1981-01-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) is planning to close the Fraser River to commercial fishing for the entire 1981 season, and whereas this decision will threaten the livelihood of some 1,000 gill-net fishermen on the Lower Fraser, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That this House instruct the Minister of Fisheries to make a full disclosure of all the management options which have been put forward by his consultants and officials to conserve the depleting Chinook salmon stocks; and, furthermore, that the minister be required to amend his management plan for 1981 so that the burden of conservation is shared equitably by all those who fish, instead of imposing closure upon the Fraser River gill-net fishermen.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the very real and serious concern expressed by Canadians that the right to own property will not be contained in the constitution, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House call on the NDP to reconsider their position, change their minds, and give their consent to allow the Liberal government to reintroduce the PC amendment on the right to own property, and that they accept the position of the Saskatchewan NDP government who recognize the importance of entrenching property rights and have provided for this in their provincial bill of rights.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXPORT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA COAL TO JAPAN MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker,
1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas a coal deal for sending northeastern British Columbia coal to Japan has been announced-the largest export contract ever negotiated by Canada, I believe-and whereas not only do we continue to sell off non-renewable resources in an unmanufactured state, but in this deal the taxpayer actually subsidizes the Japanese to the extent of some $578 million, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly):
That the federal government release immediately all of its cost analysis studies on this incredible deal, and postpone any federal expenditures or subsidies until the matter can be examined by a special committee of the House of Commons.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering the unexpected length of the strike by reporters of the CBC French network, which has been going on for 93 days, and the formal commitment made by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) last November when he promised that he would not let that conflict deteriorate, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):

January 29, 1981
That the minister be called on to appoint an independent mediator from the Department of Labour who would be entrusted with starting negotiations between the parties involved.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ English ]


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the concern and discontent being expressed by the Alberta Indian community over the appointment of the Director General for the province, and since many urgent and critical problems cannot be solved quickly unless the Director General has the complete confidence of the Indian community, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the minister follow the advice of the IAA and have the position of the Alberta regional Director General filled by open competition, and that the Chiefs Committee conduct the screening of applicants and recommend final selection.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent necessity. Farm bankruptcies in 1980 increased 75 per cent over 1979, which did not incude those who gave up farming to enter other occupations. We all appreciate the importance of agriculture to our national economy. However, with interest rates rapidly increasing and with farm operating costs dramatically high, the only option farmers have is to borrow from the Farm Credit Corporation. Therefore, in view of the fact that CIDA has loaned S6.5 million to Barbados for a water system at a rate of V/2 per cent for 30 years, with seven years grace, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That the Minister of Agriculture meet with the minister responsible for CIDA in order to discover the method by which CIDA can loan money at 3.5 per cent and then employ that knowledge to lower Farm Credit Corporation's rate to 3.5
per cent and thus give agriculture in Canada that necessary boost we give so readily to others.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that since last February the Prime Minister has travelled to Italy, Britain, Sweden, Norway, Saudi Arabia, North Yemen, Egypt, West Germany, France, Austria, Algeria, Nigeria, Senegal, Brazil and Mexico, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House welcomes yesterday's announcement by the Prime Minister's office that the Prime Minister will be visiting Brandon, Manitoba, on February 4.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that many thousands of farmers have been advised that they failed to qualify under the Herd Maintenance Program and have launched appeals against the decision, and in view of the fact that the criteria for qualifying under the plan are based solely on the average yield for cereal grains for the past three years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton):
That the Minister of Agriculture review the criteria and instruct the board to change its regulations to take into consideration the average yields of hay and forage crops.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: 
GASOLINE-SUBSIDIZATION OF PURCHASES MADE BY U S. MOTORISTS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to draw attention to an anomaly in Canadian gas prices which is resulting in Canadian taxpayers subsidizing United States vehicle operators. The incidence of one-day United States visitors to Canada is up over 50 per cent, the reason being obvious, that they are crossing the border to fill up their tanks with far cheaper Canadian gasoline. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That to emphasize the tangible benefits of our good-neighbour policy, Petro-Canada issue give-away cards indicating to United States motorists the extent to which each gallon of gas they purchase is subsidized by Canadian taxpayers. We have all heard of "Pay as You Go"; in this case "We Pay and They Go". In other words. "Tanks for the Memories".


