b) N/A.
2.	(a) There are 1200 artifacts and specimens on the Train,
and 80 mannequins and figures.
(b)	The mannequins were all specifically designed for the Train.
(c)	A descriptive list of each item is not readily available. The 14 display cars treat the following subjects:
(1)	Discover Canada (1) : East Coast
(2)	Discover Canada (2) : Eastern Woodlands to the Grasslands
(3)	Discover Canada (3) : The West/Beringia
(4)	Pre-historic Man (C. 14,000 BC-C. 5,000 BC)
(5)	The Indians and the Inuit (Post-Contact)
(6)	New France (1534-1689)
(7)	British North America (1689-1885)
(8)	Immigrants from Central Europe (1898-1900)
(9)	Pioneering (1885-1910)
(10)	Boom and Bust (1910-1935)
(11)	The Second World War (1939-1945)
(12)	Here and Now (1945-present)
(13)	Folk Tuba Time March
(14)	Finale.
3.	(a) Yes.
(b)	Average cost of display items is not available. The total display cost for the fourteen cars, including design workshop and display services was $2,108,233.
(c)	N/A.
4.	(a) 23.
(b) 494.
5.	(a) 3.
(b) 7.
6.	Yes.
(a)	In three cases a fee was established for the delivery of a stated product or service. The amounts involved were $600, $9,000, $14,000.
(b)	In the remaining cases it was considered that definition of the end-product was too difficult to permit establishment of a fixed price within the time frame available. The end-products involved innovation of
Order Paper Questions
technique or material and were of an experimental nature.
7.	(a) Yes.
(i)	510,
(ii)	Yes.
(b) No.
8.	Formal quality of workmanship clauses were not included in Train contracts. This device is most useful when deficiencies might be concealed within a device or structure. It was the practice on this project to inspect work in plant as it was being completed. This approach facilitated early identification and correction of deficiencies. Where deficiencies were noted, progress and/or final payments were withheld pending correction.
9.	No. It was considered essential to provide as complete a display as possible from the beginning because the train will visit locations in Canada only once. Starting with an incomplete display would have been unfair to those communities visited early.
10.	(a) August 12, 1977,
(b)	Mid-February 1978,
(c)	March 31, 1978,
(d)	Although indications earlier indicated that CN would have difficulty in meeting the NMC's request, the negative decision was accepted as final in August 1978.
11.	(a) 11,
(b)	SX-1, PM-7, 2 PM-5's, PM-4, IS-4, AS-3, EG-ESS-11, CR-5, 2 ST-SCY-3's,
(c)	One AS-2,
12.	(a) 24,
(b) 12.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were smoke detectors or other similar devices installed in government buildings for fire protection purposes and, if so, in what locations are the buildings?
2.	Will the government give consideration to the installation of smoke detectors or similar devices in government buildings, particularly the historical buildings on Parliament Hill, to aid in providing adequate fire protection?


Erik Nielsen: 1. Yes, smoke detectors and smoke alarms are installed in federal government buildings for the early detection of a fire condition (smoke or flame). Such devices are installed in all new construction, or major renovation projects, of federal government construction projects in locations required by the National Building Code. Smoke detection and smoke alarm devices are also installed in all existing federal government owned or occupied buildings where a serious life hazard is

November 29, 1979
Business of the House
recognized. This policy applies to buildings in all regions of Canada.
2. Yes. The dominion fire commissioner's staff during their programmed inspections of federal properties, particularly prestigious buildings on Parliament Hill, constantly check on hazardous conditions and recommend installation of smoke detectors, or other detection and fire suppression equipment, where necessary for the safety of occupants and protection of property. Recommendations are made on a cost effectiveness basis, and implemented by priority as funds are made available.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Does Treasury Board circular number 1979-20 dated July 27, 1979, state " ... a penalty may be levied against the responsible department in an amount up to twice the total over-run"?
2.	Will any such levied penalty be expected to be absorbed in the authorized spending estimates of the Department or would such items be submitted to Parliament in supplementary estimates?
3.	Will the Treasury Board estimates include as a separate and distinct item any revenues resulting from such levies?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 1.	Yes.
2.	Any penalties levied would be expected to be absorbed by the department.
3.	No revenues will accrue. Penalties will be held as frozen allotments for which spending authority will lapse at the end of the year.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Elzinga:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I have had a question on the order paper for four sessions; this session and three sessions of the previous Parliament. It is question No. 333 and I wonder if I might bring it to the attention of the parliamentary secretary. It is a very simple question dealing with various travel arrangements of the presidents and chairmen of various government commissions and agencies, and how they have used their special travel passage on Air Canada. I would like to receive some type of commitment that we might have a speedy answer to the question.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, if I am able to break into his conversation, apologetically, I would ask the President of the Privy Council what the business is for the next few days, and

can he confirm publicly what the business will be for the next while in view of the discussions we have had?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, just before we rose last evening at six o'clock I made a statement that I hoped would suffice for the hon. gentleman and the House. It was in respect of the business that we had agreed upon. I am grateful in that regard, but in order that the House may know what we agreed upon, we are calling for this afternoon government motions Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 in relation to the four select committees; one relating to rehabilitation, one relating to the Foreign Investment Review Act, one relating to voluntarism, and finally cost overruns. We will see how far we can go this afternoon with those four on that list.We are calling them in the order that I had indicated, in accordance with the discussions that were held among House leaders.
There has been an arrangement made by which we can begin debate this evening on the freedom of information bill, Bill C-15. I am grateful that this can take place. It is hoped by all of us that the items I have listed can be completed by the time of the adjournment on Monday evening, and that is in accordance with the discussions.
Given the discussions we have had among House leaders, on Tuesday, December 4, we will be calling again second reading of Bill C-20, the property tax credit legislation, for the purpose, as I understand it, of having the vote and sending the bill to Committee of the Whole.
If there should be any votes arising out of the motions in respect of the committees, we would hope those votes could be taken at the time.
For the balance of the week we will be dealing with Bill C-20, the property tax credit legislation, according to the present schedule. I understand Thursday, December 6, is an allotted day. If that is the case I am prepared to allot that day.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for giving us that additional elaboration. We intend to carry forward in the spirit in which we discussed these arrangements yesterday. I am not sure whether the hon. minister has "dede-signated" tomorrow, which was originally intended to be an allotted day; we do not propose to take it out.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to confirm for my friend that I did in fact dedesignate that day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is the eighth week in which we have been in session and I have again the same question I have asked for six of those weeks. I did not have to ask it last week as the minister volunteered a statement. I feel very strongly that the government ought to bring in its promised bill having to do with veterans. I hope that in the arrangements that are being made for the work of the House between now and Christmas there will be time provided to deal with that bill. I am sure that the House will deal with it quickly and get the bill to committee so that the benefits it will give to veterans, their families and survivors might be agreed to by this House before Christmas.
November 29, 1979


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the concern of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is shared by the Minister of Veterans Affairs and he has acted upon that concern. It is a concern which, I am sure, is shared by all members of the House of Commons. As soon as 1 leave the House this afternoon, I will go to a cabinet committee which is considering this bill. I expect to be in a position-and this will be confirmed in our process-to introduce the bill into the House next week. It is my intention to have that bill called and 1 hope, indeed 1 am sure, that there will be co-operation on all sides of the House to deal with that very important piece of legislation which deals with bringing the changes in the pension legislation for veterans into law. I thank the hon. gentleman for raising this issue.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Walter David Baker: That a special committee of the House of Commons be appointed to inquire into and report upon the special needs of the handicapped and disabled in Canada and the extent to which those needs are being met;
That the committee, taking into account the nature and scope of current federal policies, programs and services directed to the general public or established specifically to assist physically and mentally handicapped and disabled persons, report its conclusions and recommendations with respect
(1)	to their impact in providing opportunities for handicapped and disabled persons to lead independent and fully integrated lives,
(2)	to their relationship to the programs, services and activities now being carried out by the voluntary sector and the provinces; and
(3)	to measures which may be required to meet more fully the special needs of the handicapped and disabled
together with such other matters as the committee considers relevant;
That, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the committee may examine the special needs of the handicapped and disabled in the following areas: fundamental and civil rights; employment opportunities; vocational training and work preparation; business incentives including loans and grants; provision for special income tax deductions and income supplement programs; health services and medical rehabilitation; social rehabilitation community support services; transportation; housing; access to public buildings and services; information and communication; travel, sports and leisure activities; services for handicapped and disabled native peoples; quality of life of severely disabled and institutionalized persons; role of handicapped and disabled persons and voluntary organizations in policy and program development; co-ordination within and between jurisdictions; and data base development;
That the committee take into account the work of other standing and special committees dealing with subjects which affect the handicapped and disabled, in particular the provision of pensions and disability benefits to disabled and handicapped persons and measures to strengthen the role of voluntary organizations representing handicapped and disabled persons;
That the committee be composed of seven members of the House of Commons to be designated at a later date;
Needs of Handicapped
That the committee have the power to appoint from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the committee have the power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee submit reports from time to time, as appropriate, with a first report to be submitted as early as possible in 1980 and a final report by December 31, 1980;
That the committee have the power to invite the views of interested parties and the public, to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the committee have the power to adjourn from place to place within Canada and such other places to be determined at a later date; and
That the committee have the power to retain the services of expert advisers and to commission studies or research to assist in its work and that it also have the power to retain such professional, technical, clerical and stenographic help as may be required.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. It is with regard to the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie), in whose name this motion was put before the House. This is a government motion, and neither the minister nor his parliamentary secretary is present. We have the unusual situation of a member of the House, albeit quite a distinguished member, who has no status in so far as the government is concerned either as a minister or as a parliamentary secretary, rising to speak to this government motion as a lead-off speaker. 1 do not wish to embarrass any further the hon. member, who has a deep interest in this subject, but I would like to advise the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) that it is a precedent which, I suggest, should have a very short life.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the motion is on the order paper in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Unfortunately, the minister could not be here today, and it was called in my name as a minister of the government. I am advised that the parliamentary secretary is present.
I am sure that members on all sides of the House are aware of the tremendous contribution that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) has made and the recognition he has received from the public with respect to the problems of the handicapped. According to the rules of the House, and having moved the motion, I would be deemed to have spoken in that debate.
1 am aware of what my hon. friend is saying, but I hope that there will be no objection under the circumstances if such a distinguished member of the House, who has made such a contribution in the field that is the subject matter of this motion, were to be the first speaker in this debate. I believe that the hon. member can bring to this particular issue expertise that could not be introduced by any other member. I can inform the House that the government will endorse what the hon. member for Brandon-Souris will say in the debate.

November 29, 1979
Needs of Handicapped


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is much more than a technical matter; it is a question of ministerial responsibility to the House of Commons. When we were sitting on that side, we received many lectures from the hon. members who were over here on this sort of situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The more they change, the more they are the same.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: When I raised the question 1 was ready to accede to this situation. I hope that what the minister has said is a clear undertaking that this will be considered an exceptional arrangement and that a private member, no matter how distinguished, will not in the future be the spokesman for the government on a government motion moved under government business.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne included these interesting words:
My ministers were given a mandate to change the direction of the Government of Canada, as we enter the 1980s. The basic purposes of that change will be to enhance the rights, freedoms and opportunities of individual Canadians and re-establish the spirit of partnership and renewal which are fundamental to our Federation.
Further along in the same Speech from the Throne, these words are noted:
To demonstrate the capacity of Parliament, you will be asked to approve the immediate establishment of four select small committees, with the resources and powers necessary to inquire fully into the special needs of handicapped and disabled Canadians; measures to strengthen the role of the voluntary sector in our society-
I presume that the reason I find myself speaking to this motion this afternoon as the first speaker for the government is because new administrations are always enthusiastic about participation and involvement in dealing with long outstanding problems.
No one can deny that the subject matter of the motion before us is one that has been aired from time to time in this Parliament and other places in Canada over the years. As a matter of fact, I introduced the motion on February 23, 1972. As is the time-honoured custom in this House, it was unfortunately talked out. In each successive year there has been a debate, with the same result. I am not unmindful of the fact that historians tell us that from the time an idea is first introduced into Parliament until it is presented and accepted in legislation, usually about 37 years pass. We are doing a little better with the motion that is before us and 1 want to congratulate the new government for making it possible to present it. 1 hope that as members on all sides of the House take part in the discussion this afternoon they will give a positive response and we will have early approval of the motion. As I look around the chamber and see the upturned faces of hon. members who I hope will take part in the discussion, I remember that they have supported us in the past and I am confident that this will be the case today.
While we are proceeding to implement the premise of the motion in a much shorter period than 37 years, I think we

should know at the outset that the history of the rehabilitation movement in Canada covers a longer period of time. I think this is the appropriate moment to make some reference to it.
Actual rehabilitation of disabled citizens, both physically disabled and mentally handicapped Canadians, is a rather modern concept. There was a time when both the physically disabled and mentally handicapped were excluded completely from the community and, in more recent years, provided with a pension. Still, it was a pension and a shrug. The possibility of severely disabled people being integrated into the community and becoming part of the community, usefully employed and making a positive contribution, is a quite recent experience.
It was the tragedies of World War I and World War II that really gave impetus to the concept of rehabilitation. We pay tribute to the work of the Department of Veterans Affairs in this regard, and the continuing work of the Canadian War Amps which introduced for the first time the use of modern technology to ease the lot of the physically disabled with prosthetic or orthopedic aids.
Canada, under the impetus of the tragedy of two world wars, established rehabilitation institutes. These operate right across Canada and provide a comprehensive rehabilitation program, at least for the physically disabled. Our mental health centres, as we now call our mental hospitals, have emphasized returning mentally handicapped citizens into the community with so much success that the populations of these institutions have decreased radically in recent years.
The real work of rehabilitation was done by the voluntary organizations and groups in Canada. There are some 48 voluntary groups that play a positive and useful role in this regard. Obviously they are too numerous to mention but I will mention two. The one in the field of the physically disabled, the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled, founded by Dr. Keith Armstrong in the immediate post-war period of World War II, has provided an umbrella under which agencies which work in the field of rehabilitation among the physically disabled have been able to function.
I think the most encouraging aspect of the rehabilitation movement is the recent involvement of the disabled themselves in the program of integration and prevention. The first conference of a new organization was held in Ottawa lask weekend. I am sure many hon. members had a chance to talk to some of the 190 delegates who attended. For the first time we had a coalition of the provincial organizations of the handicapped coming to Ottawa, holding a conference, meeting with members of Parliament and becoming part of the answer to the problem.
This organization of consumers, which calls itself COPOH, is-and let me repeat and underline this-one of the most useful and positive developments in the rehabilitation movement in recent years. They want to solve their own problems and be regarded not as a segregated group but as first-class Canadian citizens with all the rights, opportunities and privileges, as well as responsibilities, of Canadian citizenship.
November 29, 1979

I could spend a long time talking about the work of the voluntary organizations-service clubs, churches, the Chamber of Commerce with its "Employment for the Handicapped" program, and other groups that are now becoming deeply involved in the whole movement of bringing handicapped citizens into the mainstream of Canadian life.
Over the years a multiplicity of policies have been developed on behalf of the disabled. One of the reasons I first became interested in this subject was because of the jungle of confusion and the lack of co-ordination I found in the rehabilitation field. I think it is fair to say that most of the people who are deeply involved in some aspect of the rehabilitation movement are those who have had severe disability within the bosom of their own families. That was certainly my case. As 1 attempted to find solutions, I found that the confusion of red tape, the bureaucratic multiplicity of programs and the lack of co-ordination and co-operation, was a jungle impossible to penetrate.
If hon. members refer to my original motion introduced in 1972, they will see that the idea was to initiate co-operation and co-ordination of the programs and, of course, as we move now toward setting up a formal committee, this will be one of our major functions in dealing with the problem.
Some of the programs are excellent. We have, perhaps, one of the best medical and hospital programs of any country in the world. This led to an emphasis on institutional care, very expensive and sometimes not completely positive, with respect to moving the disabled person back into the community again, so much so that they were often referred to as human warehouses for the chronically ill and the severely disabled. It provided them, as 1 say, with a bed and a pension but little opportunity of moving out beyond the confines of an institutional situation. This program is enormously expensive and yet negative in its results on behalf of the disabled person.
Some of the programs have been excellent, but again not applied evenly. The vocational rehabilitation training program has been one of the more positive programs and most members will be acquainted with its operation. It has become evident that a legislative program is required in order to co-ordinate and bring together the multiplicity of policies and programs, unco-ordinated as they are.
The United Kingdom is moving ahead in this field. On the statute books of the United Kingdom there is an act for the chronically ill and the severely disabled. That act was passed in the early 1970s. The wording of the chronically ill and severely disabled act indicates that already the United Kingdom has moved to bring together those areas of concern for the senior citizens and the severely disabled.
In many respects the problems are similar. We all know that in the next few years Canada's population will be an aging one. It is said that by the end of the century 15 per cent of our population will be over the age of 65. This means that rehabilitation services will be used to a greater extent by a population that is becoming increasingly older. I would think that eventually Canada will have to have a legislative background to
Needs of Handicapped
update its social security programs and its social welfare programs that have grown like Topsy to meet specific needs, much the same as the voluntary associations have grown to deal with specific disabilities, such as deafness, muscular dystrophy, arthritis, mental illness, mental retardation and all the other difficulties to which the human flesh can fall heir.
There has been an attempt to bring about co-ordination in a social services act, as hon. members who have been in previous Parliaments know. An orange paper was presented in 1973. There was elaborate discussion over the years and finally last year the social services act disappeared from the order paper because the method of financing was changed from shared cost to block funding. Therefore, we have to begin from square one again in the very complex program of co-ordinating a legislative program that will bring into focus the contemporary needs of the disabled and chronically ill population in Canada.
I do not want to anticipate what the committee will do but I think that we shall be very much preoccupied with this problem of legislative backup for rehabilitation programs. The committee will come into operation at a very important time in the rehabilitation movement. In the next two years not only in Canada but around the world there is going to be a high profile of interest in the problems of disabled and handicapped peoples.
From June 22 to June 27 next year at the convention centre in the city of Winnipeg, Canada will be hosting the Rehabilitation International Congress which will bring to our shores 6,000 leaders of the rehabilitation movement from around the world. The themes of the congress are prevention and integration and will produce a charter for the 1980s. Already there are committees working on the charter for the '80s which will present guideline parameters within which the rehabilitation movement can operate in all countries of the world. Here is one area upon which the human family can agree.
It is interesting to note that immediately following 1980 there will be an observance of the Year of the Disabled, which observance was approved unanimously by the United Nations in December 1976. Not too many motions receive unanimous approval at the United Nations but here is a humanitarian interest which was approved unanimously. In 1981, flowing out of the Rehabilitation International Congress to be held in Canada in 1980, the Year of the Disabled will bring into focus some of the matters that we will be considering in our committee, certainly issues that will come out of the congress in Winnipeg. They will be tied hopefully to the charter for the 1980s which will be a by-product of the Winnipeg congress. The Year of the Disabled was sponsored at the United Nations initially by Libya. So we cross an interesting number of political differences as we come together to bring into focus the needs of disabled citizens around the world in the year 1981.
The proposal of a committee has stimulated some interesting activities in Canada. Let me just recite a few of them before I conclude my remarks in introducing this motion. Just last spring the Department of National Health and Welfare established a bureau of rehabilitation under the direction of