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSION ACT
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young), I move:
That this House urges the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs to introduce, at an early date, an amendment to the Pension Act to provide for the basic rate of the war disability pension to be set each year at the average take-home pay of the five categories in the public service that were designated for this purpose in 1972, it being the view of this House that veterans should not have to wait several years at a time for adjustments to be made but that the increases agreed to in principle should be made automatically, each year, without fail.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Again this week interest rates have risen to unbelievable heights. The new interest rate set by the Bank of Canada is 17.11 per cent.
Ora! Questions
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That this House docs condemn the government for refusing to keep interest rates at reasonable levels and does direct the Prime Minister to accept the resignation of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce so that he can retire from the government with some honour.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question was for the Prime Minister as I thought he was going to be in the House today, but I will direct it either to the acting prime minister or the acting minister of energy, mines and resources. In fact 1 will direct it to anyone rather than the acting minister of justice.
Before Christmas we were told and we knew, that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made some changes in the National Energy Program proposals that concerned exploratory wells. Last week in Alberta the minister of energy announced that as far as he was concerned in energy policy, everything was open to negotiation and that he was flexible. I wonder if the acting prime minister or the acting minister of energy could tell the House, in light of those statements and developments, whether the government is contemplating any further changes in the National Energy Program and, if so, when those changes will be announced to the House of Commons?


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the right hon. member opposite is correct in drawing attention to modifications in the details of the program which have come forward as the elaboration of the program has proceeded. He has referred specifically to two areas announced prior to the Christmas recess. As we proceed further with the detailed elaboration of the program there may also be occasion for further modification.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we are dealing here with a program that is already driving oil rigs, Canadian investment and Canadian jobs out of the country. It is a program that is shrouded in uncertainty. The answer by the parliamentary secretary has just added to that uncertainty because he said that there may be more changes at a time unspecified, and of a

January 29, 1981
Oral Questions
kind unspecified. We need to know, the industry needs to know, and people looking for job security in Canada need to know when these changes will be introduced.
The Prime Minister is now in the House, Madam Speaker, so I shall direct my question again, and with your permission I shall try to bring him up to date.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has just indicated that there were indeed some changes announced by the minister of energy in the National Energy Program and that-I believe I am paraphrasing correctly-as events develop there may be-there will be further changes in the program.
1 have made the point that this is a source of great uncertainty in the country. I should like to have from the Prime Minister an indication of when we will have a detailed announcement of the changes to come in the National Energy Program so that we can put some end, some limit to the uncertainty that is undermining investor confidence and is undermining our capacity to become self-sufficient in energy. When will we have a detailed list of those changes that the parliamentary secretary indicated are being contemplated in the National Energy Program?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I did not hear the parliamentary secretary, and I apologize as I was a couple of minutes late coming into the House.
I am sure that the position of the government is well known. It has been expressed by the minister before. It is that the national energy policy is government policy; that the essence, the thrust, the objectives of it are absolutely unchangeable and that, as we do with legislation and other policy statements, we do what I think the opposition parties have asked us to do, to see if in the application of it certain adjustments could not be made.
The minister has said, and his parliamentary secretary has said, that we are meeting with the industry. I also said that in the House a few weeks ago, that we are meeting with the industry to hear their views on how the policy would affect them in detail, much as we do after a budget when we have tax legislation and we hear representations from concerned citizens on how it would affect them. If there are any minor changes which can be made to make the policy better applicable and fairer for Canadians, we will consider them and we will announce them.
This is not a new procedure. It is done after every budget when we bring in tax measures. We sit down once they are known and see how they could be improved, not in their essence but in their wording or in their application.


Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. This is certainly now a new procedure. We saw it in the committee on the constitution the other day. We now have three different statements of the policy of the Government of Canada. The parliamentary secretary says there are going to be some changes; the Prime Minister says that the program is
policy, it is the policy of the Government of Canada, and the minister of energy says that everything is open to negotiation. That is what he said. That is exactly what he said in a television interview in Alberta. He also said, which stretches credulity, that he is flexible, and he went on to say that everything is open to negotiation.
The House of Commons has a right to know, and the people have a right to know, just exactly what the state of the National Energy Program is. Is it going to be changed? When is it going to be changed? When will we know exactly what that program is. Let me ask a specific question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: I really thought that was the question. I will let the Prime Minister answer that one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the policy is policy, and everything in it is not subject to negotiation.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, this is a new record. We have two ministers repudiated by the Prime Minister in the course of one week, because that repudiates the minister of energy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me ask the Prime Minister whether the government is conducting any polls-des sondages-today, or has the government commissioned any polls recently regarding any aspects of the National Energy Program? If it has, will those questions be tabled in the House of Commons immediately?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I take exception to the preface of the question about repudiating ministers. I indicated the other day our position on the constitution. Today we have only the word of the Leader of the Opposition-


Mr. Andre:: I heard it on television.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -based on some press report that everything was negotiable.


Harvie Andre: I saw it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am absolutely certain that that is not the position of the minister.


Harvie Andre: I saw him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
January 29, 1981


FINANCE
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. The dollar is once more under pressure with interest rates again higher, recorded at 17.11 per cent by the Bank of Canada earlier this afternoon. Is the Prime Minister aware, with Canadian oil prices now at $17.75 a barrel, compared with unregulated oil prices in the United States of something between $40 to $50 a barrel there, that there has been a mass exodus of Canadian capital- including capital from Canadian companies-to the United States, which in turn is putting our dollar under pressure and causing unnecessarily high interest rates in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker, I am afraid I cannot confirm that.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, we can only despair for this nation when the Prime Minister said he is not aware of a fact-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 did not say that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I said I could not confirm the silly statement you made.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is a silly statement now, Madam Speaker.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Speaking at least about silly actions, would the Prime Minister indicate why he feels that the government is justified in negotiating with Saudi Arabia and with Mexico for oil at world prices while at the same time he is insisting that a fairer price for Canadian oil producers will not be forthcoming?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I hesitate to qualify that question because I thought the hon. member and his party knew that Canada is not self-sufficient in petroleum. We have to import petroleum.


An hon. Member:: We will never be self-sufficient.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because we have to import petroleum, we cannot pay other than the world price, for the prices asked of us by those who want to export to Canada. It is as simple as that. When we are self-sufficient in petroleum, the price of oil that belongs to Canadians should be set by Canadians in Canada, and that is our position.


EFFECT OF INTEREST RATES ON INFLATION
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Cape Breton Svengali, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. It concerns interest rates which were announced today showing again that the Bank of Canada has intervened in the market in order to raise Canadian interest rates.
Oral Questions
As a preface to the question I would like to point out to the minister that on December 17 at a press conference governor Bouey said:
I think that interest rates that high would have an impact on inflation and inflationary expectations if they are kept there for a while.
Does the minister agree that the impact of interest rates, which have been maintained at a high level by the government for a persistently long period of time, will have the inevitable effect of giving all Canadians the expectation that that is what inflation is going to be like, and lead to an increase in inflationary expectations and an increase in the problem of inflation, rather than have the effect of decreasing inflation, which is supposed to be the government's policy?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I do not quite agree with the premise of the hon. member's question. I feel that the statement made by the governor of the Bank of Canada, as quoted by the hon. member, is accurate but that it has in a way a somewhat wider scope in that the governor of the Bank of Canada did not specify a limited time period nor did he indicate when interest rates would start having an impact on inflationary expectations. I suggest that the current interest rates reflect the conditions of the marketplace and demonstrate the need to support the monetary policy as a long-term means of fighting inflation.


HOUSING
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is addressed to the minister responsible for housing. Will the minister explain through this House to the average Canadian how it makes any sense that if you took out a mortgage loan in August, you were taking out a mortgage at 1 \3A per cent, but if you took out a mortgage in December, or now, you are taking out a mortgage at 16 per cent or 17 per cent? Is it the minister's position that the Las Vegas morality of a lottery should dictate the level of mortgages of Canadians over time or is there some other principle involved? Is the minister prepared to intervene on behalf of the average Canadian so that there is equity between those Canadians who have to renew in August and those who renew in the winter of our discontent, January and February?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, presumably the greatest number of Canadians looking to renew a mortgage at this time, in the next few weeks or months, have had the mortgage on average for a five-year period. Their five-year renewable mortgages are now maturing. As I explained in an answer before, there is no question
6680

January 29, 1981
House of Commons
about the ability of the average Canadian to meet those increased costs as incomes have increased on average, especially in areas covered by union contracts, by 10 per cent per year during that five-year period.