November 29, 1979
Needs of Handicapped
Andre LeBlanc. The Department of National Health and Welfare, as I have indicated, sponsored the first meeting of COPOH, the consumers group that has come together to resolve its own problems. It is a coalition of the handicapped, not a coalition for the handicapped. That is a vital point of differentiation and these disabled people themselves are bound that they are going to become a vital part of Canadian society.
For the past three days in Ottawa, the Department of Transport has been conducting a hearing on transportation for the handicapped at the Lester Pearson building. The original intention was to conduct hearings over a period of two days on all aspects of transportation for the disabled. There were so many applications to be heard and so many briefs to be presented that it became necessary to extend that conference by one day.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, there was a meeting in Los Angeles some two weeks ago. It had international connotations, but Canada was vitally involved in that too through its membership in the International Commission on Technical Aids and housing and transportation for the handicapped. ICTA has been sponsoring resolutions encouraging access to the skies. The meeting in Los Angeles two weeks ago involved major aircraft manufacturing companies in the United States and Europe to ensure that their next generation of jumbo jets will be accessible to the disabled people. Transportation, of course, is absolutely essential if there is going to be any possibility of integration into the community.
Supply and services have also got into the act. They are conducting a study on sheltered workshops. That is a noble idea that came out of World War I but which have tended to be a dead-end street for the disabled. They are a good idea if they are part of the process of bringing disabled citizens back into the community. Supply and services will be conducting this study.
The adult retraining act is being redirected by the Department of Employment and Immigration more to the retraining of disabled Canadians. With regard to human rights, we got our toe in the door two years ago on human rights when employment of the handicapped was included. Last Friday morning the COPOH people met with the Minister of Justice. We now have a commitment from the Minister of Justice and perhaps I should put it on the record because certainly our committee will want to come to grips with this subject. Here is a letter dated November 23 signed by the Hon. Jacques Flynn on this subject:
So that no doubt can be fostered as to the nature of the government's commitment, I would like to reiterate the words of the Prime Minister, as embodied in a letter to the Coalition, from the Leader of the Opposition, on May 1 of this year:
"protection from discriminatory practices should be provided for under the (Canadian) Human Rights Act in a manner consistent with the coverage provided for other protected groups, and we are prepared to amend the existing act to provide for this".
[Mr. Dinsdale.J
Accessibility to public buildings, particularly federal buildings, will be guaranteed by 1983. We still have three years to go on that.
The question of income maintenance is being reviewed at the present time by the parliamentary committee that will look into the subject of pensions as they apply to the needs of the disabled. Sometimes our pension program has introduced a legislative disincentive. If a disabled person was able to earn some income, the pension operated in such a way that the income maintenance program was completely discontinued and the disabled person was not encouraged to continue in the labour market.
These are just a few of the activities that have been stimulated and are under way as a result of the renewed interest in the problems of and policies for the disabled, which in turn has resulted from the motion that we are discussing here today.
I should perhaps refer to the work of the National Research Council which has a special branch dealing with technology for the handicapped. The council is supporting an interesting effort in which I think all hon. members will be interested. In co-operation with the NRC the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled, CRCD, has established an agency known as TASH-technical aids and systems for the handicapped-which will make it possible to introduce the sophisticated electronic technology that is now available and make it more readily accessible to the handicapped. This means that totally disabled people, for example those afflicted with muscular dystrophy, will be able to control their immediate environment. Some of them will be able to get back into the work force, particularly those who were professionals, because these environmental electronic controls make it possible for a totally disabled person to handle a typewriter and use the telephone.
I could tell some interesting stories of how this has revitalized the whole lifestyle of some of these chronically and severely disabled persons. Very often in the case of a severe disability, it is sometimes said that you cannot add years to the life but you can certainly add life to the years by using some of this sophisticated technology that is available.
The committee program is outlined before us today, so there is no need to go into it in detail. I think it is important to note that it is a small committee made up of seven. The official opposition and the government will be evenly divided and we will have a representative from the New Democratic Party. I am sure all those serving on the committee will have a personal interest and commitment.
The intent of the committee will be to get in touch with the voluntary sector that I outlined briefly, which is so numerous, and to get into touch with the provinces. Inevitably with any rehabilitation program it is the province that must deliver the services. We will establish close liaison with all government departments and agencies involved in rehabilitation; I understand there are at least 30. It can be seen that our task will not be an easy one.
We will hopefully have attached to our committee, seconded from government departments, as many disabled people as
November 29, 1979

possible. Since the committee was announced, I have been amazed at the number of telephone calls I have received from disabled people who are occupying important positions in various government departments in research, labour, employment and immigration. We have all the talent we need to staff our committee. We will have an additional advantage if we are able to retain the services of some of these disabled people who are highly motivated, sensitive and knowledgeable in the whole field of rehabilitation services.
We want to get as much publicity as possible for the work of the committee. It has been said that perhaps the handicapped person's greatest handicap is our attitude. In recent months some hon. members might have been aware of an information program sponsored jointly by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled which has used the slogan as its theme "The handicapped's biggest handicap can be your attitude".
We want to use the work of the committee as an educational and informational process so that we might dissipate some of the myths about disability, both the physical disability and the mental handicap. In so doing, we want to assist, accelerate and aid the process of making it possible for disabled Canadians to become a vital part of the community.
We hope to have an interim report in time for the congress in Winnipeg, which would mean in the spring, and in that report will be recommendations for action which can be followed up immediately. Then, as our mandate indicates, we hope to bring in our final report by the end of the year 1980. There have been many studies undertaken, but no attempt has ever been made to bring the information together. This will be the challenge of our committee.
One study-and I close my remarks with this reference- came through with a message which was crystal clear. A questionnaire was sent out to disabled persons, and the response was that they wanted in-into employment, into community living, into maximum participation in community life and into the planning of systems and services designed to help them. At the same time they wanted out-out of institutions, out of dead-end sheltered workshops, out of welfare, out of being pitied and out of being thrust to the sidelines with a pension and a shrug. 1 hope that as a result of the work of our committee we will be able to achieve this desirable goal.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition welcomes this government's initiative and offers sincere and complete co-operation with this committee. I would like to add my personal words of congratulation to the hon. member who has just spoken for his unstinting efforts on behalf of the handicapped.
However, having said we welcome the initiative, I think it behooves me also to mention one grave reservation we on this side of the House have regarding this initiative. The reservation really stems from the wording of the preamble to this motion when it refers particularly, and I quote, to "the nature
Needs of Handicapped
and scope of current federal policies". If Canadians today know anything at all about the policy of the present federal government, they know that it is one of restraint, and there hangs our reservation.
The previous speaker mentioned that the handicapped of Canada do not want another study. They want into employment, into community living and so forth. Some of the things they want could very well and probably will involve some kind of spending. Some kind of funding is necessary if they are to achieve what they really want. Under those circumstances I think it would be the cruelest injustice and the greatest disservice to the handicapped and disabled people of Canada if this committee, albeit unwittingly but by its very formation, were to raise unrealistic expectations among the handicapped and disabled of Canada.
In other words, 1 think this must be a committee which has some teeth so that we can prove to the people not only that we are listening to them, but also that we do have at least some authority to carry out their legitimate aspirations. If for every legitimate aspiration the handicapped and disabled of Canada tell the committee they have, the committee is to put up its hands in horror and say, "I am sorry, that costs money; the federal government is on a restraint policy, we cannot help," that is the kind of very cruel injustice which I think we should avoid.
As I said, the handicapped and the disabled of Canada need action. They do not need another study. Another study would be a waste of time, and it would be, as I said before, a cruel disservice.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) mentioned that he had started this way back in 1972. I was not around in 1972 to help in his efforts, but I was around in 1975 to help in his efforts and, if I may quote one of my speeches at that time, given on April 21, 1975, as recorded at page 5055 of Hansard, I said;
Some years ago, Mr. Speaker, I was paralysed. It is a sobering thought to realize that if I had been elected at that time it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for me to take my seat, since I could not have manoeuvred my wheelchair into this chamber.
Look where 1 am standing now. If I were in a wheelchair now, I do not think I could manoeuvre it in here.
Indeed, had it not been for the grace of God and the indefatigable efforts of skilled doctors-
People skilled in rehabilitation.
-I would not even have been able to go to the visitors' gallery. On that point, I am saddened to see only three wheelchairs in the gallery today-
Coming back to 1979, I do not see one, but that is irrelevant. What is very relevant is that on April 21, 1975, I said:
We might start putting our own house in order by building a ramp so that the handicapped could visit that gallery, or any others if they want to, without having to perform acrobatics.
That was said in 1975. As I look around the galleries today, I do not see ramps. I heard from press reports the other day that the same situation exists today. I think one of the members of the New Democratic Party was unable to bring some of his constituents to the parliamentary dining room

November 29, 1979
Needs of Handicapped
because there was not sufficient accessibility for them. The situation has not changed. 1 raise this point not so much to point a finger at any one particular agency, or even the House of Commons itself much less, but I raise it to indicate the kind of frustration handicapped people do feel. They hear many people talking about things. They hear many people saying, "You should have this" and "You should have that", but they do not see too much action. We must avoid this kind of frustration in the future.
I am very happy that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris raised the probability that this committee by its very formation would help to create an awareness in the public mind of the very legitimate needs and aspirations of handicapped people.
In that same context I am wondering if perhaps we will not need to define the word "handicapped" or the word "disabled" in order to be able to do justice to the whole question. Incidentally, I am very glad to notice that the terms of reference are very broad. They can encompass very much. I think they can encompass more or less what the committee members themselves want to embrace. However, I think it will be essential to define what "handicapped" and "disabled" mean.
I will give an example. Again back in 1975 as a backbencher and neophyte in the House, I was instrumental in having certain regulations changed as they referred to the Income Tax Act. For instance, effective as of the 1975 taxation year the cost of external breast prostheses could be claimed as medical deductions. Similarly-and I think it was the same taxation year-there was another regulation in which I was also instrumental. Wigs made to order for individuals suffering abnormal hair loss owing to disease, medical treatment or accident would be allowed as medical deductions. The story behind those regulations I think has to surface, and I hope it will surface very clearly when the committee has its meetings. The people to whom I was referring and who benefit most from these regulations are victims of cancer.
Unfortunately very often we "normal" people-who is normal?-think of wigs as frivolous things that we can do with or without. However, the point is that many medical treatments-I am thinking particularly of chemotherapy-do cause tremendous loss of hair. I do not know how long that lasts because I am not a doctor, but there are many medical treatments which do have that effect. That is not a frivolous matter. I do not want to be sexist about it. It is not frivolous for a man, but in the case to which 1 was referring initially it was a disaster for the woman involved because she was a receptionist, and society, being what it is, was not prepared to accept a female receptionist who did not have her hair. It was a tragedy. In other words, it was an obstacle to her finding gainful employment.
It is much the same with a prosthesis after a mastectomy. We are talking about the whole person, the mental health of the patient as well. We can argue as to what society expects women to look like, for instance, but that will not help the

women who, unfortunately, because of a disease or an operation, do not conform to what society expects them to look like. These are the people who are being hurt by society. It so happens that these particular women are victims of cancer. Would they, in the broadest terms of reference of this committee, be considered handicapped or disabled? Not that I want to put them in a category. I will tell hon. members what I want to do for them: I want to save those individuals the embarrassment, the loss of privacy and the loss of dignity that they would have had to undergo to get the Department of National Revenue to recognize that they have a legitimate expense. There is one thing about every human being-and I think it becomes more important when you are disadvantaged for some reason-and that is that human pride and human dignity become much more important when you have lost some of your other faculties. I make no apology for the fact that I want to defend their pride just as much as I want to help them to be productive members of society. These are the kinds of things that we should, in humanity and in fairness, investigate.
1 should like to say a few words about people with impaired hearing. I have been told that they are the largest handicapped group in Canada. However, in 1978 some firm in Kitchener, 1 believe, came up with a new device which converted sound to light. It was a marvellous device for a hard of hearing mother with a new baby, for example. When the baby cries, the sound would turn on a light over the crib and the deaf mother would then know the baby is crying and could go to attend it. If the door bell rings, she can see the light and answer the door. This device, of great benefit to the hard of hearing, became inaccessible to many of them because it was too expensive. In order to get a reduction or an elimination of the federal sales tax, the bureaucracy required is incredible. The firm which had initiated this device had to go through all sorts of departments to prove it would help some people. In the meantime, this device is being made that much less accessible to the very people who need it most. This is the kind of thing I mean when I say we should open up the whole thing. I wish we could have some kind of government department on the lines of class action where, instead of going to every single department of government, there would be just one corner, one counter or one bureau where all these new inventions and all the people who need help can go.
In November of 1976 again I was lucky in acting on a extremely good report put out by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce on the employability of the handicapped. I decided that it should not gather more dust, as so many of those reports do, and that a seminar should be organized on the employability of the handicapped. That seminar was held in November of 1976 in my home city of Toronto. I was very proud that it was held in my city, but what I am not proud of is the fact that that seminar was not repeated in any other centre in Canada. Does that mean that the handicapped of Montreal, of Vancouver, of Winnipeg, or elsewhere, do not need this equal kind of treatment where employers will be made aware of the employability of the handicapped rather than their disadvantage? This is the kind of thing that should
November 29, 1979

be done on a national scale, and not just once because, as the hon. member for Brandon-Souris pointed out, people's attitudes must be changed. You can do so much in changing attitudes if you can educate the public.
To come back to the subject of the employability of the handicapped, I think we are again speaking of awareness and attitudes. I believe the federal public service will have to take a leading role in employment counselling. Our counsellors will have to realize that they must look at the entire person, not just at one facet. They should not adopt a soft approach to counselling but a whole, comprehensive approach so that they can see the whole person, what a person can do rather than the difficulty which that person has. This is absolutely vital when it comes to the counselling of the handicapped who are looking for jobs.
I think the private sector can be very much influenced by what happens in the committee and what happens with its recommendations. I think the Department of Labour in particular could do a great service with many of the studies it is now carrying out. For instance, a study could be done on job satisfaction as it relates to worker productivity. I am sure it would go a long way toward encouraging the private sector to hire more "handicapped" people.
This is especially important in these days of increasing automation. Let me give you an example. Mr. Speaker. In one of the plants in my riding-and 1 have been through it-there is a particular section which is extremely automated. The work there is mind-numbing. At present that work is being carried out by "normal" people who are bored stiff. There is no challenge there. If that same work could at least be offered to the mildly retarded, they would find it challenging and, as a result, productivity would increase. As I said, this kind of thing is particularly relevant in the present climate of increasing automation.
Finally, let me refer to the closing paragraph of the motion before us. I am delighted that the hon. member has mentioned the people we now have around us who happen to be handicapped or disabled. I hope the required "professional, technical, clerical and stenographic help" will, so far as possible, reflect the legitimate aspirations and indisputable abilities of the handicapped. I do not ask for a quota, I ask only for equality.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, 1981 has been proclaimed by the United Nations as the year of the disabled. With the striking of this special committee on the needs of the handicapped and the disabled, we are taking what I hope will be a significant step toward substantial Canadian action in an area of concern that is attracting global attention, as societies mature to the point where it is recognized that physical, mental or emotional handicaps should not wipe away an individual's inherent right to live a full life.
The establishment of this special committee can be an important step in ensuring that the special needs of the handicapped and disabled are met, as it has traditionally been
Needs of Handicapped
only through governmental initiative that the quality of life for various disadvantaged groups has been significantly improved. Needless to say, market forces have not been sufficient.
The inadequacy of the current situation in Canada is selfevident. For too long we have been unwilling to permit the disabled to work in many jobs that they are perfectly capable of doing, and to allow them the normal social interaction that would facilitate their integration into normal society. They have instead been hidden away in segregated institutions. This must no longer continue. In fact, the handicapped themselves will not let it continue.
They have begun to defend their humanity, and their aggressiveness in doing so has a lot to do with the existence of this committee. The meeting this last weekend in Ottawa of the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped, and the representations to the Canadian Transport Commission in these last few days, are evidence of what I am talking about. Similarly wc in this House, and particularly the government, will not be spared their righteous anger if good recommendations are ignored-or if the committee turns out to have been a delaying mechanism, a way of putting off action. They have good reason to be cynical about the work of committees and subsequent recommendations, having seen many of them come and go without significant improvement in their situation.
It would be silly to pretend that as a New Democrat I will not be coming to the work of the committee without some preconceived notions of what steps could be taken to improve the Canadian response to the needs of the handicapped and disabled. I keep saying "Canadian" deliberately becaue I think we must ever keep before us the unfortunate fact that as a nation we are far inferior to many other western countries when it comes to our record of action to integrate the disabled into the full life of the community.
As a New Democrat I will be coming to the work of the committee, backed by a resolution passed at our recent national convention which called for, among other things, an amendment of the Canadian Human Rights Act so that handicapped persons could be protected in the areas of services and accommodation, residential and commercial. It called also for direct government action to ensure employment of the disabled by the public service and by those who contract with the Department of Supply and Services.
We must put our own house in order to set an example for the private sector. The federal government, which should be in the vanguard here, has the image of being a very poor employer of mentally and physically handicapped people. The previous government acknowledged this problem in a report presented by the then president of the treasury board, the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Andras). It was entitled: "Government Plans for Increasing Opportunities for Employment of Physical and Mentally Handicapped in the Federal Public Service". However, little if anything has been done, largely due to the restraint policies of the Liberal government.

November 29, 1979
Needs of Handicapped
Employment is crucial to the well-being of the handicapped and disabled. Self-esteem is tied to work in our society. Therefore, employment opportunities are indispensable to the integration and normalcy which the disabled seek. Let us be clear about this. They are not seeking favours or charity, only that their abilities be assessed carefully, that they receive the necessary rehabilitation and training, and that their jobs correspond with their abilities, all of which makes for a situation in which an employer is not getting less for his money but rather a worker as qualified as anybody else to do a particular job.
However, it does not do any good to be qualified and hired for a job if you cannot get to or into the work place. Indeed, if a disabled person were elected to the House of Commons, our experience of this Monday would suggest that such a person would have a difficult time getting into the chamber or into the centre block, through any entrance. Such a person would have difficulty getting into the parliamentary dining room, as was demonstrated on Monday when the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) and myself met with some disabled persons for lunch. They had a difficult time getting in. The tremendous physical, architectural and transportation reform required to realize the goals of the handicapped and the disabled will be expensive, but necessary if we are serious about their needs.
The terms of reference of the committee speak of the need to reflect on the role of the voluntary sector. This is an important task, to ask what they mean by the voluntary sector and what role it ought to play. Too often disabled people, like other groups, have been placed under the well-intended guidance of agencies which sometimes create unwarranted domination over their lives, however much these agencies have done. Certainly everyone would acknowledge the contribution of these agencies and the necessity of the work they have done over the years. Nevertheless, when we talk about the voluntary sector, we must neither forget the necessity of government direction and action nor the fact that in many cases "voluntary" or "private" sector must come to mean self-help and the active participation of the disabled in decisions and policies which affect their lives through support for their own organizations and input into government decision-making. I hope this is an insight which will be reflected in the processes and eventual recommendations of this special committee.
Another problem this special committee will have to live with and seek to solve is the lack of detailed information on the size of the group of people whose needs it is addressing. Information is lacking on the number of handicapped people in Canada, the number employed, by whom and where, etc. We have relied on extrapolating United States data. We must set up a way to gather our own data so that public policy in this country can be guided by what is actually happening in Canada.
This is just the beginning of what I hope will be an extremely fruitful process, and that is the work of the committee. I know the chairman of this committee is earnest about the purposes of this committee. I am also. Whatever the committee suggests will be expensive. 1 hope the setting up of
[Mr. Blaikie.j
this committee by the government is a sign that it regards this area as an area where restraint is not in order, but rather one requiring meaningful and long overdue government spending. Equality, the equal treatment of all human beings for the simple reason that they are human beings and therefore equal to each other, a goal which New Democrats have worked for and continue to work for in other areas as well, will have a price. It is a price I hope the government is prepared to pay.
I know there are many things left unsaid in my remarks. It would be impossible to try to say everything in the time given. For that matter, it would be inappropriate to try to say everything at the beginning of the process. I wanted merely to describe the context in which I see the committee's work. I have much to learn and I look forward to the work of the committee.
In conclusion, I want to say that no amount of legislation by itself will overcome the attitudinal roots of this problem. Discrimination and neglect are as often as not the outcome of fear and stereotyping as they are of deliberate malice. But legislation can and will help as people are put into situations, as a result of legislative actions, where they must come face to face with the inadequacy of their way of looking at and relating to the handicapped and the disabled, as they come face to face with the humanity and abilities of disabled and handicapped persons.
Attitudes can change through direct action and the reality such action imposes upon people. Education alone has never been and never will be enough. It is the non-handicapped and the non-disabled who are the problem. This committee will have to do a lot of listening to those who are handicapped and disabled to be part of the solution.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very briefly on this subject. I have a few words to say about the establishment of the committee. As members of Parliament, I find that we have the ability to see through many things because we are very deeply touched by people. We represent great numbers of people, and because of that we must at times try to find solutions to their problems. I know that each of us is aware of the many handicapped people who have come to our constituency offices or have met us on the street, bringing forward the problems they have in dealing not only with the federal government, but with the governments of the provinces as well as cities. They have brought forward problems they have as handicapped, a number of which have been mentioned by hon. members who have spoken before me, including difficulties in gaining access to buildings and participating in the active part of our way of life.
1 have a great deal of confidence that the committee, which will be chaired so ably by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), will be able to go through a number of very adequate studies that have already been carried out. I am sure that committee will be able to relate to the people who come before it with the problems they face, and that the chairman
November 29, 1979