Bob Rae: As the minister is well aware, the average income and purchasing power of Canadians has declined over the last three years. My final supplementary is to the Minister of State for Finance. The minister will be aware that the Inspector General of Banks gave an interview to The Financial Post on January 10, 1981, in which he criticized the finance committee for having intervened on behalf of small business and on behalf of competitors with the banks. In referring to future legislation, he sees himself as the spokesman for the banks. He said, "This is a battle we have not lost". I would therefore ask the minister how we can possibly rely on his department and the Inspector General of Banks to do the job necessary to inspect those institutions which have been reaping such profits from the exorbitant interest rate policy, which is a policy of this government, when clearly his own civil servants see themselves not as spokesmen for the Canadian consumer and Canadian small business-but as apologists for the banks.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I would not want hon. members to believe that the duties of the Inspector General of Banks and the rates of interest are connected in any way. First of all, I suggest that these are two separate questions. So much for the first point. Secondly, with regard to the remarks which the Inspector General of Banks is reported to have made, 1 have been unable to confer with the Inspector General who has not yet returned from his trip to Japan. I will confer with him at the first opportunity and report to the hon. member.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF ECONOMIC PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF ZIMBABWE
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Dr. Bernard Chidzero, the Minister of Economic Planning and Development of Zimbabwe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
In answer to a question by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition yesterday, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources replied that he had not specifically raised the matter of the continuation of the written guarantees extended by then President Carter last summer, that the Alcan pipeline would be built, in the words of the minister, "whether they do it by financial commitment, legislation, or other means-" which appears at page 3061 of Hansard. Is the Prime Minister now prepared to contact President Reagan, just as he did the former president, to seek in writing at least the same kind of written guarantee that the whole pipeline will be built?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to accept the representation made by the hon. member.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, it certainly is a representation, and it is a request for an answer from the Prime Minister which he has not given. On November 5 last year the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources gave this following guarantee to the House at the time the pre-build legislation was being discussed:
-as soon as the new administration takes office in January, we will be in touch with it in order to ensure that the commitment will be as firm as it ever was.
It is more than evident from the minister's reply yesterday that this promise has yet to be honoured. Will the Prime Minister take the necessary steps, write President Reagan, so that the government will be keeping the word of the minister, which is on the record of this House, and request the same kind of written guarantee from President Reagan that they thought so important to obtain from President Carter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, from the outset the government's policy has been known; from the very moment we introduced legislation in the House. It has been made clear several times by the Canadian government, at least ours, to the American administration, to the effect that the pre-build would only proceed on the condition that the whole pipeline will proceed. That position has not changed. I will advise, in the best way of conveying that information, the American administration once again.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, the minister responsible for the status of women informed the
January 29, 1981

House yesterday that he had written to the remaining executive members of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women asking for a copy of the secret affidavit. I should like to ask the minister whether he will table his letter of request to the executive?
As the minister will know, the remnant of the council has rescheduled the conference on the constitution for May 29 and 30. Is the government planning to fund this event, and did the minister or any of his staff have any hand in the further delaying of this important event?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I will be glad to table that letter. The advisory council, which is a legitimate and respected advisory council of this government, has made a decision by a majority vote to proceed with the conference and we will, of course, provide it with every assistance necessary.


Walter Franklin McLean: The minister fails to note, Madam Speaker, that the council has lost its representative nature by the resignations and is now representative of only one group and one component only. Let me, if I may in supplementary, ask the minister, since the dates for the women's conference are now May 29 and 30, should this Parliament understand that the government's constitutional package is not going to go to London until June, or is the government determined not to encourage women to speak on the proposals in the constitutional package?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that the proposal for a constitutional conference was one I made originally, in the first place, to the advisory council. We will encourage any women's group in Canada which wants to discuss constitutional matters to continue discussing them. The decision by the advisory council is their decision to make, an independent decision. It has nothing to do with the timetable of the government.