will be able to bring forward recommendations that he and his committee feel it necessary that this House should consider. 1 feel sure that the House will in fact deal with them very quickly and diligently.
A number of people have come to me with problems they have experienced regarding the veterans' acts, the Canada Pension Plan and the Income Tax Act. The committee will have as one of its first problems defining the scope of the disabled so that when we bring forward legislation we will not have problems in the sense of being ombudsmen in our constituencies, having to deal with the situation when constituents come to us with the many problems they have in these areas. In this area the committee will have very important work to do.
I was amazed when looking at some of the statistics regarding the numbers of people afflicted with various handicaps. We who are generally physically able often complain about minor ailments. We really do not have too much to complain about when we consider some of our constituents who do have grave difficulties because of handicaps as a result of accidents or with which they were born. Let me just give very briefly some of the numbers that we are talking about, and these are the 1978 figures.
There are some 15,000 paraplegics in Canada, 13,000 people registered with the National Institute for the Blind, 75,000 Canadians with visual impairments severe enough to cause employment problems, 226,000 Canadians suffering from serious hearing impairments, 50,000 known cases of mental illness, and 250,000 persons treated through outpatient facilities for mental disorders. The committee has responsibility for dealing with a great number of Canadians who must live with disabilities, so the committee has a very important job before it.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni). One of the things that touched me was the ability of our scientific community to come up with ways to assist these handicapped people in the work they have to do. Yet, as always, we find that we must work through various kinds of forms and make great efforts to get that scientific knowledge to the people who can put it into application. This is the type of thing the committee will have to take into consideration and, hopefully, bring forward recommendations.
It is the right of every handicapped Canadian to live a fruitful, creative and independent life within the context of family and community. This is something we as legislators must never forget. Employment is a great part of every Canadian's life and we must not only provide the financial assistance, but provide the framework within which our disabled and handicapped can find constructive employment. In this way they will be able to perform and get ahead just like any other person who is physically and mentally able.
In 1975 Canada sponsored the declaration of rights for disabled persons which was subsequently adopted by the U.N. General Assembly. That is one of the reasons we are having a conference in Winnipeg in 1980 where discussions will take
Needs of Handicapped
place on the various problems of the handicapped of the world and how we can deal with their problems in legislative ways.
I am sure the committee will be able to bring to the forefront in a way that we as Canadians can all see the belief that the disabled and handicapped are able, given certain legislative measures and the help of the community, to obtain employment and to work their way through the impediments before them. I am sure the House of Commons committee will have an ability in that regard equal to that of any other group.
I am reminded of a Lions Club meeting I attended in my local community. The guest speaker was a lady in a wheelchair who had just competed in the Olympic Games for the Handicapped. We were amazed at the training program she had undergone and the problems she had overcome in order to compete in those games. We were amazed by the ability she showed in the performance of her line of sport. The people in that audience were deeply moved by that experience. They felt after hearing from that person that there were many things they could do to assist in providing more opportunity for the disabled in their communities to participate in recreational activities and sports. That small function convinced the people in that community that there was much they could do to assist the handicapped people.
I am sure there will be much coming out of this committee, but one of the most important things will be the bringing to light by this parliamentary committee of this whole question in a public way, thereby showing the country how the people can assist in helping our many handicapped.
I commend the choice of chairman in the person of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, who has brought this subject before the House many times in the past. I hope I can be of assistance to the committee as it performs its duties in the next year.


Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I too am very happy that a new committee of the House is being appointed to look into the special needs of the handicapped. After acquainting myself with the terms of reference of the committee, Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to point out its most important functions. I do hope it will make it a point to insist, first and foremost, on the respect of the individual and not on the differences.
There are a few other areas which this committee should tackle with considerable courage and determination, and which the many committees created in the past did not even touch upon, among others, that of housing. Mr. Speaker, as we already know, the federal government has, through its programs, helped to improve housing across Canada, whether it be public housing, income property or others. I therefore hope this committee will look into the matter and that wherever the federal government invests funds, it will see to it that something is done specifically to help out the handicapped. The same goes for transportation for which the federal government is also making a financial contribution especially for public
1846

November 29, 1979
Needs of Handicapped
transport. In that connection, I think that we could also demand that future investments in that area may enable the handicapped to go anywhere. As the parliamentary secretary mentioned a while ago, we cannot ignore the question of sports which have experienced substantial development in previous years and which, I hope, will continue to receive financial assistance since I feel such an approach to facilitate the integration of the handicapped in the community is one of the best and surest to ensure the quality of life of those individuals.
In the area of education, Mr. Speaker, I hope that provincial jurisdication will be taken into consideration and that our recommendations will be to that effect. I think it would be clumsy for the federal government to intervene in the field of education proper and rehabilitation as far as young handicapped are concerned.
One of the areas in which this committee could play a leading role is that of the public service. In spite of the announcements made in the throne speech and everything we have heard about a reduction in the public service, I feel that a 4.5 per cent objective for the hiring of handicapped employees is both valid and desirable, but that it must be reached over a reasonable period of time. I feel also that this committee should look into the fiscal policy of the government and use every means at its disposal to facilitate the integration of the handicapped in the labour force. While I am aware that a number of handicapped must be exposed to a sheltered type of work, I think that this committee should strive essentially to bring back into the normal stream of life the people who are affected by a handicap instead of making them a special group apart from the rest of society.
On the constitutional level, Mr. Speaker, the committee should make recommendations and make sure that the federal-provincial conferences take into account the important factor of human rights which could be protected if they were already included in the Canadian constitution.
We agree with government members that we must tackle this problem immediately, and I hope the committee will not be only a front for inaction. If that were the case, Mr. Speaker, you can be sure that Liberal members would object to the continuation of the committee's work because I think this committee must lead to concrete action without further delay.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the work rehabilitation programs which already exist and which are going to be cut back because of a cut in funds allocated to Manpower Centres. I spoke yesterday on the phone with the Quebec Manpower Centre and learned that federal funds might be cut back and perhaps even cancelled by next spring, after projects under way are completed. If that is the case, I think the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) should study this question very carefully, because a committee cannot be created at the same time as funds for the handicapped are being cut.
[Mrs. Hervieux-Payette.)
Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to one of the methods used in Quebec to facilitate the return of the handicapped to the labour force and which has proved rather interesting. I am talking about the famous Canada Works Program. Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to maintain the Canada Works program, a formula known internationally whose past and present merits have been acknowledged. I hope the government will soon approve some projects and pursue this worthy initiative, thus enabling the handicapped to hold a regular job after a training or instruction period. So, I am willing to co-operate with the committee and I hope it will be in a position to recommend concrete measures to the government before its term expires.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased indeed to have the opportunity to speak on this motion because to me it is one that is very timely, particularly in view of the fact the United Nations has passed a resolution with regard to the Year of the Disabled, and also because it is a matter of grave concern to all members of Parliament and Canadians generally. It is one of those issues which cuts across all party lines.
This special committee of the House of Commons will be appointed to inquire into and report upon the special needs of the handicapped and disabled in Canada and the extent to which those needs are being met. 1 congratulate the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) who was really responsible for bringing this matter before the House of Commons once again. I recall that on December 1, 1977, the same hon. member introduced this topic in the form of a private member's motion. He moved that:
-the government should set up a special subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, to investigate and report on the needs of Canada's physically and mentally handicapped citizens, in order to provide a basis of information, necessary in avoiding the current costly duplication and overlapping of services, and essential in planning legislation for a comprehensive program of services at the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government-
The hon. member went on to indicate exactly what that Committee should do and how it should be carried out. At that time I had the good fortune to be the parliamentary secretary to the then minister of national health and welfare. 1 stated at that time, and I will restate again because it is fundamentally important in so far as the handicapped are concerned:
Those considered physically handicapped represent a sizeable 10 per cent of the population, and yet, whenever normalization and integration of this group is discussed, two kinds of barriers are mentioned with respect to the physically handicapped, architectural and attiludinal barriers; and for the mentally and socially handicapped, attitudinal barriers. According to a number of professionals in the rehabilitation field, it is really a toss-up as to which kind of barrier is the most important cause preventing the handicapped from full participation in community life. Many of them, in fact, are convinced that attitudinal barriers are the most pervasive kind of negativism. They feel that eradication of these should be a first priority.
I was pleased to hear other members who have spoken today mention the architectural and attitudinal barriers, because
November 29, 1979

they are so fundamentally important. I also stated in that same speech:
It is also necessary to provide these persons with services required to live independently. They might include the following:
1.	Attendant care to permit a disabled person to perform such activities as
dressing and bathing.
2.	Day care services for those who work and have family responsibilities.
3.	Homemaker services.
4.	Meals on wheels.
5.	Recreation services.
6.	Adequate transportation services.
7.	Access to all community services and employment.
All those matters are very, very important to the handicapped and must be considered. It is very important that the committee examine these special needs of the handicapped and disabled in a number of different areas. My time will only allow me to mention a few of these areas. The first is employment opportunities; second, transportation; third, access to public buildings. Statistics are lacking in Canada in so far as employment opportunities for the disabled are concerned. It is important that we get adequate statistics to indicate how many disabled there are, where they are located and how they can be helped.


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


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed Bill S-4, an act to implement conventions between Canada and Spain, Canada and the Republic of Liberia, Canada and the Republic of Austria, Canada and Italy, Canada and the Republic of Korea, Canada and the Socialist Republic of Romania and Canada and the Republic of Indonesia, and agreements between Canada and Malaysia and Canada and Jamaica.
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed Bill C-6, to amend the Old Age Security Act, without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Adjournment Motion Government House Ottawa
November 29, 1979 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable W. Z. Estey, LL.D., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 29th day of November, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to a bill.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 40 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail)-Forestry- Action taken to protect industry-Funds for expansion of pulp mills; the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger)-Air Transport-Sale of Nordair-Inquiry whether question will be referred to CTC; the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-Combines Investigation Act-Possible prosecutions- Role of transport minister in discussion.


Mr. Kempling:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) had almost finished his remarks and he is the last speaker on this resolution on rehabilitation. I wonder if the House would be agreeable to not seeing the clock in order to allow him to complete his remarks. In that way, when we convene tomorrow we could continue with one of the other motions on the order paper. Would the House be agreeable to that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 29, 1979
Needs of Handicapped



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton) (for Mr. Crombie):
That a special committee of the House of Commons be appointed to inquire into and report upon the special needs of the handicapped and disabled in Canada and the extent to which those needs are being met;
That the committee, taking into account the nature and scope of current federal policies, programs and services directed to the general public or established specifically to assist physically and mentally handicapped and disabled persons, report its conclusions and recommendations with respect
(1)	to their impact in providing opportunities for handicapped and disabled persons to lead independent and fully integrated lives,
(2)	to their relationship to the programs, services and activities now being carried out by the voluntary sector and the provinces; and
(3)	to measures which may be required to meet more fully the special needs of the handicapped and disabled
together with such other matters as the committee considers relevant;
That, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the committee may examine the special needs of the handicapped and disabled in the following areas: fundamental and civil rights; employment opportunities; vocational training and work preparation; business incentives including loans and grants; provision for special income tax deductions and income supplement programs; health services and medical rehabilitation; social rehabilitation; community support services; transportation; housing; access to public buildings and services; information and communication; travel, sports and leisure activities; services for handicapped and disabled native peoples; quality of life of severely disabled and institutionalized persons; role of handicapped and disabled persons and voluntary organizations in policy and program development; co-ordination within and between jurisdictions; and data base development;
That the committee take into account the work of other standing and special committees dealing with subjects which affect the handicapped and disabled, in particular the provision of pensions and disability benefits to disabled and handicapped persons and measures to strengthen the role of voluntary organizations representing handicapped and disabled persons;
That the committee be composed of seven members of the House of Commons to be designated at a later date;
That the committee have the power to appoint from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the committee have the power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee submit reports from time to time, as appropriate, with a first report to be submitted as early as possible in 1980 and a final report by December 31,1980;
That the committee have the power to invite the views of interested parties and the public, to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the committee have the power to adjourn from place to place within Canada and such other places to be determined at a later date; and
That the committee have the power to retain the services of expert advisers and to commission studies or research to assist in its work and that it also have the power to retain such professional, technical, clerical and stenographic help as may be required.
William Kenneth Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to complete my remarks.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain).]
There seems to be a lack of co-ordination in the federal and provincial programs, and even in municipal programs, as far as the handicapped are concerned. There are three departments at least of the federal government that should be involved, namely, the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Public Service Commission.
I understand that a study was carried out some time ago by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce which indicated that most employers are totally unaware of the proven benefits of hiring handicapped workers, and the handicapped themselves are quite often not aware of the kinds of programs that exist in this country to assist them.
In other countries, such as Germany, France, Italy and England, there is a quota system which, through legislation both in the private and in the public sector, obliges employers to fill a certain percentage of positions with disabled workers. The United States has what they call an affirmative action plan where federal government departments and prospective private contractors are required to fill out forms indicating the numbers of handicapped people that they will be able to use in carrying out a contract.
I conducted a poll in my riding with regard to transportation, Mr. Speaker, and I found that, generally speaking, most people said it was quite adequate. The complaints that I received were basically from the handicapped who said, in effect, that the buses are not adequate, the GO trains are not adequate, the subways are not adequate, and in fact all of the designs that we have in the transportation area do not cater to the handicapped person travelling alone. It seems to me that the only way they can get about is by special buses fitted with special apparatus for the handicapped. This situation is totally inadequate, Mr. Speaker, and must be changed.
The last point I want to make is the question of access to public buildings. A couple of weeks ago there was an item on the news about a reporter who went out to find out what it was like to be a handicapped person. He spent the day in a wheelchair and discovered that carpets in public buildings are a nuisance. He discovered how dangerous curbs are and that most sidewalks do not have a ramp so that the person in the wheelchair can leave the sidewalk and go across the intersection. He also found that opening and closing doors takes tremendous physical effort for people who are handicapped. It requires not only physical strength but mental strength as well. This means, in effect, that public and government buildings must be redesigned and equipped for the handicapped so that the handicapped can play their role in society just like anybody else. We must see to it that the architectural and attitudinal barriers are removed.
I am pleased that there will be a Rehabilitation International Congress held in Winnipeg from June 22 to 27, 1980. I hope I will have an opportunity to attend.
I think Canada is to be congratulated for the measures it is prepared to take on behalf of disabled Canadians. It is my hope that the recommendations and conclusions of the special
November 29, 1979

committee will provide a positive contribution and lead to a step in the right direction with regard to the handicapped.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think the credo of the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled bears repeating: "When you see a disabled person, see a person."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: There being no items on the order paper under the heading of private bills, the House will proceed to notices of motions (papers).


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, there are two notices of motions before No. 30. I wonder if we could have the unanimous consent of the House to deal with No. 30 and to stand Nos. 19 and 22.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Is it the pleasure of the House to stand, by unanimous consent, motions Nos. 19 and 22?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity) moved:: That an order of the House do issue for copies of all socio-economic impact studies carried out by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in connection with banning returnable soft drink bottles.
She said: Mr. Speaker, on June 28, following reports of injuries caused to consumers by carbonated soft drink bottles which exploded when tipped over or dropped, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lawrence) announced his intention of regulating, under the Hazardous Products Act "all pressurized glass containers causing bodily harm from flying glass".
The minister at that point requested soft drink manufacturers to stop distribution of, and retailers to remove from sale, the torpedo-shaped, narrow-neck 1.5 litre bottles. In the course of that statement, the minister further said, "I will discuss with the provinces any problems that might be caused by provincial legislation concerning bottles".
On August 7, the minister announced that all 1.5 litre or larger carbonated soft drink bottles, wide-necked as well as narrow-necked, would be regulated under the Hazardous Products Act. He said:
Broader based standards covering other pressurized glass containers are also being developed and will eventually be made operative so that all such containers will have standardized safety tests.
Socio-Economic Impact Studies
On August 28 the minister announced that the ban on all 1.5 litre carbonated soft drink glass bottles would continue until bottle designs provide substantial protection from injury from flying glass. He went on to say:
When such a bottle is developed by using either a plastic film coating or some other means of retention, I intend to propose that the ban be rescinded and that appropriate regulations be introduced for 1.5 litre glass bottles or carbonated non-alcoholic beverages. I also want to make it clear that although 1.5 litre bottles have posed the greatest and most immediate problem, regulations for other sizes of carbonated soft drink bottles will be phased in over a period of time.
Since August 28, the minister has apparently made no further move, and in response to questions in committee said that the ball was in the industry's court, that it was up to the industry to come up with safe containers. But also, even more surprisingly, he said that it was up to the industry to propose the tests against which safety will be measured.
I find this abdication of responsibility on the minister's part very difficult to understand. The minister acted quickly in placing the bottles under the Hazardous Products Act because he considered the matter important from the point of view of public safety. No one would question that the duty of a minister of consumer affairs is indeed to act to protect the public safety. But the minister has been seized of this problem since June and now at the end of November, practically six months later, he is no nearer to offering the consumer clear information on standards.
While soft drinks are not an essential nutritional item, they do find a place in most families' budgets. The consumer who can no longer buy the family size bottle has no assurance from the minister that the smaller bottle is safe either.
The minister has spoken of plastic coated bottles. There is an expensive Japanese technology for plastic coating bottles which is likely to add considerably to the cost of the product, a cost which will eventually pass to the consumer. A Canadian company is developing a technology and has applied to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry (Mr. Huntington) for assistance to develop that process, but we do not know whether the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has consulted his colleague, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry on this matter.
The minister undertook to consult with the provinces. We do not know from the minister what the response has been. The deputy minister of the environment in Ontario has publicly criticized the ban imposed by the minister of consumer affairs; the Quebec minister of the environment has also criticized the ban. The provinces, for environmental reasons and for reasons concerned with energy conservation, prefer the use of returnable glass bottles rather than further use of non-refillables. In fact, Saskatchewan has an absolute ban on the sale of soft drinks in non-returnable bottles.
The bottling industry, which in most cases means small Canadian-owned franchise operations, finds itself with thousands of dollars of unusable inventory of 1.5 litre glass bottles which was used as collateral for bank loans. As the banks call

November 29, 1979
Socio-Economic Impact Studies
in the loans, some of these bottlers go out of business, and more are expected to. The industry has produced figures which emphasize the loss of Canadian jobs, and the minister of state for small businesses has told the industry that he is prepared to be their advocate in government on the issue.
There are always conflicting interests to be reconciled in this kind of decision, but surely the minister has had time since May to collect and evaluate information and do just that. There are questions which must have been asked and answered in his department. For example, is there a difference in safety between new bottles and bottles which have been re-used? If so, has the department been able to arrive at a safe number of times a bottle may be reused? Does the design of the bottle matter? Was there a substantial difference in wide necked and narrow-necked bottles? Would a different method of tempering glass affect shattering one way or the other? Could a safety valve or tap of some kind be used on existing bottles so that the contents would pour out on impact and prevent an explosion? Is the volume of liquid and of gas in the bottle a factor? Would changing this alter the safety factor? With a change in the carbonation process, could safety be increased?
The minister surely must have answers to some of these questions in his department unless, of course, he thinks that all glass containers should be withdrawn in favour of, for example, thermoplastic polyester.
In all thesp choices there are environmental factors and there are cost factors. There is the possibility that in reducing the risk of injury from glass one may be increasing other health risks if the choice is an increased use of plastic. The minister's choice is not easy but his mandate to protect the safety of Canadians is, of course, the overwhelming consideration. Surely consumers are entitled to expect that the minister will indeed make a choice and we will have the reasons for that choice.
The minister has been seized with the problem for five months. He initially began by saying that he would regulate all containers. On November 13 he said in committee that the 750 millilitre container was not dangerous, but this is not what the minister said some months ago, nor has he yet said it publicly. While consumers remain concerned about safety, the industry is concerned about jobs. After six months of inaction the minister can say nothing more but that the ball is in the industry's court.
Since the minister appears to be paralysed by criticisms from the provinces and industry, I would suggest that he make all the background studies available to the House that his department has done. With two former ministers of consumer affairs on this side as well as other interested people, we will be delighted after examining the evidence to help him make his decision.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member opposite that the minister is not paralysed but has in fact been working very steadily toward an eventual resolution of this problem, one that I hope will satisfy

both the best interests of the consumers and the bottlers in this country.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about the problems that have been encountered with 1.5 litre carbonated soft drink bottles and to detail the government's course of action in this area.
There are three distinct breakage problems that exist with respect to these bottles. First are the spontaneous explosions. These are associated with bottles fatigued by 20 to 25 trips back and forth from the consumer to the bottler. Second, breakage from being knocked over from the vertical position on to a concrete floor. Third, breakage from being dropped from a height such as might occur on slippage through the hands or falling from a shelf.
The problem is that the flying glass resulting from explosion or breakage can cause serious physical injury. In fact, an analysis prepared by the U.S. government consumer product safety commission in April, 1975, reported that more than 32,000 persons were treated in hospital emergency rooms for injuries related to carbonated soft drink bottles. Long glass fragments and the distances they were propelled were cited as major factors in causing these injuries. In Tel Aviv a shopper reportedly died from injuries received when a 1.5 litre carbonated soft drink bottle spontaneously exploded on a supermarket shelf. And in this country, Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous reports of injuries sustained when such bottles broke or exploded.
Further, in May of this year Professor David Barham of the University of Toronto notified the product safety branch of consumer and corporate affairs of the results of studies he carried out on carbonated soft drink bottles. Professor Barham concluded that the narrow-neck bottles on the market at the time broke and exploded in a violent manner on the first tip when tilted. Because of this alarming evidence of injury, technical assistance was sought from other departments to thoroughly investigate the safety hazard associated with the bottles. I was shocked to learn from our laboratory studies that the bottles dispersed large shards of glass over distances of 20 feet when exploded under the tip test.
The government reviewed 263 complaints received by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and determined that the majority referred to spontaneous explosion and indicated injuries to the eyes, face and arms. In addition, Ontario workmen's compensation board records indicate the bottles were often the cause of injuries from flying glass.
At this point, the product safety branch began putting 1.5 litre bottles through a tip test for regulatory development purposes. The test, very similar to that used by Professor Barham, involved tipping the bottles over on to a vinyl-covered concrete surface. The test revealed that all of the bottles with a torpedo-shaped, narrow-neck design consistently broke on the first impact and projected flying glass with enough force to penetrate the flesh of a chicken carcass suspended in the test area. I would like to assure hon. members that they were not imported chickens. I shudder to think of the effect if a small child rather than a chicken carcass had been the victim.
November 29, 1979

With this negative evidence in hand, Mr. Speaker, we urged the soft-drink industry to remove the narrow-necked bottles from the marketplace, indicating that if voluntary removal did not occur, the department would proceed with regulatory action. Total co-operation was not forthcoming, so consumer and corporate affairs developed a safety standard for all 1.5 litre carbonated soft drink bottles, wide necked as well as narrowed-necked designs.
The standard, based on the best data available at the time, was established under the Hazardous Products Act. It required that glass containers of a capacity of 1.5 litres or larger containing carbonated soft drink pass a tip test. The test for compliance involved tipping the bottles over with a standard measures velocity on to a vinyl-covered concrete surface after they had been allowed to stand unopened and unagitated for two hours at a temperature of 22 degrees Celsius. These conditions simulate events which might occur in a house, apartment or store. Bottles were declared non-complying if randomly selected samples broke and projected flying glass through a four-sided, light-gauge, aluminum foil shield suspended in the test area. In these circumstances their importation, advertising and sale was forbidden.
At the time the standard was established, consumers were urged to return any empty 1.5 litre carbonated soft drink bottles in their possession to local stores in order to facilitate the process of modifying the bottles to provide for compliance with regulatory requirements. At the same time the minister again sought the full co-operation of the industry in clearing the marketplace of the 1.5 litre bottle as rapidly as possible. The response left something to be desired.
But, Mr. Speaker, it soon became obvious that the standard did not ensure complete protection from injury from flying glass under all conditions. A particular bottle design might pass the tip test on one occasion where new bottles were used, and fail it on another where recycled, structurally weakened bottles were used. In effect, the tip test does not fully measure the degree to which bottles become weakened and are made potentially dangerous due to abuse in the recycling process. And because bottles make up to 25 trips there is a long-term risk of physical injury to consumers. Also, 1.5 litre carbonated soft drink bottles have spontaneously exploded on several occasions, and spontaneous explosion, Mr. Speaker, is something that is impossible to control by selective regulation. The control on returnable refillable bottles is not always adequate, as may be seen from their condition on a visit to soft drink displays in major supermarkets.
Because of this shortcoming in the tip test, the minister had no choice but to take more drastic action in order to protect consumers from injury from flying glass, and on August 28, introduced an absolute ban on the importation, advertising and sale of all 1.5 litre carbonated soft drink bottles. Because this outright ban on the importation, advertisement and sale of 1.5 litre carbonated soft drink bottles is viewed by some as a heavy-handed step with potentially severe economic conse-
Socio-Economic Impact Studies
quences for the soft-drink industry, it is important that I stress the safety hazard that has been virtually eliminated pending development of adequate preventive measures.
A 1.5 litre bottle full of soft drink weighs approximately eight pounds, and this weight, coupled with an awkward bottle shape, makes it susceptible to droppage, especially by children or others with small hands. The situation becomes particularly hazardous if the bottle is being removed from the refrigerator and the surface is slippery with moisture due to condensation. On top of that, the height of the bottles relative to their diameter makes them extremely easy to topple-again, a particularly hazardous situation when young children are involved.
During the tests conducted by the product safety branch, shards of glass from exploding bottles penetrated the flesh of a chicken carcass and shredded aluminum foil shields. It does not take much imagination to visualize the effect those shards would have on human flesh, particularly the eye.
Finally on this point, I want to say that in the development of 1.5 litre carbonated soft drink bottles, economic necessity was the mother of invention. The cumbersome design of the narrow-neck bottle allowed bottlers to use existing bottling and washing equipment, and thus save a considerable amount of capital expenditure. Economic considerations may have been the reason for their birth, but consideration for the lives and safety of human beings is the reason for their demise in their present form.
Given that the importation, advertising and sale of 1.5 litre carbonated soft drink bottles in their present form is forbidden under the Hazardous Products Act, soft drink manufacturers are now turning their efforts to the development of a safe container, one that does not spontaneously explode or project flying glass when tipped or dropped.
I do not presume to know the specific design that would be acceptable to the government, but it would probably involve some sort of plastic encapsulation technique for the glass bottle. I understand that a plastic coating on bottles would prevent explosive fragmentation under all the conditions I have just cited and would minimize the possibility of injury should any breakage occur. Unfortunately, officials from both government and industry inform me that time will be required to introduce equipment for the large volume application of coatings. It might also be noted that it is anticipated that such coatings will have the further advantage of extending the useful life of the bottles.
Another possible solution to the problem is the use of plastic bottles. But here arrangements would have to be made with the provinces which are concerned with solid waste disposal and littering problems associated with these designs. If plastic bottles were deemed acceptable, some sort of deposit scheme might have to be introduced to ensure the return of bottles for destruction to avoid ecological problems.
In conjunction with the development of an acceptable alternative to the all-glass 1.5 litre carbonated soft drink bottle, there must be the development of an adequate safety test to

November 29, 1979
Socio-Economic Impact Studies
ensure that bottles in the marketplace are truly safe. As I have mentioned, the tip test has limitations with respect to detection of potential for spontaneous explosion.
Whatever test is finally developed, it will have to simulate spontaneous explosion, which is initiated by a surface flaw. In practice, the source of the flaw is usually rough handling in service and on rare occasions it may be a defect incurred during manufacture. The driving force that expands the crack to critical depth may be a further jarring of the container such as that caused by impacting one bottle against another or by setting a flawed bottle heavily on a counter. Temperature changes may also be the cause; uneven heating or cooling will cause differential expansion of the glass, introducing further stresses and effectively reducing the critical depth necessary for crack propagation and subsequent bottle failure. But whatever the specifics, the critical elements necessary for spontaneous explosion are a surface flaw and a force to drive that flaw to critical depths, and both these elements are provided by the puncture test.
There is full co-operation with the Canadian soft drink industry to develop the requirements necessary properly to evaluate the fragment retention characteristics of flying glass from soft drink bottles.
Now, through the identification of the problem and the development of standards, tests and regulations under the Hazardous Products Act, through the entire process there have been critics who have taken the government to task for failing to properly consult with the parties involved. Nothing could be further from the truth. Officials of consumer and corporate affairs have been in constant touch and communication with the soft drink bottlers and manufacturers, the Canadian Soft Drink Association, provincial ministers, the Retail Council of Canada and U.S. consumer product safety people, to list just a few. At every step along the way all parties concerned have been completely briefed and fully informed. In fact, between May and November there have been no less than 60 meetings with concerned parties.
Let me deal with the question of the submission of a socioeconomic impact analysis of the 1.5 litre carbonated soft drink bottle situation. First of all, when public safety may be in jeopardy it is sometimes important to take immediate and urgent action to prevent or eliminate a known risk. There is no question that all regulatory actions should ideally be based on very extensive and careful advance assessment of their every aspect and potential impact. And I am aware that established procedures for the promulgation of statutory instruments recognize this principle by generally requiring the preparation and consideration of formal socioeconomic impact analyses prior to any major regulatory action. But those same established procedures also recognize that the development of such a detailed analysis can be a lengthy process and that the luxury of prolonged deliberation, in circumstances where human lives and safety are at risk, is not always affordable.
Provision is therefore made for pre-emptive emergency actions to be taken and followed by the required formal analyses. This has been the case with respect to the govern-

ment's action to ban all sales of 1.5 litre soft drink bottles pending product safety improvements.
Also, the ban is simply an interim measure to allow the industry to develop acceptable bottling techniques, and up to this point any analysis would have been a costly procedure that ultimately would have been rendered redundant. However, I can assure the House and the hon. member whose motion is before us that every effort is being made to expedite the completion of the required socioeconomic impact analyses and that they will be tabled at the earliest possible date.
I would point out that these actions would not have been necessary had the industry co-operated fully when the problem was identified.
Throughout my remarks I have tried to emphasize one critical fact, namely that the key issue here is not one of economics, marketing practices or effective bottle design. Those are certainly factors that have to be taken into account, but none of them represents what really counts-an assurance to the Canadian public that the marketplace is a safe place, a place where the products available constitute a minimal hazard to the health and lives of consumers and their families. And surely it is not too much to ask of the Canadian soft drink industry that the products they provide do not break and project flying glass, either from spontaneous explosion or from any type of minimal impact, when the technology is really available.
There is no question that the technology currently exists. I have mentioned plastic coatings as a possible alternative to the all-glass 1.5 litre carbonated soft drink bottle. While there are a few problems associated with plastic encapsulation, they are of a relatively minor nature, and I am sure they can be eliminated if the proper expertise is brought to bear.
I am confident that the application of industry know-how, in conjunction with a spirit of co-operation, will result in the near future in the replacement of a product that was a significant threat to the safety of Canadians. I leave it to the creative imagination of the industry to propose an effective solution.


Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil);: Mr. Speaker, 1 join my colleague, the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), in blaming the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lawrence) for his inaction. His decision affects the Canadian bottling industry and has created a serious inequity. And if I refer to this decision, 1 quote, Mr. Speaker, the transcription of the program Market Place aired by CBC on September 24, when that same minister said:

"I'm afraid my temper flared up, and I said. The heck with it all'

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is how a minister makes a decision. Without thinking, without reflecting on the impact of his
November 29, 1979

decision, that same minister said, "Very well, let us just do away with this industry. Mr. Speaker, we immediately realize that the minister did not control his emotions and that he created a serious inequity towards this industry.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, 1 have the proof in an article published in a bottling industry periodical which states that the 1.5 litre bottle accounted for 20 per cent of sales in Canada. So, if 20 per cent of the bottles are destroyed, you can imagine what prejudice has been caused to that industry. I have figures to prove it. The total number of such bottles then used in Canada was 350 million. So, Mr. Speaker, you can easily understand that by taking those 350 million bottles out of the market extensive damage was caused to an industry which is very important for our economy. Those 350 million bottles created more than 1,000 jobs which, as my colleague said, were used as a collateral by small bottlers for banking business.
In my riding, the Coca-Cola bottler will have to close his plant very soon and lay off 12 people. Those are the problems arising from the irrational and emotional decision made by the minister.
I was listening to my colleague on the other side of the House who eloquently demonstrated the danger. Here is a compilation of 219 reports from American hospitals as the system does not exist in Canada. Those American hospitals reported that the most serious accidents requiring emergency care occurred in staircases, second, bicycles, third, glass of doubtful origin, fourth, baseball, and I can continue, Mr. Speaker, by saying that thirteenth is beds, chairs, fourteenth, drinking glasses, eighteenth and finally, in forty-fifth position, soft drink bottles. That is concrete proof, Mr. Speaker, that the minister when he made his decision was really unfair and irrational in dealing with that industry.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the minister never suggested any alternative. I listened to my learned colleague on the other side of the House say that there are ways of plasticizing those bottles. It is true they exist but there is only one, and it is in Japan. The same process was examined by bottlers in Canada, and it would cost the companies $30 million to import that Japanese process. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, that same Japanese process for plasticizing our bottles would not pass the test the minister imposed on bottlers in this country. Why then stay under those spotlights because that is dangerous, it is glass, it can explode? I believe even the minister and his assistant both wear glasses like me, and we should not be wearing them because it is dangerous. Ketchup and pickle bottles should be eliminated because they are dangerous. So where does the industry go now, Mr. Speaker?
I blame the minister seriously for what he did. I think he committed an injustice and he is also creating unemployment. So that is the government of action the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) has been boasting about. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, there is a very important factor in that industry.
Socio-Economic Impact Studies The minister is properly called the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, so he must protect the consumer. Well, who is going to pay for it, Mr. Speaker? It is again going to be the poor father who can afford to buy somewhat larger containers for his family because smaller ones cost more. It is still the little guy who is going to pay for the big one. It is another error on the part of the minister. However, I am convinced he will review his decision and co-operate with an industry that is totally prepared to co-operate, but not if I refer once again to what the minister said in that famous interview:

"But given the appropriate evidence, you wouldn't hesitate to move against the other sizes?"

To which the minister answered: "Oh no, not at all".
Here is a minister who did not think long before giving this interview. It was probably a new experience for him to be in front of the television cameras and he was a little nervous. However, Mr. Speaker, it is indeed irreparable damage done to an industry that proved its good will, and I am not thinking about bottlers only, but also about the whole glass industry, about the prejudice being done to these various manufacturers. I will quote from another magazine called Canadian Packaging which under the heading "Top Brass in Glass" features an interview with Tom Tinmouth from Consumers Glass Co., a man who has 30 years' experience in this industry and who tells us:

-customers, had maintained a close liaison with the government departments concerned. No advance notice has been given of the crackdown, which stemmed from the sale of 1.5 litre bottles that failed a tip-over test designed by the minister's department. The test had not been part of the glass container industry's own extensive testing procedures.
There you are! We say that the industry is doing everything possible to ensure that consumers will be protected when they use these bottles. When 1 hear my learned colleague on the other side of the House speak about the dangers of these bottles or containers, I find it very strange that one sector of the industry has been singled out. Why is it that we can find wine in 1.5 litre bottles in Quebec grocery stores? Why are these containers not pulled out?
Mr. Speaker, 1 repeat that a grave injustice has been done to this industry and I am convinced that when the minister decided to get all these containers off the market, he did not think about the serious consequences of his actions because, with the forthcoming holiday season, which is one of the most profitable for soft drink bottlers, they will find themselves with stocks of empties that they will be unable to use as collateral and they will be unable to obtain enough bottles from the manufacturers to meet the demand in what used to be a good season for them. Once more, the little guy, the family man
80079 44

November 29, 1979
Socio-Economic Impact Studies with a lower than average income, will have to pay because of the rising interest rates and runaway inflation imposed by our Tory friends. I believe that the minister should immediately reconsider his decision and suggest some other means to solve this problem to the industry. I have discussed this matter with people in the industry and they are quite willing to co-operate by commissioning a new design which would probably be satisfactory. I am convinced that if the minister agreed to reconsider his decision, the industry would find his action quite acceptable. Thus he would use his portfolio to protect the consumer, and even more important, Mr. Speaker, to protect those people who will buy soft drinks for the holiday season in containers large enough for their whole family.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say in closing that if the minister does not reconsider his decision, his action will be seriously prejudicial to this industry, as I said earlier. In my opinion, these industries make very large contributions to the Canadian economy, not to mention the employment they have created and continue to create.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is not much time left before there is a knock on the door here. I want to say at the outset that I support the motion to have the economic impact studies tabled in the House. I support the motion from just one point of view, that is, freedom of information. I think most of the Conservative members would support me when 1 say that we should have as much information made public as possible.
I want to say that I strongly support the action of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lawrence), and I do not support some of the remarks that were made by the Liberal member who has just spoken. If I understood him correctly, he said that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has created a grave injustice in this country by the banning of bottles. 1 want to say to that member that if the minister had not banned the bottles, he would have created an even graver injustice in the country because of the danger of exploding bottles.
1 want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members here, that it is not just a recent phenomenon that we are talking about here. We have had problems with exploding bottles for a number of years, but the previous government saw fit to do nothing about it.
I should like to quote from an article in the Toronto Star of June 30 this year written by Marilyn Anderson. It reads:
Lawrence Cohen, son of a Montreal restaurant owner, suffered permanent damage to his left eye when a bottle of soft drink he was about to place in a cooler exploded in his hand.
William Hart, a 44-year old Port Colborne bank manager, lost 80 per cent of vision in his right eye, when a soft drink bottle-sitting between two others in a supermarket aisle 12 feet from where he was pushing a shopping cart-exploded.
These are not recent incidents. Cohen was injured by flying pop bottle glass on September 4, 1957; Hart on April 2, 1966.
Both accidents were the result of spontaneous explosions, apparently caused by internal pressure in weakened returnable pop bottles. And, in both cases, the soft drink manufacturer was held responsible and ordered to pay damages.

Cohen was awarded damages of $8,600 in an appeal case before the Supreme Court of Canada on May 23, 1967; Hart won damages of $17,686.66 in an appeal before the Supreme Court of Ontario on March 4, 1968 . ..
In fact, in the ruling on the Cohen case 12 years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada made passing reference to "the numerous decided cases involving the explosion of bottles containing such beverages."
I think it is clear that it was a great injustice in this country not to have had the bottles banned before now. We have all heard the stories of people who sustained eye damage, the stories of the two cases to which I have referred, as well as the case of the little boy in Toronto-I am sure we all remember the case very well-who had his eye actually cut out by glass from an exploding pop bottle. When that type of thing happens, it is imperative that the government of the day defend the consumers against inaction of this sort, and I take off my hat to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for the decisive way in which he has handled the case.
The multinational corporations which dominate the soft drink industry chose to make a purely economic decision about this evident danger, or so it would appear when one looks at their response. They and some local bottlers had to pay out damages in the occasional court case. Still, these damages would never come close to equalling the cost involved in producing a bottle designed to contain glass fragments should the bottle explode. The large corporations realized something which was repeated, in that same issue of the Toronto Star, by the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs, who is quoted as having stated:
It's irrelevant to say a person can sue a big company, considering the cost and time involved.
I think that is a very enlightened statement when it comes to the ordinary citizen suing a large company, be it Coca-Cola or some of the other large companies involved in the soft drink trade.
The hon. member for Windsor West is something of an old dog and something of an old war horse regarding these matters in this Parliament.


An hon. Member:: What is he, a dog or a horse?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Sometimes the most effective hecklers come from one's own party. He is "a rose by any other name."
The hon. member for Windsor West long ago realized that Canadians need legislation like the Hazardous Products Act, plus a large and well equipped staff to administer the act, to protect themselves from members like the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), but also from other hazardous products in this country, because, as he said last June "It's more helpful to prevent the injury rather than let the individual fend for himself'.
The present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is not an old dog in this matter-he is a new person in the portfolio. Indeed, it was quite apparent in the months of June and July that the minister was little more than a pup when it came to situations where he had to handle large corporations motivated entirely by short-term profit considerations. I do not
November 29, 1979

want to describe in detail the first weeks of indecision, but in the words of the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody, all 1 can say is that results of this case show that one can teach an old dog new tricks, or certainly one can teach a new dog some tricks. It is quite a trick for a member of the Conservative party to stand up to the profit motive, when that motive clearly was threatening public safety.
By August 8, 1979, the minister took a step which was requested by the hon. member for Windsor West, the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), myself, and many others. We had requested that he ban the sale of 1.5 litre pop bottles. As I said before, I commend the Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for the decision which he took. I think it was very good and very progressive, and he has stood by it. In answer to a question posed recently by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. McCauley) in the House, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs rejected out of hand the latest series of merchandising gimmicks which have been the only response from the large soft drink firms to the danger of exploding bottles.
The history of bottle explosions has demonstrated very clearly that the one option which meets safety and environmental concerns is the returnable bottle with a coating or sleeve that contains the glass should the bottle explode. As has been mentioned before, other countries such as Japan and the United Kingdom have developed such containers. It is unfortunate for Canadian bottlers, their employees and consumers, that Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, and their sister corporations would not adopt such a modification in this country until they are forced to do so.
I see some activity at the door to the chamber, but I gather that I have another minute or two. It is very unfortunate that some members of the Liberal party are changing their minds on this issue and have not been standing up for what should be the interests of the consumers. I realize, as I am sure members of the Conservative party realize, that there is some economic hardship suffered by laid-off employees of bottlers. That is real, but surely the fault lies with the dominant corporations which decided that they could lie low, pay off the occasional lawsuit, and haul in profits by sticking with a very dangerous product. I urge the government to investigate the amendment of industrial assistance programs to cover situations such as that which hit the bottling industry, and shield workers from problems which are not of their own making.
Again I congratulate the minister on the tone and content of much of what he has said on this matter since August. I hope he will stick by his guns in making sure that we have legislation which will protect consumers in the future, as he has done to this particular stage. 1 have defended the Conservative party, the Conservative government, the Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and everyone for long enough. Perhaps before taking my seat I should say that I find it very difficult to understand the positions of some of the Liberal members in this debate. They seem to be more con-
Royal Assent
cerned about protecting Coca-Cola than protecting some of the consumers.
In closing, I should like to say that I support the motion before the House that we make the economic studies public. I have every confidence that those studies will show that the advice the minister acted upon was the correct advice and that he did the right thing. I appeal to my friends in the Conservative party, even though I have defended their action, that they support the Liberal member and the rest of us in this House by saying that it is very important to respect the spirit of freedom of information law, and to make these studies available to the public so that we can have a look at them and decide for ourselves.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the course of my address I asked specifically for certain kinds of information that should be in the department and that should be in the public domain. I asked some very specific questions at the end of my remarks. I just wanted to say that I think it is passing strange a motion for the production of papers somehow has been turned around into a suggestion that, by asking for information concerning alternatives, one does not care about safety.


Mark Willson Rose: No, not you.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We were not talking about you.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. More than one speaker on the opposite side of the House spoke on this motion. Indeed my impression was, at least from one of the members, that there was an intimation of a disregard for safety.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Evidently I will be deprived of the opportunity of deciding this fascinating point of order by the arrival of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[Stage Direction]
And being returned.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the

November 29, 1979
Freedom of Information
Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
Bill C-6, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act-Chapter 4.

It being after six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening at which time, pursuant to an order or an agreement made previously, the House will move to the consideration of Bill C-15.
At 6.10 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Walter David Baker: that Bill C-15, to extend the present laws of Canada that provide access to information under the control of the Government of Canada and to amend the Canada Evidence Act, the Federal Court Act and the Statutory Instruments Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to support the principles of this bill, 1 shall not speak very long because there are other hon. members who wish to speak, but I cannot help but think that all of us in this chamber are embarking upon a major reform to our system of government. I hope that reform will make the system better, and I believe it will; that it will be enduring, and I believe it will endure long after all of us in this Parliament are gone, and regardless of what government sits on the treasury benches.
At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I want to pay particular tribute to a member of this House, and that is the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I was given the responsibility by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), a responsibility I willingly undertake, to introduce this bill. In terms of the work that has gone on over the years with respect to freedom of information, 1 really believe that the hon. member for Peace River should be standing in my place tonight, introducing this bill. As I stand here to do what is the beginning of the culmination of his work, 1 feel I want to pay him that tribute. 1 feel honoured

to be the beneficiary of the work of the hon. member for Peace River. Members of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments of this House and the other place, have laboured long and hard over the years to raise public expectations to the point that I can stand in his place to introduce this bill.
If I think of myself as anything, it is not as the father or mother of freedom of information in this country. I am just the midwife of this legislation and I am happy that the hon. member for Peace River is in the House tonight. I expect he takes the view, when he looks at the bill, that the battle for information is not over. I am pleased that he is in this Parliament and will be able to bring his expertise and commitment to the principles that bear on the bill, when it goes to committee.
it was the hon. member for Peace River who commented in this House almost a year and a half ago about the lengthy gestation period for reform such as freedom of information. And, Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time coming, certainly, though, through no fault of that hon. member or of his colleagues in this party. I say that not to be partisan, but to recount what is history.
In that same debate a year and a half ago, the leader of my party made a commitment. He said then it was a matter of urgent priority to present legislation in this House to make it possible for the people of Canada to know what is going on. We have done that. We have done that within months of taking office, but ten years after the hon. member for Peace River first introduced a private member's bill, and ten years after a task force established by the previous government had this to recommend:
The right of Canadians to full, objective, and timely information and the obligation of the state to provide such information about its program and policies be publicly declared and stand as the foundation for the development of new government policies in this field.
It is obvious that the time is overdue for this needed reform. 1 can put the reason for it no more eloquently than did the now right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) 15 years ago when he wrote:
Democratic progress requires the ready availability of true and complete information. In this way people can objectively evaluate the government's policies. To act otherwise is to give way to despotic secrecy.
Freedom of information has been studied and restudied by committees of this House. It has been debated and debated again in this chamber. The Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments recommended the concept in 1975. The House of Commons approved it in 1976. In 1977 the former government tabled a green paper which began with these ringing words:
Open government is the basis of democracy. It is an essential consequence of the extension of the franchise of 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 government action and the effectiveness of government performance in their achievement.
That green paper was referred, again, to the standing joint committee which found the rest of it did not measure up to the
November 29, 1979

beginning. The committee found fault in both the key elements of any approach to freedom of information; the exemptions were too broad, and there was not an independent review of government denials. The secretary of state of the day rejected the committee's recommendations and never introduced legislation.
But, given that long history, there can be little doubt that members on all sides of this House should have no hesitation about the principle of freedom of information.
In the bill we are discussing tonight, hon. members will not have to go far to find the principles. They are laid out, not in speeches, not in green papers, but in clause 2 of the bill, as follows:
-government information should be available to the public and recognizing that necessary exceptions to the principle should be limited and specific and that the application of those exceptions should be reviewed independently of government.
That clause, Mr. Speaker, will drastically change the relationship between the government and the people it serves. It recognizes that those in authority govern by and with the consent of the people of Canada, not by and for themselves. Nothing can be more important in restoring confidence in government, of whatever stripe, which is so lacking. The reason it is lacking is that governments have been unwilling to take the people into their confidence-to realize it is a partnership, not a one-way street.
Given general agreement on the principles of freedom of information, the task becomes one of turning those principles into legislation. There are, of course, two key elements to such legislation. The first, obviously, is the matter of exemptions from the general right of access. The second is the independent review of governmental denials of access under those exemptions.
To deal with the second issue first, in my opinion it is meaningless to grant broad access to government information, subject to narrowly defined exemptions, without ensuring that refusals to access can be challenged in the courts. Further, it is important that the process of judicial review be as simple, inexpensive, and expeditious as possible.
To allow for complete judicial review, we have taken the major step of eliminating absolute Crown privilege before the courts by repealing section 41 of the Federal Court Act. That section, of course, has always been out of step with the situation in other common law countries. It has allowed ministers to withhold information from the courts in some sensitive areas simply by signing an affidavit. Obviously, retaining such ministerial discretion would eliminate any meaningful judicial review, and the bill addresses that directly.
We have also introduced a step before the court review by proposing an information commissioner with ombudsman-like powers to review government denials of access. This commissioner will have broad powers to investigate complaints and make recommendations. We believe that the commissioner will
Freedom of Information
be able to solve and resolve most disputes between applicants and the government. I hope that belief will be borne out in practice and that we will cut down substantially the number of cases that would wind up in the law courts. 1 would think it unlikely, for example, that a minister would refuse to disclose information if that course is recommended by the commissioner unless that matter is of some high principle which the minister could not avoid. Even if he took that position, that position would be subject to review by the courts.
Let me deal with the other key element of the bill, the exemptions from the general right of access. All those who have examined the issue of freedom of information, and indeed, jurisdictions which have such laws, agree on the need for some exemptions. There is, in other words, some information which should be protected simply so government can function. The question here becomes one of how that can best be done. There are a number of possible approaches ranging from brief, general descriptions of the exemptions, supplemented by regulations as the Americans have done, to detailed and exhaustive attempts at defining the exempt areas. There have been some suggestions that that be done. We have leaned toward the latter. We have tried to lean, in any event, toward the defining of exempt areas using precise language, at least as precise as we could at this stage of the consideration of the bill.
Precise definition will enable Parliament to be specific on what information should be disclosed and what should be withheld. More precise definitions will give more guidance to the courts on the intent of the legislation rather than letting the courts define the exemptions for themselves. Precise, detailed exemptions, although longer, enable the government to define exemptions more narrowly than do broad, general ones. That is the general thrust of the bill.
As I mentioned earlier, while there is general agreement on the need for exemptions, there is much less agreement either in this chamber or elsewhere on exactly what they should be. We have taken the approach that there are four general areas that need protection. First, there are the obligations of government, including such matters of state interest as the conduct of national defence, external affairs, and law enforcement.
Second is the protection of privacy. This recognizes that third parties should not get access to information about individuals held by the government. I might add here that we are now in the final stages of preparing a new privacy act to replace part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act which controls an individual's access to such information about that individual. The final draft of the bill was approved in the cabinet committee on legislation and house planning this afternoon, and will be going to cabinet next week. It will be introduced in the House before Christmas.
The third area is financial, commercial, scientific, and technical information which could divulge trade secrets and harm the competitive position of commercial enterprises, or interfere with commercial contract negotiations. The last major area is the bill of exemption with respect to the operations of government. That includes information needed for the decision-mak-

November 29, 1979
Freedom of Information
ing process of government, such as cabinet discussions and advice from public servants.
I suspect there is little disagreement that there is a need for protection of information in those general areas, or all of them. This is a question which I know is an open question in the minds of most of us in this House. We have attempted to take a responsible position in answering that question in our exemptions. But when I introduced the bill I was asked what my view of the bill was. I said that I did not regard it as the last word with respect to freedom of information, I regarded it as the first word in terms of this Parliament and that we will be looking to this Parliament, and the committee that will consider it, for assistance with respect to the framework of the bill. I hope that the parliamentary committee will take a hard look at these things. We will certainly consider carefully the recommendations of that committee.
I might also point out, Mr. Speaker, that we have written into this legislation an automatic parliamentary review of its operation within three years of it coming into effect. The parliamentary committee to review the act will be empowered to recommend changes to Parliament. I think it is an important principle that Parliament itself looks at the operations of its own statutes and that the consideration of whether a statute is working appropriately to the convenience of the public and in the interest of the public ought to be left to the representatives of the public. That is a principle that is in this bill.
As important as the principle is that taxpayers are entitled to information gathered by public servants at public expense, the real reason behind the basic theory and purpose of democratic government is that democracy can only flourish with the competition of ideas, argument, and criticism. It depends on the contribution of all voices of society. If this Parliament is to function, if groups in society are to function, if the people of the country are to judge in a knowledgeable way what their government is doing, then some of the tools of power must be shared with the people, and that is the purpose of freedom of information legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Freedom of information will do part of that job. Other steps this government is taking will continue that spirit. Members will recall that I tabled last week proposals aimed at helping Parliament do its job better and more responsively. I hope that we can have those matters, the white paper among other things, before the parliamentary committee with respect to procedure and organization, before we leave at Christmas. We are taking other steps as well, particularly to make contacts between the public service and the people more responsive to the needs of the people. In that regard, the Prime Minister has written to deputy ministers outlining guidelines for contacts between the public service and the public, including particularly members of Parliament and representatives of the news media.
Perhaps at this point, if I have the consent of the House in the spirit of openness I could ask for the approval of the House

to table both the Prime Minister's letter to the deputy ministers and the guidelines.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Is
there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would it not be desirable to have these appended to today's Hansard? If so, I would suggest that we do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Is it
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For documents above referred to, See Appendix.}


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for his suggestion. I think it is an excellent one.
With respect to the guidelines that have just been tabled, they are approved by cabinet and are consistent with both ministerial responsibility and the right of citizens to deal with their public servants. I hope they will commend themselves to members of the House.
The material I have just tabled, the parliamentary reforms proposed last week, and the bill we are debating tonight, I hope are ample evidence of this government's belief and commitment to a new era in the relations between the governors and the governed. Indeed, without these steps, we in this House will lose a little more relevance every day to those we are here to serve. I hope that these documents will be considered in that light.
In closing the debate, 1 want to close it in the way that I began.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: -to end it in the way that I began, and that is to ask members to support this bill. I hope they agree with the principle of the bill. I look forward to hearing suggestions with respect to the bill by members who will be speaking on all sides of the House. I ask the House to join with me in once again paying tribute to the father of freedom of information in Canada, the hon. member for Peace River.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) in paying tribute to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). Back in 1975 at the request of the then president of the privy council, Mr. Sharp, he and I had the opportunity of visiting the Scandinavian countries to look into the operation of their freedom of information legislation. We spent some
November 29, 1979

time in Sweden, Finland, and Denmark. As well, when we were members of the statutory instruments committee we twice had the opportunity to visit the United States in order to examine the progress that country was making on its revised freedom of information legislation. Perhaps 1 might tell the House a story of what happened to me as a result of visiting Scandinavia with the hon. member for Peace River.
We had with us for the first visit to Sweden an official of the Privy Council whom we had requested to attend with us, keep notes, and write a report on our behalf to the Privy Council. The official was called back to Ottawa as a result of a minor crisis. On his return he produced a report as a result of the first visit to Sweden. He sent copies of that report to the hon. member for Peace River and myself for commentary, and to make sure he had his facts correct. Having got his facts correct, he submitted his report to his masters in the Privy Council.
At that point the hon. member for Peace River and myself went to the Privy Council and said, please release our report, we would like it to be circulated to members of the statutory instruments committee. They said no. After saying no for about six months, we were finally able to get the report out and circulate it to the members.
I went back to the officials of the Privy Council and asked why it had been classified in the first place since two members of Parliament already knew what was in that document. They said that anything produced for the Privy Council automatically had slapped on it a "Confidential" stamp and it took time to be able to undo that.
1 suspect there is a great deal of information within the public service that automatically has a particular stamp slapped on it. It does not have anything to do with whether the information is "Confidential" or "Secret". It has to do a great deal with the way in which public servants see themselves and the normal relations that go on between individuals. It may well be that officials at a certain level will only read documents that are marked "Top Secret", and others read only those marked "Confidential". If you want an input, you have to make sure your documents are stamped with the appropriate top level stamp.
Freedom of information legislation will go a long way toward eliminating some of these problems. At the same time we have to acknowledge that the whole requirement for freedom of information really has to do with human nature, not so much the evil bureaucrats or the civil servants. It has to do with the way in which people see themselves. It has to do with one person saying, "I have information, you do not; so therefore I am more powerful than you." It has to do with the kind of individual games that we all play with each other and which go on in the public service as in any large organization.
The importance of this bill is not so much in the way in which it defines freedom of information and the way it defines exemptions, but the fact that when it is passed it will say that all information should be made available to the citizens of Canada. It is a psychological factor. The importance of this
Freedom of Information
bill is in the psychological impact it ought to have on the public servant.
I commend the President of the Privy Council for bringing to the House tonight the letter from the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) to the public service. I realize that is an important way of seconding the principles implied in this bill. It is important to recognize that all legislation that we pass in this House is of an evolutionary nature. About 85 per cent of the legislation we deal with is amendments to existing acts. That means the government and the people have looked at legislation and decided that it requires improvement. We will have that opportunity to improve in three years after we have a very good look at this legislation.
It is important to recognize that while we may have had differences in judgment as to what should be included in an exemption or in a definition, they are really differences in degree and do not represent major irreparable differences between the various political parties in the House. We are prepared to look upon the legislation, the definitions, exemptions, and even, I might say to the President of the Privy Council, the schedules, which we find somewhat deficient, with the view that it is a question of degree, not of anything else.
One of the most important factors of this bill was not directly alluded to by the President of the Privy Council. This will in fact be one of the major reforms of the public service since Sir Robert Borden's legislation in 1916 when patronage was taken out of the public service. What we are talking about here is in effect changing a system that has grown up over the years in which the public servant has come to be regarded as a servant only of the government, to provide it only with that information and, particularly, to provide it with his knowledgeable opinions and instincts on what a particular issue is all about, in exchange for the fact that his identity will not be revealed. That has been the bargain that has existed.
We have developed a public service which, by and large, is dependent upon the written word. The records of the government are kept in the written word. When we want to go back and check why and upon what evidence a decision was made, we find in the filing cabinets of the bureaucracy the necessary information. That is the way we have operated our public service. We are now changing that. We are now saying that the public servant is no longer directly responsible to the government, that his information was paid for and sponsored by the government which sometimes directed the information gathering and the analysis of that information. This bill says that the public servant is responsible to all Canadians for that information. That is a significant change.
As a result of that change there will be costs to this bill in the way in which the public service acts and in the efficiency of the public service. Just as no piece of legislation is without its faults or its costs, so this one will have costs not only in terms of dollars but also in terms of the way the public service operates. We have to be prepared to acknowledge those costs, to observe what happens in that period of time and to ensure that we are able to find and correct the changes that will inevitably follow. Consequently we have suggested the forma-

November 29, 1979
Freedom of Information
tion of some kind of monitoring agency to investigate the implementation of this legislation. On second thought, we have had to examine it more carefully.
We now propose following the kind of recommendations that flowed from the D'Avignon report, that that function could best be played by the Public Service Commission. It could look at these hidden costs and provide a significant report to the parliamentary committee in three years hence. It is an idea that is worth exploring because of the very nature of what we are dealing with here.
I want to emphasize that this is not only going to be a change for the citizens of Canada, but is going to be a significant change in the public service operations. We have to acknowledge that. As well, we shall have to find some way of protecting the individual public servant. After all, if he goes about his job collecting information and making it available and that information happens to prove embarrassing to somebody-the government, the opposition, individual corporations or others outside government-that individual public servant has to be protected for doing his job. We find that in this bill the individual public servant is not particularly well protected, and we want to ensure that consideration is given by the President of the Privy Council and the committee to ensure that that in fact is the case. We find the bill deficient in that particular instance.
We also find a concern-I do not know what we can do about it-in terms of information flow. I speak of information flow because right now the government really has, in my judgment, three kinds of information flow. We have information flow which is contained in what we might call the standard method of recording, that is, paper documents locked up in filing cabinets and classified according to various methods. That is the kind of information we usually think of.
However, there are two other kinds of information flow which are very important. The first is the question of electronic data processing and the data which is stored on computers. We have dilemmas, and we would want to examine with a great deal of care the way in which the government in the bill has dealt with this particular aspect. We feel that it probably deserves a separate definition of its own and probably separate considerations.
I want, for a moment, to tell the President of the Privy Council of some of the problems we see in this particular area. Let us assume, for example, that the Department of Finance has collected a lot of the data upon which decisions in government are used to make decisions in financial policy and that those data are in the form of a tape in a computer. Suppose I, as a citizen, want access to that data. You give me a tape containing that data. I do not have your kind of computer. The data is no good to me, and it may well be that to have access to that kind of computer is at a cost far beyond my capability. At the same time, if I get a print-out of the kind of data which is likely to be contained on that tape, it would actually be useless to me.
Let us consider also that the government may have some 25 or 30 programs which it runs off that data. Do I request and get a print-out of each one of those programs? Or can I even request the government to give me a print-out of that data using my own programs written on the government's own computer? Yet that may be the only way to use that data properly. So, I would like to ensure that the President of the Privy Council comes to the committee having given some considerable thought to this item. I believe it to be of fundamental importance because I am now told that about 55 per cent of the data which the Government of Canada has, is contained by this kind of information method, which means that unless one has access to considerable computing power, it is absolutely useless. We do not want to end up in a situation where, because the government has converted to a computer system of information storage and retrieval, the legislation itself is worth nothing and is a dead letter. So, I believe that is an important point we want to have followed up in considerable detail.
Another point to make sure that freedom of information is worth while is the matter of indexing. We cannot get the information if we do not know it exists.


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: That means we really have to pay much more attention, it seems to me, to the question of indexing than is in the bill. I recognize that the government has used the model which was contained in part IV of the Human Rights Act, and I think that as far as that model went it was appropriate because it was dealing with a definable, quantifiable sort of information. What we are now dealing with are all kinds of information which the government has acquired, and therefore we want to ensure that the indexing system which is developed has at least two categories, that it is as comprehensible as we can possibly make it and, second, that it is updated as urgently as possible.
1 also feel that to ensure that Canadians from across the country have access to the government data bank the government must find a means of disseminating this information throughout the land. It is not good enough to say that people can get information only if they come to Ottawa, and in my judgment it is also not good enough to say that people can get data only if they go to an office of which we have perhaps one in each province. I recognize the dilemma in terms of costs, but at the same time I urge the President of the Privy Council to consider utilizing the Post Office again as we have in part IV of the Human Rights Act. I think it is worth considering that. Because of the nature of this country I feel that we cannot keep information exclusive to only one region or to favoured regions. We must, in our legislation and in our actions, make sure it is available to as many people as is humanly possible.
I want to talk at this point about costs. The green paper of 1977 indicated a cost ranging at that time between $10 million and $11 million per year. The paper which was presented by the President of the Privy Council with his legislation indicat-

November 29, 1979

ed a cost of between $5 million and $10 million in today's dollars. We were surprised that the cost of providing information had declined so dramatically in the last four years. We do not think the President of the Privy Council is right in his estimate. We are inclined to this view based on the research which I am aware went into the green paper of 1977, but we are also inclined to this view because the position paper presented by the President of the Privy Council was notably silent on this particular issue. We think the cost will be considerable. We think the cost will be. high, not so much in terms of dollar costs but in terms of the diversion of manpower within the public service.
While freedom of information is a laudable goal, we do not want to see the cost of that borne by the consumers of government programs, and we want to ensure that if indeed costs to develop in terms of the utilization of manpower within the public service, the government will not hesitate to provide the extra man-years necessary to get that information out as expeditiously as possible and not pass the cost on to the consumers of those programs. I think that is of fundamental importance, because to do so is in many ways to take the route which has been taken in the United States. We also think that departments ought to be encouraged to report on a sensible basis what their experiences are with freedom of information.
I have now had an opportunity to review all of the annual reports of all of the departments of the government of the United States since their revised freedom of information act came into effect. I can tell the House that there is absolutely no common system which determines what costs are reported, in what way and how, and if you try to take that material and work out what the costs actually are, it is enough to cause you to tear your hair out. I know that this is so.
When the hon. member for Peace River and I once went to Washington, he and 1 took a separate tour from the rest of the group, and we were told quite frankly that the administration had no interest in finding out what the cost of the legislation was. I think we do have an interest, because it is clear to me that if we do not find out what the costs are and provide for them in our estimates directly, the consumers of programs will pay, and I am not really prepared to see the government taking that route.
I want to deal with one of the points in which the minister took a great deal of pride, and that was the way in which a means of ensuring that a final decision could be taken not by the politicians in Parliament assembled but by the courts of Canada. I beg to differ with the President of the Privy Council. 1 do not particularly think that that is nececessarily a wise move. I accept the fact that no matter in what way we determine the final decision, it is not going to be perfect. My own feeling, as a person who believes in the concept of responsible government, is that it is the government which ought to take the final decision, because in many cases these decisions as to what will be released and what will not will be questions of political judgment, and the government ought to take those decisions, report them to the House of Commons,
Freedom of Information
and then provide an opportunity for the House to be heard on them.
I believe that for the government to go to the courts is for it to take an attitude that it does not feel strong or powerful enough, or have the courage, to deal with the responsibilities it has. I think it is the government that should make political judgments, not the courts, and it is my fear that the cases that will come before the courts will involve as much political judgment as they may involve judicial decision. The judges are trained to make decisions in law. Freedom of information, and the concept of what is contained in those documents which may or may not be released, are better determined by politicians.
I do not lack confidence in the government in the sense that I believe they are perfectly able to discharge their responsibilities. I fear that they will get into a system of judicial decisions which will, in fact, seal off information which ought to be released and keep secret information that is not necessarily secret. So my judgment is that this provision should be looked at again. We feel that the House of Commons has a role to play in this. We are elected by the people, we have confidence in the political process, we even have confidence in the government that they will be able to discharge their duties ably with such a change in the legislation. I recognize that members of the government opposite might not share the confidence 1 have in them, but that is for them to decide.
The last point 1 want to make is to say that, by and large, we are in agreement with the form and the bill. We will be examining very carefully, as will other people, the formulas that have been developed for the exemptions. We recognize that in many cases it is a question of degree and we are prepared to discuss and test those examples that are given in the legislation. We want to emphasize that we believe that this is evolutionary legislation, that this is a good beginning which, by virtue of its very fact, ought to substantiate changes within the public service, that it will be basically a long time in coming to its fruition. By and large we are pleased to support this legislation on second reading.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose this is my maiden speech in the House of Commons, my first real speech, if you like, and I am very proud to be speaking on such an important topic. I think we are only beginning to see the importance of freedom of information and we are only beginning to see how far the concept and the philosophy will lead. I hope to suggest some extensions of the philosophy in my speech tonight.
However, I should like to begin by paying tribute to a former member of our party, Barry Mather, who introduced the first freedom of information private member's bill back in 1965. I am pleased to say that he was a member from British Columbia. I am also pleased to pay tribute to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). When the bill was introduced

November 29, 1979
Freedom of Information
by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) a couple of weeks ago, I was quoted as saying that it was really Jed's day. That is true. 1 might say, as one who is sitting in the last seat in the House of Commons and looking across at a man who is twice my age, that it is really an inspiration for me to see the hon. member for Peace River-


An hon. Member:: He is only 40.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -a man with four times my experience, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who is in front of me, both of whom are an inspiration to a young member of Parliament, and to know that maybe something can really be done in the House for one's country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: However, I am not going to be so charitable to the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You see, I am learning already. One wag was quoted as saying recently that a Conservative government should have the strongest vested interest in freedom of information and parliamentary reform because, historically, they are not in power for very long. But instead, tonight I hope to give a small Christmas present to my friend, the President of the Privy Council, and I will ask the page to take over that present. It signifies what I think of the bill before us. First, I am sending over a rose because l think it is basically a good bill. It is long overdue-we have waited, for 16 years of Liberal government, and we never got anything-and I congratulate the minister on the bill. However, together with the rose I will send over to the minister a small dump-truck because, if he will look closely at the exemptions, he will see that one can drive a truck through some of them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I want to quote to the President of the Privy Council some words of his leader who spoke in the House of Commons on Wednesday, June 28, 1978. The then leader of the opposition said that there were some criteria in the freedom of information act that he saw must be, in his words, "clear and unequivocal". He is not usually that way, but this is what he said should be in the bill. He said, first, that Canadians have a right to access of information, and the government in turn has an obligation to respect and respond to that citizens' right. Second, he said that any exemptions should be limited and specific, and the burden of proof that an exemption is warranted should rest upon the government and not the citizen. To quote the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) he said:
The law should set forth these exemptions clearly and specifically in limited language and will not be subject or capable of being interpreted in a way that will hide that which should be public.
The third criterion he gave was that there has to be a procedure to resolve disputes over an exemption, an accessible procedure and, to quote him:
[Mr. Waddell.)
-it has to be a procedure in which the final decision rests with the body or a person completely independent of the government that would want to hide the information.
Later he said in a speech:
Any law not based on these principles is a fraud.
I am not saying this bill is fraudulent because it is not-it is a beginning. But if you apply the exacting test of the Prime Minister, it does not quite meet that test. It seems to me that this legislation lacks the toughness, the wholehearted dedication to disclosure which exists in the Watergate-inspired amendments to the United States freedom of information act.
Before I go into the details of where I think the bill falls down, I would like to enunciate some general principles, if I may. We in the NDP, too, want to end our secret society in Canada. In our view, Canada must be the freest country in the world, bar none, and we should never rest until we achieve that objective. The President of the Privy Council has said that the public has a right to know what the government is doing with the taxpayers' money. He put the principle on that level. Let me say with respect that I think this is a rather low way of putting it.
Other people have said that an informed electorate is the truest sort of democracy. That is pretty high sounding. 1 want to define it a little differently, if I may. I would say that the public have a right to know and to have the information which goes into the decisions which affect their lives. Mr. Stevens of The Globe and Mail-that fountain of eastern wisdom-put it this way: that the public has or can obtain information to assess or judge governmental action.
As the matter stands, without freedom of information, many Canadians are disillusioned with government. Who can blame them when governments keep secrets from the people they are elected to serve? The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) gave an example of secrets. I can recall the time when I was up north working for the Berger inquiry in Yellowknife, asking for some material from Ottawa. I received a package which said "confidential-for your eyes only". I opened it up and found a copy of Hansard. It had a speech of Mitchell Sharp's in it. I do not know why anybody would want to keep that confidential.
1 firmly believe that we are talking in a real way about the future of the parliamentary system and the public's confidence in that system. What I have seen so far in this system is that a minister gets up in the House and he or she says, "I have been presented with various options. I have chosen this one", and then the minister sits down. In an ideal parliamentary system it seems to me that we should know what the options were, on what basis they were made, and why the minister chose a particular option. I see the Prime Minister is in the House. I am very pleased he is here tonight because he was a real honest proponent of this legislation. I read all his speeches on it, and I congratulate him for them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 29, 1979


Ian Gardiner Waddell: But power tends to change one a little bit, and we are still faced with examples of ministers getting up and making policy decisions without us really knowing what is behind them. I should like to take an example from the past. For example, the Pickering airport is a case where there are environmental factors against economic factors, present land use against future land use. We have: "where would the development go?" against "when would it go there?" When all is said and done, it would have been better to have had all the information out on the table, out in the open in the beginning. One does not have to read Mr. Stewart's book to know that. The object would be to have a rational and sensible policy. That is an example of where freedom of information would have been useful.
I suppose we can ask ourselves the following questions. What are the objectives we are seeking to serve by enacting this freedom of information? Is it ultimately to reduce the size of government, to decrease regulation? Is it to speed up or slow down government? Do we think government is too big or too unaccountable and not the good thing we thought it might be? I suppose that depends on where you stand in the political spectrum. But we in the New Democratic Party believe in positive government. We believe in government. We are not afraid of government. We want it to be lean, accountable, workable and, above all, we want it be open. That is why we are in favour of this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: In a statement issued on April 25, 1979, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) said that the NDP has consistently pursued the need for freedom of information legislation because of the party's strongly held belief that a well-informed citizenry is the lifeblood of a democracy.
The Trudeau government brought down a green paper on June 29, 1977, entitled: "Legislation on Public Access to Government Documents". We criticized it because it was a weak paper. I do not see my friend, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River in the House.


An hon. Member:: He has gone to join the Tories.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He has gone to where all Liberals ultimately gather.


William James Kempling: To his old seat.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It must have been very difficult for the member, and 1 congratulate him. Incidentally, the member is a former teacher of mine. 1 am pleased to have an opportunity to speak after him. Probably he thinks I have gone astray, no doubt. It must have been very hard for him because the record of the Liberal party on freedom of information is really bad, a really sorry record. They had lots of time to enact a bill. It is an appalling record. Nothing was done. For example, the then government announced in the Speech from the Throne on October 11, 1978, that it proposed a freedom of information bill. What happened? They backed away from such a bill. But
Freedom of Information
finally we have a bill. If the Liberal record on freedom of information is an example of the radical middle or an example of the dead centre, then I suspect the electorate of Canada will further turn away from that party. Finally we have a bill to deal with, so let me deal with it.


Maurice James Harquail: Please do.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It seems to me that a lot of work has to be done on the bill. I should like to make some comments specifically on some portions of the bill. I say this to the President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue-


Maurice James Harquail: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If the hon. member wishes to speak, he can speak after me.


An hon. Member:: He can't; he is a Liberal.


Maurice James Harquail: I congratulate you on your maiden speech.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you. He is a Liberal. I say to the President of the Privy Council that he has broadened the exemptions but he has not narrowed them. They have broadened the exemptions and they are not narrowed by these excessive words. It is a much broader bill and it contains many more words than the draft bill of the Canadian Bar Association which, in my view, was much better. The Bar Association approached it on the basis of detailed exemptions, which is good, but the government has said too much. It has gone too far. The words gave the effect of extending the exemptions. We will go into this in some greater detail in committee, but 1 should like to direct the attention of the President of the Privy Council to clause 15 of the bill, the definitions of international relations and defence. Clause 15(2)(a) refers to the defence of Canada and reads as follows:
'the defence of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada' includes the efforts of Canada toward detecting, preventing or suppressing activities of any person, group of persons or foreign state directed toward actual or potential attack or other hostile acts against Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada-
What does that mean? What does "any state allied or associated with Canada" mean? We are allied or associated with a lot of states. The definition goes on to talk about "subversive or hostile activities". I draw the minister's attention to clause 15(2)(6)(iv) which reads as follows:
-activities directed toward gathering intelligence relating to Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada-
What is meant by "subversive or hostile activities"? It seems to me that under this bill we could never have received any of the information, for example, about the FLQ crisis in 1970. Clearly the people, the powers that be in External Affairs, Defence, the RCMP and so on, have really got to the government on this matter. They have put in such broadly worded exemptions that basically the bill is worth very little in these areas. This is something the committee will have to look into. 1 hope the hon. member for Peace River, noting his integrity, will raise these matters in his speeches in committee.

November 29, 1979
Freedom of Information
These exemptions are far too broad. The government is pulling the wool over our eyes if it is saying that this is a complete freedom of information bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: 1 can be persuaded.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Well, they did not use the words "national security", but they might as well have.
I should like to deal with clause 25 of the bill, a clause with which the committee should deal. The government discussion paper indicated that there are 100 other acts which have security provisions in them. The Canadian Bar Association said that there were 73 acts with security provisions in them. Clause 25 seems to indicate that these other acts, with their security provisions, will still be around. Of course there are some exemptions in subclauses (a) and (b). Clause 25 reads as follows:
-if the act of Parliament
(a)	provides that the requirement to withhold information be exercised in such
a manner as to leave no discretion in the matter; or
(b)	establishes particular criteria for withholding information or refers to
particular types of information to be withheld.
Would it not have been much simpler to make the freedom of information bill, this bill, the whole code? If other acts have security provisions in them, let us get rid of the other ones, or let us put an appendix in this bill so that the other acts will not apply. The reason for that is so we will end up with a clear set of rules. We will know the rules of the game. They will be clear and they will be right in this act. I think that is something the committee must examine. A lot of these other acts should be scrapped anyway. They are outdated. The government does not really scrap, but they sort of scrap them in an indirect manner. This is a government which is trying to inspire an atmosphere of openness. It seems to me there is a big, big mistake in the bill in that area.
Another area about which the government has forgotten, and about which eventually we will get into trouble, is the American experience of reverse information suits. If the government discloses information about an individual or a corporation, the act should indicate that the government must give notice to the person who will be affected by the disclosure of that information. I say this to the President of the Privy Council. We will have law suits over that. We should deal with it now, because we will get into the same problem the Americans had in their reverse freedom of information law suits.
One other area I would specifically like to deal with is the time of the act. It seems to me that if this bill is really to work for journalists, others, and members of Parliament specifically, one needs a tough time limit. Clause 27 says that if the powers that be believe on reasonable grounds they are going to publish the material, they do not have to release it in a certain time period. That would seem to me to really open up a stalling tactic. Even if they do publish it later on, it seems to me the story or the currency of the information may be gone. Why not provide for a copy to be made available?
(Mr. Waddell.]
Finally in a specific area, l am very concerned with the application of this to the provinces and to dominion-provincial relations. I think we have to look at that exemption very closely. It seems to me that every time we get up in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister or one of his colleagues is always having deep consultation with the provinces, talking to someone in the provinces, and it is a provincial matter, and so on. This seems to be the case in every area. Even our new wonderful Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. MacDonald) today at the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts talked about his role in expanding federal-provincial relations for dealing with the provinces. It seems to me we should look very carefully at that exemption." If we are going to have government by federal and provinces together, kind of a new realm of government, then we have to make sure that is a very limited exemption.
From the provinces' point of view, it seems to me if we are going to have this whole freedom of information work, and I know that the President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue wants to make it work, and I am trying to be constructive, although a bit chippy, I think what he should do is write to all the provinces and encourage them to bring in similar acts. It is very important that they bring in such acts. Only New Brunswick really has a half decent act. I wrote to the Premier of British Columbia, but he has a lot of problems with his mail and his letters and I did not get a reply.
1 want to raise one other matter that is important to us as New Democrats. I go back to my definition of freedom of information, and that is that freedom of information should be expanded to the private sector, it seems to me the real Government of Canada, with great respect to the ladies and gentlemen opposite, may not be here. It may be that the Government of Canada is sort of a combination of the government opposite here and the great corporations which plan and meet in their board rooms across Canada, basically in secret. They made decisions which have a tremendous impact on all of us. The great corporations should be accountable because of this impact.
1 am sure some hon. members a few weeks ago saw a report in The Globe and Mail that a one-industry town was closed because a great corporation decided to move. That decision and the information, studies and so on behind it, had tremendous impact on that town, and tremendous impact on all of us. In addition, the great corporations are, to put it not too charitably, right up to the public trough.
Let us take the example of Dome Petroleum which receives subsidies to the extent of 96 cents out of every dollar it spends, and those subsidies are paid by us, the taxpayers, through the government. It seems to me that companies in that position which are making vital decisions, for example, drilling in the Beaufort Sea, should have to make that information available. I am thinking of the studies behind those decisions that affect the Inuit people up there who may want to see those studies. These are important decisions. They are governing decisions, and they are being made every day by small groups in secret.
November 29, 1979

We have a system, indeed, of private governments in this country. This is powerful and it has an effect on people's lives. If we really believe in democracy, the reality behind that power should be exposed as well. How is this to be done? 1 think it can be done in two ways. These companies or corporations must be required to report to government agencies, to government, and then the information comes under the freedom of information act. They should be required to follow that practice at least to the extent they do in the United States.
The Vancouver Sun had to go to the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States to find out the salaries of the top executive of the CPR, and other information about the CPR. After we go to the committee, after we pass this bill, and after we hear the words of the President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue, there will be exactly no change. We will still have to go to the United States to get that information. One way to do this, then, is to make our disclosure requirements much more strict and broad.
The second way we could do this is to require of those companies that receive government benefits, advantages, or use the public domain, that they must tell us what they are up to and what they are doing if they want to get that money. This is very important, it seems to me, and I will give you an example. Logging companies are dealing in the public domain, and communication companies have access to public airways. I have already mentioned Dome Petroleum as being one of that kind of heavily subsidized company. In return for being subsidized by the government we should say that they have to live by the freedom of information act, or a similar type of law.
I was not born quite yesterday, and 1 know the government is not going to accept this. I do not expect to see this overnight, but it seems to me that if you accept that philosophy of freedom of information, then ultimately, and it is going to take the Canadian public a few years to come around to it, we will require that from private corporations. This, of course, is the fundamental difference in philosophy between my party and the party opposite. At least we do have fundamental philosophies as opposed to the party on my right.
I would like to conclude by asking this question. Where do we go from here on this particular bill? It seems to me we have to go to committee and do some hard work on the bill. Decisions are not going to get any easier in the future. 1 believe that modern government is going to be very complex. I know a lot of members opposite would like a very simple kind of government, but that is not the way things are going. It is going to be more complex, and technology is more complex now. We are facing a more complex society. In the face of that complexity we do not need the further stumbling block of not having free access to information. In order to solve these problems and deal with this much more complicated world, we need that information.
This bill needs work. I take the minister at his word. I expect a Christmas present from him next week. I take him at his word that this bill is not the last word on freedom of information but, indeed, is the first word. I hope he will accept our amendments, and we will have some detailed amendments
Freedom of Information
to propose in committee. I hope the people of Canada will think about our proposed extension of the principle into the private sector. It seems to me that is what the new democracy is about. Thank you very much.


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


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate on Bill C-15, the Freedom of Information Act. Here we are considering another example of a Tory electoral promise embodied in a bill. Of all the promises that were made last year, Mr. Speaker, this one makes the most sense. Data processing and red tape had become tools for controlling and withholding information on individuals. Data banks that can now be found not only in government but also in private organizations and institutions such as hospitals, have grown to the point where they endanger the inalienable rights of individuals to privacy.
So this bill will slow down a threatening process and set up the mechanism that will allow individuals who feel their rights are being encroached upon to have access to those files, under the present rules of the game. Any government information is secret, or at least subject to severe restrictions, unless the minister responsible or the minister in question decides otherwise. I see three points in this bill I want to point out. First, the government and its officials must reveal any information that does not come under an exception in the act. It abolishes section 41 of the Federal Court Act which could be used for all loopholes, and finally, it gives an ombudsman the task of interpreting the law while allowing a right of appeal before the Federal Court.
So this bill, Mr. Speaker, arrives at a time when individuals are concerned with the accumulation of personal files throughout the system. All that accumulated information belongs as much to the individual as to the state. So that information should be available to the individual but, as in any legislation of this kind, that right must be exercised within a specified frame.
The new act eliminates a secular tradition and will not be implemented without clashes. Indeed, undue pressure from individuals to take advantage of the law could complicate the existence of civil servants and the effectiveness of government systems. There is a limit to the non-government information to be released contrary to the U.S. legislation that allows up to a certain extent to obtain information on businesses. Finally, this piece of legislation is only the start of a general process that is to be undertaken. Sooner or later provincial governments will have to respond to that trend and the private sector will not escape it either.
On the whole, we can say that this bill does meet a need that had been felt for a long time. We of the Social Credit Party of

November 29, 1979
Freedom of Information
Canada have always upheld the rights of individuals in their relationships with government. We have always advocated the dignity of the human being and respect for his right to confidentiality. I think this bill will have to be reviewed at some point because it contains exemptions that restrict total access to information. In fact, it is more like access to selective information. It is obvious that for the protection of the collective good, certain information cannot be made available to all.
On the other hand, in this bill, over 50 exemptions limit full access to information. That is quite a few more than in its American counterpart. Though in its own way the Clark government favours the right to information, Canadians will still have fewer possibilities of access than the Americans. Their law stipulates far fewer exceptions to the general principle that government files must be readily and reasonably accessible to the public. For instance, American law allows the FBI to keep its files secret only if communicating the information involved can endanger the life of the individual or cause him irreparable damage. In contrast, the bill before the House allows the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to keep its files secret under the pretext of respecting the act involved. The American law contains a list of seven types of specific information which the Pentagon can keep secret. The bill before us contains some thirty exemptions pertaining to defence and external affairs. Access will also be forbidden to the files dealing with federal-provincial relations. I Find this last restriction regrettable, Mr. Speaker.
I would have liked this information to be available for many reasons of which we are all aware. On the other hand, the legislation contains certain interesting points such as the creation of the position of information commissioner or information ombudsman; the creation of this important position will reduce the problems caused by legal procedures resulting from the present legislation and by the interpretation of this legislation by the courts. Public servants will have to be cautious when they deal with requests for information and they will not be able to interpret the law as they wish because the ombudsman will act as a judge.
The main criticism that can be made about this bill is that it has been too long in coming. 1 wish to thank the government for taking this initiative after 16 years of inaction by the party formerly in power. This bill will be successful if public servants do not resist what they are now required to do and if the public keeps its requests reasonable. It is not easy to implement legislation which pleases everyone, and even though we are in the opposition and our role should be to criticize the legislators, we are aware of this.
It is obvious that implementation of this legislation will mean additional costs for the consumers. We can expect it to cost over $10 million and perhaps $1 million for the information commissioner. This is in fact very little when it is a matter of guaranteeing a right as basic as freedom of information. However, even though a bill may be basically good, we can

still consider making some improvements. In this regard, I deplore the fact that this bill does not consider demanding that Crown corporations such as the CBC and Air Canada provide access to their own files.
However, whatever its weaknesses, this bill will give Canadian citizens official access to information. Until now, personal information was divulged only at the discretion of the government. Confidentiality was ensured by the oath that public servants must take and the often mentioned Official Secrets Act. Reference is often made to the freedom of information act of the United States, but are hon. members aware that Sweden passed an act giving the public access to information in 1766? Until now, only two Canadian provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, have passed such legislation.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) for the hard work he has done over the past few years to try and sell the former government the idea of a freedom of information legislation. In June 1977, the Liberal government agreed to introduce a bill on freedom of information. It tabled a green paper on the subject. We all know what happened: the green paper was studied in committee and so abundantly criticized that the bill which the government had planned never saw the light of day.
The new proposal provides for a good number of exemptions, yet it is indeed an improvement over the green paper of the Liberals. I understand the government wants to be careful. No matter how necessary a freedom of information legislation may be, one must not ignore the abuse such a legislation may give rise to. For instance, the American legislation which is famous for being fairly open, has been strongly criticized. One of the criticisms heard more often is the fact that it has been demonstrated over the years that businessmen and criminals are those who benefit most from this legislation, the former by obtaining information on their competitors, and the latter by finding out about law enforcement. I am somewhat worried by this fact, although the intent of this bill is to benefit the ordinary citizen and not the businessman.
This is why the government is acting prudently when it is discharging its duties and the legislation could be extended and altered in a few years on the basis of acquired experience and problems detected during enforcement. At this stage we cannot expect perfect provisions, we need rather a well structured tool to enable us to obtain an acceptable minimum of freedom of information.
By making some criticisms about the bill, I have in no way shown that I disapprove. I merely hope that it will not be final, so the government should undertake to review it in a year or two to enable us to reassess the situation. The bill covers the basic elements of freedom of information and in that sense it is an extension of our Bill of Rights. And since those proposals are relatively new for all neophytes in that area, it is essential
November 29, 1979

that the government do not pressure us to pass the bill. After policy approval, the bill should be referred to a special committee which could hear the various groups involved. It will require much time and patience; however, in the long run we could have a greatly improved bill. In my opinion, the democratic process should not be rushed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank all of my friends in this House, on both sides, who have spoken so eloquently and have indicated in other ways how strongly they feel about this legislation. This is one of those times when we who labour in the vineyard of public life, as is my case now, have to struggle to recover that natural modesty which drove us into politics in the first place!
I would say to hon. members who have been kind enough to voice some comments or to work in this regard, that I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) who spoke about Barry Mather. This is the process in this House. I am the product of all that has gone before, of the people who have laboured on issues of this kind and others. This can be, and will be, the great salvation of this and other democratic countries.
I have been tremendously impressed by the quality of the new members who have come into this House this session, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: When I leave here, as I fully intend to do when this Parliament is over-after another two or three years-this permits me to leave knowing that the country will be in good hands and that there is no obstacle to prevent any hon. member, if he or she has an issue, from taking hold of that issue, fighting for it, finding the facts upon which to base support for it, and presenting that issue over and over again.
The period of gestation of any reform, and particularly of government reform, is lengthy, and difficult. There is nothing that need stop anyone who is anxious to promote a policy or a program. There are no limits to what people can achieve if they want to. Those who do not seek to promote legislative proposals may find other rewards. They may become leader of their party or, even, prime minister. Those are consolation prizes, of course! If one were to go down main street in any small town in Canada-Yonge Street or Granville Street- and say, "Follow me, good and faithful Canadians. We will fight a campaign, we will mount a revolution for freedom of information," one would not get a very great response.
I recently attended a conference with some European parliamentarians who are quite interested in this matter. At first blush, they did not quite see what might be involved in it. I want to say to hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a great deal in it. The democratic world today faces problems in the process of government. I see the Prime Minis-
Freedom of Information
ter (Mr. Clark) here, and I see my other friends in the cabinet here. I know they will agree that this has not been an easy summer, nor an easy fall. The difficulties that we face in this country are the same as those faced in other countries.
One of the problems is that there has developed in the minds of those who are governed, a measure of cynicism and distrust of all of the processes of government. This is by no means justified, but it exists. It is simply not possible to engage in the completion of the democratic process with that state of mind.
Look where you will, Mr. Speaker, governments are changing or being elected with razor-thin majorities. There are situations such as the one with proposition 13 in California. That was not just a matter of people saying they did not like paying so much in taxes. People are thoroughly fed up with the way government has fastened itself upon them and their lives. As proof and substance of this, Mr. Speaker, I offer two incidents.
Last March I went to Washington with a committee which was inquiring into the issues involved in the regulatory process. We met with some of the people in the various regulatory agencies and discussed with them some of the ways they were handling their difficulties. We had discussions with Congressmen about how they sought to oversee the process. It happened at that time that the tragedy of Three Mile Island took place. I was able to watch on television, to hear on the radio and read in the press, the reaction of the regulators and the administrators, of government and of industry. I was appalled by the methods they used and at the language they used. At the beginning everything was fine-all the fail-safe devices were in place and it was represented as a simple problem which would eventually go away. Then the doubts set in, and finally, at the end of four or five days, the governor of the State of Pennsylvania declared a state of emergency. The lies and the cover-up and all the shenanigans which took place inevitably led, some months later, to the great protest when some 200,000 people rallied with Jane Fonda. Maybe she was the attraction which brought some of the people there. This was the inevitable result of what I saw in Washington, however.
This is not the time to engage in a debate on the pros and cons of nuclear power, Mr. Speaker, but that is what happened. There is no doubt that all through the United States and in many parts of Europe there has grown the same distrust of the use of nuclear energy. The Austrians, for instance, have recently established a nuclear power plant in Vienna. Because there was some challenge about its safety, they held a referendum. This might be a lesson to those who are interested in referenda. In any event, 50.3 per cent voted against the use of nuclear power and 49.7 per cent voted in favour of it. The parties were split. The chancellor, a social democrat, was in favour of it as were some of his party members, while others decided to go the other way. In the result, that nuclear power plant was put in mothballs. It will be at least three years from opening even if another plebiscite is passed. I spoke to people from there, to people from government, and to people from the International Atomic Energy Agency. I asked them why. They told me that a campaign was launched and there was so much

November 29, 1979
Freedom of Information
ill-conceived, improper information brought out, that the people were simply disgusted with the whole issue and this was the result of the vote.
I say to the hon. members in this House that this is something we may have to look forward to because, to govern, there must of necessity be some understanding, some sympathy between the governed and the governors. This bill will not be the final answer. This bill will not bring about a millennium. No one bill, no one man on earth, in any event, will ever bring about that millennium, but telling the truth by government will go a long way to restoring the confidence which is so sadly lacking. There is a biblical phrase on which my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), may correct me if I am wrong-he may even know where it comes from-it is this: the truth will set you free.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Not necessarily so.


Gerald William Baldwin: I disagree with my hon. friend, whom I like. The truth will set you free. It will set the people free, it will set this Parliament free, and it will set this country free.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: So it is in that sense that, while I know this bill per se leaves things to be desired, I think it is the breakthrough which will take us a long distance back on the road to recovery.
I extend my congratulations to the Prime Minister and to my good friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) and members of the government. I know the task is not easy.
Some years ago, after a somewhat similar struggle the then government followed a proposal which I had made and brought in the Statutory Instruments Act. I remember speaking to John Turner who was at that time the minister of justice. I think some of you have heard of John Turner, his name has been front and centre lately. He introduced the bill which was passed. While the bill was defective in many ways, it was still a mechanism by which this House finally secured the right to scrutinize statutory instruments. I asked John whether he had any trouble with his colleagues getting that bill through. He said, "Colleagues, nothing! My trouble was with the senior officials, to persuade them that this was essential". I am not telling tales out of school. I am sure that my friends in cabinet had that kind of difficulty, that is, to try to persuade people in top level jobs, good people, honest people, people who believe in these views that it was wrong to open up the doors and let fresh air blow through the musty corridors of power. They had quite a measure of success, not as much as I would like.
There are still some clauses in the bill which may need some tailoring, but 1 am heartened by what has been said by hon. members on both sides. I feel that amendments will be passed. I encourage a measure of independent thought on this. I am not revolutionary by nature. There are times when I have achieved a reasonable attempt at being independent. I do not

want to encourage hon. members to depart from party lines, but on issues of this kind when we get into detail, surely there is no better opportunity in an objective way to decide on the question of amendments how we can best bring about some improvement. It will not be perfect. I have long since given up the idea of getting perfection out of this House. We move along and improve.
One of the good things about the bill, is the provision in it for monitoring, for example. It is a considerable breakthrough in the whole principle of legislation, for a government to admit that this legislative child that they have produced may not be perfect. It may have some congenital defects. It is wise to leave to all members of Parliament, both places, who are or must be in close touch with their constituents throughout the country, the challenge to examine the implementation of the bill, and how it is working, to obtain reports from the information commissioner, from the departments and agencies, and to entertain complaints from those people who feel they are not getting an equitable deal, and then, at the end of two or three years, to say, "we will make this report to government", and for the government to say it will accept this report, maybe not in its entirety, or propose amendments.
I have a feeling that if more of that were done in this House that legislation might well be expedited. I do not ever expect to see a complete non-partisan aproach. I would not want to see it. That is not what we are here for. The facts come out better in any situation when both sides are explored. I am an adversary by nature. It is my training in my profession. Any training that I received has certainly been added to in this place.
I think the best way to get at the truth, and the best way to get at the best form of legislative or spending program, is to have two or three sides, maybe even four sides from time to time. But that being the case, there are many opportunities for this House to accelerate this passage of legislation by saying that we admit that something yet remains to be done and we are going to leave to committees of Parliament the opportunity to review what is being proposed and what has taken place under that legislation, and then bring in a report dealing with it. I hope this will be done in other cases.
We are going to deal with the bill in committee. I have a number of amendments but I do not think this is the time for me to bring them up. However, I do want to bring up one or two things which have been raised. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) said that he did not like judicial review. I have been dealing with judges all my life. I have had judges who did things to my clients which I did not think were proper. I did not like those judges nor their decisions either.
On balance, certainly for the first years of operation of legislation of this kind, we must go outside the system. It must be recognized that no minister, no matter how virtuous, honest or decent he or she is, will find the greatest of difficulty arriving at a final, an irreversible decision, which will put within the competence of that minister the right to say that this document shall not be produced, if there is a conception
November 29, 1979

that the document might be embarrassing to the minister, the minister's staff, to the party or to the cabinet. That is very understandable. I appreciate that. 1 think it is going to happen.
Judicial process has worked in the United States. The intervention of the information commissioner here will mean that it will be done only in a very few cases, and ultimately the courts will establish a jurisprudence which will be invoked by the information commissioner. My judgment is that in eight to ten years, which is only a heartbeat in the life of society, we will see that the recommendations of the information commissioner will be accepted in virtually all cases. There will be people in the departments who will know of the decisions and facts, and who will be delighted to disclose the information.
I have talked to public servants. Most public servants favour legislation of this kind. They want to be open. Many have told me, and I have hundreds of letters to demonstrate this, that not only does the public need freedom of information but government departments need freedom of information. They are often incapable of producing the kinds of policies which they should have. They have told me sometimes that they do not know what the minister or deputy minister thinks, or what departmental policy is until they read it in The Globe and Mail or see it on television. Most of them are delighted with legislation of this kind. There are some who hold the reins of power to whom it will not come easy, not because they are wicked or corrupt, but because they are worried about mistakes. There is a saying somewhere that the end product of shielding people from their follies is that you produce a world of fools. That is what can happen in the public service, in life, in our society and in our world.
The cost will not be high. I will not go into that now. I have received figures from my friends in Australia who, in the last few weeks, completed a Senate study of their bill. They sent a committee to America to inquire into their costs. The highest cost in any one year was under $30 million. Relate that to Canada and you look at a very, very small premium struck against expenditures of well over $50 billion. I think for us to put that against $5 million to $10 million, it is a very reasonable premium to pay for the knowledge, safety, and security which go with legislation of this kind.
1 could go on. I will have a chance later because 1 know we will deal with it in committee. I thank hon. members for their support. I thank the government for introducting the bill. I hope it will be passed and passed shortly, within a reasonable amount of time in order to permit the public service to become acquainted with it before it comes into effect. At the end of three years it will be monitored and improved. At the end of four or five years, we will not know that we ever did without it.
People ask me if this will really be used. I practised law for a great many years before 1 was seduced into politics. In all the years I practised, I only prepared papers for habeas corpus three times. Habeas corpus is the rule by which you have the body before the court to justify the imprisonment. The very fact that the writ of habeas corpus exists has constituted a
Freedom of Information
wholesome safeguard and restraint upon abuses by public authorities in the confinement of individual citizens. We will change to habeaus documentus. Is that good Latin? The very fact the law exists will contitute a wholesome and healthy restraint on the extent to which governments fail to disclose the business of the country to the people. It is a good law. It will be improved and become a better law. I commend it to hon. members of this House, the public service, and the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have prepared a lengthy speech on the subject of freedom of information legislation covering a number of areas which give my party some cause for concern with respect to some of the aspects of the legislation. However, after hearing the very eloquent remarks of my learned colleague from Peace River, I am persuaded to refrain. In the interests of speedy passage of this legislation, and in the interests of this matter being fully studied by the committee, of which incidentally I am a member, I suggest that we put this legislation to a vote tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: I must say it is not easy to scrap a speech over which one has laboured for some time. 1 will only indicate that on behalf of this party there were a number of concerns with respect to such matters as the question of exemptions of law enforcement, the question of exemptions with respect to product safety and consumer testing, and also general concern that we should be looking not only at the process of information disposition once it has been actually decided upon, but that we should be looking at more openness in the decision-making process itself. There are a number of legislative precedents for this which I will bring forward in committee.
It is indeed a rare opportunity for members of this House to be able to work closely, as I have already done in this House with such an esteemed person as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I had the opportunity and the pleasure to work with him on the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. It is one of those very non-partisan committees which are a credit to all members of this House.
In closing, I would say that the work done by the hon. member for Peace River is something which will in the months ahead, and certainly in the implementation of this legislation, serve to guide this House well. I hope it will serve as an example to us in other areas as well. With respect to the hon. member for Peace River who is not just the father but the mother, aunt, and uncle of the legislation, 1 suggest that we put this legislation to a vote, that it be studied very carefully in committee, and that it be passed as expeditiously as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 29, 1979
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the House that if the minister speaks at this time he will close the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in the last few minutes of this debate I want to thank all hon. members for their remarks on this bill and the basic support they have given to the general principle of openness which we have tried to encompass in it.
I want to repeat what I said in moving the adoption of this matter. The government does not regard this as the last word. In the words of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the government looks upon it as a breakthrough and an opportunity. We are committed by the imposition within the bill of a provision for parliamentary review to look upon the bill as the first word and its few years as years of evolution.
I look forward to discussion in the committee respecting some changes which I can recognize ought to be made after having some discussion with members of the House and others. The spirit with which we approach this debate is to recognize that there are improvements to be made, regardless of how hard this Parliament works with respect to this freedom of information bill. What is produced by the efforts of this Parliament will not be perfection. Parliaments after us will continue this work.
In closing, 1 want to thank my friends in all parties. I was particularly touched by the statements of the hon. member for Peace River. 1 was pleased that he opened his speech in the way he did. 1 want to say to him that there is not a man or woman who has the privilege of serving in this House of Commons who does not consider it an honour to serve with the hon. member for Peace River.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

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

Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I sense an air in the House this evening with which I want to associate myself. That is with respect to the quick passage at second reading of Bill C-15. I support any steps which might be taken by the government with respect to freedom of information.
I agree that it is important on such matters that there be non-partisan debate, and as 1 get on to my topic with respect to forestry, I want to relieve you, Mr. Speaker, of any anxiety by telling the House that I place an equal amount of importance on the topic to which I will address myself this evening, that being the ever-present importance of the planning and full development of that rich natural resource in Canada, forestry.
In my work with the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in the last session there were non-partisan efforts to bring forward penal reform. In that joint report there was full support from all sides of the House on penal reform. That is an example of what can be done when men and women have the will to work together. I certainly feel that that approach is important in this House.
My reason for participating in this debate at this time is the result of what has to be termed a non-answer by the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson) when, some days ago, I posed a question to him in the question period as to what he could tell the House about what the government's position would be, or is today, with respect to all aspects of forestry planning, the financing of future development of this industry, reforestation, the whole question of the environment, and the effect which acid rain will have on this rich resource.
Of course, it will be quickly observed that I was disappointed and not very satisfied with the minister's response. I pointed out to him that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and the government of the day had missed a golden opportunity to include this all-important subject to all Canadians in the Speech from the Throne and to give us at least a glimpse or an idea of where they stood on this important topic. They missed a golden opportunity to tell us what they had in mind and what their plans would l>e regarding the short-term and long-term effects of this industry. I mentioned at the time that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. de Cotret) who, of course, has direct responsibility, does not enjoy the pleasure of residing in this House. He is in the other place, and as a result 1 had to put my question to the Minister of State for International Trade.
I asked the minister what his government's position was, what the plans were for the future of this important natural resource, and what the government intended to do, in view of the fact that it did not see fit to include it anywhere in the Speech from the Throne. No reference was made to it in the Speech from the Throne, which was the government's golden opportunity to set forth its plans for the future of this industry. Of course, in his total non-answer he advised the House he would take the question as notice and get back to us. There is only one word for that. It is astonishing that the man who has

November 29, 1979

responsibility for international trade would inform the House that he would look into the matter and get back to the House.
This industry represents something in excess of $3 billion in revenues to the country. It represents in excess of 29 per cent of our international trade, and the Minister of State for International Trade tells the House that he has not really sorted it out in his own mind yet. He leaves it to us to interpret, as we must, because he said, "I don't know; I will look into it and get back to you". That is the reason for my having to return this evening by way of the adjournment debate to stress this matter once again.
I do not think that in a democracy we should have to plead with the government. The Prime Minister has a responsibility at least to co-ordinate the cabinet committee, to discuss with the Minister of Finance (Mr Crosbie), the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens), the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Fraser), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Minister of State for International Trade, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander) and to decide on what exactly their strategy and what their plan to protect the future of this all-important natural resource will be.
We know that there are problems in this industry with respect to supply. Many of the large international corporations, such as Canadian International Paper, many of the Canadian companies in British Columbia and in the Atlantic area, are concerned with the whole question of supply. How can you expect these captains of industry to consider reinvesting millions of dollars if they do not have some indication from the government of support, aid, and planning for the future to give them some guarantee of supply in the future?
I do not expect for a moment that any member of any side of the House would disagree with me as to the importance of the planning and protection of this industry. Certainly the Minister of the Environment, who is from British Columbia, is concerned with the protection of this important resource. But the more important resource, namely, the people of this country, the question of jobs and employment, the protection of people who work in pulp and paper mills, people who work in the woods industry from Newfoundland to Vancouver, should be sufficient evidence to convince the government of the day that it must take a serious view, that it must seriously consider this question and that it must inform the House and Canadians on exactly what its position is and what it intends to do in the future. I call upon ministers to do that.


Mr. Richard Janelie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. member that the government is not only actively engaged in providing direct assistance to the pulp and paper industry but also involved in the development and scientific management of forest resources.
Under the national program for the development of the forest product industry, financial help is available to promote
Adjournment Debate
the modernization of operations concerning wood products as well as conservation measures and the development of the forest resources of the nation. Other measures and other programs are also available such as the renewable energy program of the forest industry, accrued tax credits, and the extension of the accelerated depreciation allowance for equipment designed to control pollution. All these programs are part of a rather comprehensive package of assistance provided by the federal government.
In all these other programs, my colleagues, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn), the Minister of Environment (Mr. Fraser) through the Canadian Forestry Service, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, (Mr. de Cotret) are all actively involved in promoting this vital industry of the Canadian economy.
We offer financial assistance to the forest products industry to encourage corporations to invest in projects they would not venture into if they were to fend for themselves. A certain number of grants have already been approved to prompt companies to undertake various modernization projects, Spruce Falls among others, and several other projects are being considered by the industry itself or by governmental agencies. As far as forest resources themselves are concerned, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has negotiated and signed subsidiary agreements with seven provinces to ensure long-term stability for one of our most important renewable resources. We have taken this action on a cost-sharing basis with the provinces, which have given high priority to the development of this resource. 1 must also add that the Canadian Forestry Service offers a wide variety of services to this important industrial sector through various scientific and research management activities.
I would also, with pleasure, give my hon. colleague a recently prepared internal document which outlines the commitment of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the field of forest products, including its contribution under the Regional Development Incentives Act. I trust this will satisfy the hon. member, and should further questions come to his mind, the ministers responsible will be pleased to answer him.


AIR TRANSPORT-SALE OF NORDAIR-INQUIRY WHETHER QUESTION WILL BE REFERRED TO CTC
Mr. Pierre Deniger (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, on October 24 last, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) indicated to the House and the Canadian people that he intended to make a recommendation to cabinet on the sale of Nordair, and further to ensure, and I quote:
That this will have to be approved by the CTC in due course.
My supplementary reminded the Minister of Transport that the CTC has exclusive authority in this matter, and the

November 29, 1979
Adjournment Debate
minister answered the government had no intention of impos ing a political decision on an administrative court.
With all due respect, I submit his actions point to the contrary, and it is exactly a political decision he wants to impose on the CTC, an administrative court.
The CTC's decisions are subject to appeal to the Privy Council, among others. This is a form of review after the fact that is the rule in this party when administrative courts are involved. Unfortunately, such is not the case with our Progressive Conservative friends who wish to impose their political will on the Canadian Transport Commission even before it is involved with the case.
The President of the Canadian Transport Commission indicated to me, at the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in answer to one of my questions, as reported on page 4.26, and 1 quote:
If the government. .. want to pass an order in council saying, we are going to sell Nordair to so-and-so, I think we would find it very difficult to say no, because if we said no, it would be appealed back to the cabinet and they would say yes.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the commission is quite powerless under the circumstances. It is even embarrassed that the Progressive Conservatives are questioning its integrity and objectivity.
Mr. Speaker, some decisions made by organizations responsible to Parliament may be reviewed by the governor in council or a minister. It is especially true for decisions made by the Canadian Transport Commission. This control can take the form of an appeal, an approval, a cancellation, or a revision at the request of one of the parties or on the initiative of the political jurisdiction. A posteriori control would allow the cabinet to change or rescind a decision made by the Canadian Transport Commission if there was, of course, serious reasons to do it.
The surveillance and control power of the Privy Council has my total support, for the executive must answer to the Canadian people not only for its actions but also for the organizations under its responsibility. Furthermore, if the decision is based on a false principle or false facts, it must be changed. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the minister and his cabinet do not intend to exercise that kind of control. It is not a posteriori but rather a priori control. Then, the minister is casting suspicion on the integrity and the objectivity of the Canadian Transport Commission. It is impossible for the decision of the commission not to be strongly influenced and for the adjudication to remain impartial.
In fact, by deciding to take over Nordair the Progressive Conservative government gets deeply involved in the decisional process. So, what is left to the Canadian Transport Commission whose exclusive jurisdiction in this matter is not questioned even by the minister? The commission is then placed in an impossible situation since it will have to establish who shall take over Nordair, when the Progressive Conservative govern-

ment has made its choice. Should the decision of the commission be different, it can be appealable to the governor in council where the initial decision was made in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, tonight I hope that I will get a supplementary answer to the questions I put and, particularly after having drawn those additional facts to the attention of the minister, that he will review his position and his conduct which I consider very dangerous.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, naturally I can assure the hon. member that the final decision in this regard rests with the minister, with the cabinet, and with the government. In the meantime, on the question of the return of Nordair Limited to the private sector and the role of the Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission, I want to assure the hon. member and the House that this government understands that this sale of Nordair shares now held by Air Canada is a matter subject to the full regulatory process. The Air Transport Committee has a role to play, pursuant to either part III of the Air Carrier Regulations, or section 27 of the National Transportation Act, depending upon who purchases Nordair. The Air Transport Committee has, and may exercise, full discretion to review the proposed sale with the full support of this government.
When an agreement of sale has been concluded, notice of the proposed transaction must be given to the Air Transport Committee, and in turn the committee would publish such notice. If objections are filed, a public hearing may be called. The committee then may disallow any proposed transaction if, in its opinion, such a transaction unduly restricts competition, or is otherwise prejudicial to the public interest.
Let me remind the hon. member that it was the former minister of transport in the previous government who was in power during the acquisition of Nordair Limited by Air Canada. It was also the former minister of transport who announced in November of last year that it was desirable to preserve the independent operations of Nordair from Air Canada, and it was the former minister of transport who instructed Air Canada to negotiate the sale of its Nordair shares with interested parties, and later instructed Transport Canada to take over these discussions.
This government, then, is completing a process it did not start. We are attempting to return Nordair to the private sector in a fair and orderly fashion, recognizing the real interests of the various parties involved. Any change in ownership in Nordair will naturally be subject to the full regulatory process of the Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission at the appropriate time.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate, in respect of the hon. member's concern, that once a final decision is made it will naturally be up to the minister, the cabinet, and the government, to approve such decision.
November 29, 1979


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT-POSSIBLE PROSECUTIONS- ROLE OF TRANSPORT MINISTER IN DISCUSSION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, October 18, 1 asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) if he or his department had taken any position on the advisability of proceeding with prosecutions in the Western Transport Association case. I also asked him if he would be prepared to table certain documents in respect of that particular matter. At that time the minister replied by saying, "the hon. member's allegations are absolute nonsense". On a supplementary question he allowed that he did ask a couple of questions, but that he "did not keep track of them".
Moments later, in reply to a question posed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) indicated that the Minister of Transport was in attendance at the meeting because "the matter under consideration involved questions which were pertinent to matters of policy of the Department of Transport". Clearly there is an inconsistency here.
The Minister of Transport tells us that any suggestion that he might have taken an interest in the advisability of prosecution is absolute nonsense. Ele says he only asked a few questions, none of which he can remember. Yet the Prime Minister says that the Minister of Transport had a key interest in what happened at the meeting and that he was in attendance because the issues being raised were pertinent to his department.
This is not the only inconsistency which one finds when going over the record. The Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lawrence), when first asked whether the meeting had even taken place, informed this House that my sources were "completely and totally erroneous". When challenged again, he argued that the meeting was only one in a series of ongoing meetings. Four former ministers of consumer and corporate affairs have assured this House that no meeting of this nature has taken place in recent history. Yet the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has told this House that the meeting was one of a series of ongoing meetings.
Of course, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs cannot be accused of being consistent. First he told the House that there was no meeting, then he told the House that there was a meeting, but that it was only one in a series of meetings. That was on Friday. On Tuesday he told the House, "that this was the first time that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) had been to that type of meeting". He also said that no representations were received from the Minister of Transport.
By Wednesday, he was denying responsibility for the meetings altogether. He claimed that the meeting was called by the Minister of Justice and that he showed up at the designated time. He also stated that he had sent a brief to the Minister of Transport in advance of the meeting. Then came the absolute clincher. On Tuesday of the following week, in answer to a
Adjournment Debate
question put by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs came up with yet another version. This time he said, "the Minister of Transport was involved in the meeting so we could obtain information from that particular minister about certain provincial government regulations and interference in the whole question". How interesting.
On Friday the minister denies that there was a meeting at all. On Tuesday he said that no representations were received from the Minister of Transport at this non-existent meeting. On Wednesday he denies any involvement, putting the blame squarely on the shoulders of a minister whom we cannot question because he is in the other place. On Thursday the Minister of Transport denies that he said anything at the meeting, but the Prime Minister quickly contradicts him. Then on the following Tuesday the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs says that the Minister of Transport was at the meeting to "make representations".
One would think, Mr. Speaker, that these gentlemen were tripping over themselves in an effort to contradict one another. Then, of course, we have the Minister of Justice in the other place. It would take far more time than I have here tonight to detail every time the Minister of Justice made a statement which directly contradicted what we were told in this House about the trucking affair. Needless to say, he took the basic position that the Minister of Transport was an active participant in the meeting and then said in effect, "so what?" He argued that as Attorney General he had every right to consult with whomever he pleased.
The issue I am raising here, Mr. Speaker, is not whether or not the Minister of Transport had the right to make recommendations or representations to the Attorney General. That is a complicated legal question, and there are positions on both sides. I am after something far more basic. I am after the facts. We have received in this House some very contradictory statements. We do not know whether to believe the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Minister of Transport, the Prime Minister, some of them or none of them. There has been a clear case of inconsistency here, to say the very least. We caught some gentlemen with their hands in the cookie jar so to speak, and they all blurted out different stories before they had a chance to get the story straight. Time has now passed and charges have in fact been laid.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jelinek) to give us the full facts of what happened at that meeting on Friday, October 12. I would further ask that the parliamentary secretary table the briefing document to which I referred in my question of October 18, in line with the spirit of open government and freedom of information-a topic about which there has been much discussion recently in this House. I would further ask that the parliamentary secretary table the minutes of that particular meeting so that any confusion that may exist, in the minds of those persons who participated, and outside that meeting may be laid to rest.

November 29, 1979
Adjournment Debate
I would conclude by pointing out that the one thing which none of the four cabinet ministers who have spoken on this matter have denied is that this meeting was in fact unprecedented, that this was the first time that there had been such a meeting involving cabinet ministers as well as a director of investigations and research. I would only point to the statement made by a former distinguished justice of the Supreme Court of Canada who said, "I would say that any consultation would have to be on the legal propriety of prosecution and not on any other elements. It might be, for instance, that some other members of cabinet may be very experienced in a particular branch of law involved; in which case he might consult them".
Finally, 1 would ask the parliamentary secretary to tell this House of the special expertise in this particular field which his minister, the Minister of Transport, brought to bear in considering whether or not the prosecution should proceed. Of course, there was in fact, a prosecution, but 1 believe the course of conduct over the whole history of this matter gives rise to many questions. I invite the parliamentary secretary to answer a few of them this evening.


Mr. George Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has pointed out, this matter is sub judice. Accordingly, I have been asked to reply to the hon. member's statement.
On October 29 there was a very full inquiry by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) on this very subject. At that time I gave a reply which I hoped would put an end to this series of red herrings that has been dragged across the floor of the House on this issue. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and disappointed that the hon. member would raise the matter again in the way he has. The questions he has raised are totally without merit.
1 want to make it absolutely clear, first of all, that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Flynn), or any other minister, is absolutely entitled, indeed required, to make whatever inquiries he deems fit in order to carry out his duties. Indeed he would be a fool if he did not make such inquiries. It is certainly true that he cannot be directed by anyone about how he should make up his mind in the case of a particular prosecution. He may seek advice, but he must make his own
decisions. I repeat, he not only may, but must, consult widely. He must consult his fellow cabinet ministers if he believes they can be of assistance in guiding him to a conclusion in a particular case.
The second point is that once the Minister of Justice has made his decision to prosecute, as he has in this case, then the matter is sub judice. By that I mean the matter is before the courts. At that point it is quite improper for any member of the House to comment on the advice the minister has received, or to ask questions on the matter. To do so would be to greatly disrupt the course of justice, or might result in that consequence. This is absolutely clear, even under the rules which apply under the freedom of information bill which we just referred to committee a few moments ago.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, when the court proceedings are over so that the sub judice rule is no longer applicable, any minister, or the Minister of Justice in this case, may be questioned in Parliament and may then be censured if Parliament agrees he has done something wrong.
What happened in this case is that the minister consulted with his cabinet colleagues, as was his right and duty. He laid charges on November 5 under the Combines Investigation Act, or caused his law officers to do so, as was his right and duty. Until these proceedings are settled in the courts, neither this minister nor any other minister will improperly divulge details of that advice, as is their right and duty.
If the hon. member believes that by moving forward to prosecute in this case the Minister of Justice has done something wrong-I cannot imagine how he could be seen to have done something wrong by deciding to prosecute-then let the hon. member intervene as he wishes, after the proceedings are over. In the meantime let him understand that his request is improper, that a reply would be improper, and that it is in the interests of this House, the people of Canada and the rule of law in this country, that justice take its course before the courts which is the proper place, and not on the floor of this Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p. n.
November 29, 1979


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
The attached letter was sent to Deputy Heads of Government Departments and Agencies on Friday, November 23, 1979.
prime minister Ottawa, K1A 0A3
As you know, it is the firm intention of my colleagues and I to provide a more open government for Canada. The recent introduction of Freedom of Information legislation is an important step to this end, and I look forward to your co-operation to ensure that it will be effective in helping Canadians gain access to government records.
But as I indicated in speaking to Deputy Ministers some weeks ago, we can do much more to give the policy of open government full meaning and consistency. And we can act now in the spirit of the Freedom of Information legislation, even though it will be some time before its final form is established by Parliament and its administrative apparatus is in place.
One of the things we can do is to encourage open and responsive behaviour among public servants in their day to day dealings with the public, including particularly members of Parliament and representatives of the news media.
Ministers are responsible for the operations of government, and it is important to preserve the principle of ministerial responsibility. But within the framework, ministers must delegate many duties to public servants so that the operations of government can be carried out efficiently. Communications with the public are in this category, and ministers have now agreed formally by cabinet decision on guidelines for the participation of public servants in this respect.
These guidelines are attached. By this letter, I am asking you to arrange for their implementation in all branches of your department and in all regional operations as soon as possible.
It is for your decision which levels of public servants in your department are to be authorized to deal with the media. However, in the spirit of the guidelines, this list should be broad rather than narrow.
Finally, you may wish to arrange briefings by your professional media relations staff for officials subject to the guidelines in order to prepare them to meet their responsibilities.
Yours sincerely,
Joe Clark
POLICY GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC SERVANTS: COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC
1.	Communications with the public, including particularly members of Parliament and news media representatives, are a part of the duties and responsibilities of managers in the public service. A staff function in support of this management role is performed by information officers in most departments and agencies.
2.	Public servants should be prepared to discuss frankly information within their areas of responsibility that describes or explains programs and policies that have been announced or implemented by the government.
3.	Public servants should not go beyond this discussion of factual information. It is not appropriate to discuss advice or recommendations tendered to ministers, or to speculate about policy deliberations or future policy decisions.
4.	It will be normal in many instances for public servants to be quoted by name, and to be interviewed for radio and television as well as by print media.
5.	These guidelines cannot and do not authorize the disclosure of information which is specifically prohibited by law. Public employees acting in good faith under these guidelines will not be considered as having violated their oaths or secrecy.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 30, 1979