RAILWAYS
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Last week the minister indicated in the House that his advisory committee on the Mississauga derailment would meet in a week and he would be making decisions very rapidly. In view of the fact that these decisions affect my riding and the riding of Etobicoke Centre represented by my colleague, and in view of the fact there have been persistent reports that the minister is procrastinating in dealing with Mr. Justice Grange's recommendations, can the minister give us any indication of whether the advisory committee has met and whether he intends to move more quickly to protect communities affected by the movement of dangerous commodities?
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, indeed the committee, which is a committee to implement and not a committee to study, met yesterday and reported to me this morning. They gave me their recommendation to accept a number of the report's recommendations and 1 will accept them. They have established an approach to other recommendations, and that approach will be followed. On recommendation No. 3, which has to do with the length of trains and the speed of trains in built-up areas, the Canadian Transport Commission has issued an order to the railways to show cause why this recommendation should not be implemented very rapidly. The railways have a couple of weeks to do so. We will act upon the advice we receive then. All this is to say that this committee is moving.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. He was here and I advised him 1 was going to be asking the question.
As the minister is surely aware, recent tests into asbestos levels in the baggage handling areas of the Winnipeg International Airport have found levels of asbestos fibres as high as twice the government's own maximum limits, and more than 40 times the limit recently recommended by NIOSH, the American agency charged with research into health and safety. I recently visited the airport at Winnipeg and was shocked to find open asbestos in areas where employees have to work 24 hours a day. Is the minister prepared to launch an investigation immediately into this hazardous situation and demand that the asbestos be cleaned up forthwith?


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I am referring to a press copy of a telephone interview with Anthony Kershaw, chairman of the all-party committee studying the Canadian constitutional package in Britain. I should like to refer that matter to the Prime Minister and the fact that Mr. Kershaw has said, in answer to whether Britain would be obligated to pass the package that the Canadian Parliament might send to Britain, including a charter of rights, that indeed, Britain would be "obliged to reject" the package. In view of the difficulties this matter is causing, will the Prime Minister now take the natural course of action which has been occurring in Canada in the past, that is, end the charade that is going on with the package, call a first ministers' meeting,

January 29, 1981
Oral Questions
and come to a conclusion in Canada before the resolution goes to Britain?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not sure if it is within the rules to comment on what is going on in the other place in Britain when it is not even proper to comment on what is going on in the other place in Canada.
1 just want to say that the hon. member has obviously had some advance knowledge of a report of an ad hoc committee of the British Parliament, which is not the position of the British Parliament, nor of the British government as stated to me by the Prime Minister. So I can only say that the opinion of one member of the British Parliament will not change the course we have decided to pursue.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I should like to tell the Prime Minister that it is not an ad hoc committee, it is an all-party committee, and the chairman spoke on behalf of the committee when he said that the committee's decision was unanimous. So it was not only one member speaking.
In view of those difficulties, the Conservative party has put forward an approach that can at least get the government out of this impasse, and that is to split the proposal which the government has put before the committee. Will the Prime Minister at least accept that proposal, namely, to split the package and to send to Britain only the patriation package, and keep the charter and those matters which need provincial consent in order to avoid that embarrassment, not only in Britain but internationally? Will he at least take that proposition and follow it up?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, we have taken the position that the British Parliament, according to custom, tradition, and constitutional law, had to act upon a request made jointly by the Parliament of Canada. That is still our position. If one member of the British Parliament spoke to the hon. member on the telephone, it is possible that he had expressed his opinion. 1 have not seen the report of the committee to which the hon. member refers, and I do not know whether it is ad hoc or select, but I know it is not the position of the British Parliament or the British government.
In so far as the request made by the hon. member is concerned, it seems to me, Madam Speaker, that this again shows that the opposition is more interested in discussing the process than the content, and this has been its attitude all along. It may be a good tactical position-


An hon. Member:: An honourable position.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -but I do not think it is a position which would lead to the results that the hon. party opposite said are desired by the Canadian people, and I quote from the statement made by the hon. member for Provencher on behalf of
the Conservative party, that the Canadian people want patriation-


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that they want an amending formula-


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and that they want a charter of rights.


Some hon. Members:: Made in Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: These statements were made on behalf of the party.


Charles Joseph Clark: We are a Canadian party, not colonial.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They want these three things, but what the opposition members have been discussing since the beginning has not been the substance of these three things; it is the process of how it is attained.


Charles Joseph Clark: Why did you vote against patriation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition, who is heckling again, that we did not vote against patriation.


An hon. Member:: You did.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When the hon. member from Edmonton moved last May to have patriation without an amending formula, simple patriation, all sides of this House accepted it.


Some hon. Members:: Let's do it that way.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We accepted it. This is the position with which we went to the provinces.


Charles Joseph Clark: You then changed your vote.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is the position that not only the provinces changed but that the Leader of the Opposition changed.


An hon. Member:: All you are giving us is dictatorship.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Just a short second, Madam Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIRPORTS
Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, I should like to follow up on my question to the Minister of Labour. The asbestos problem, as he is aware, consists of the fact that the level is twice as high as the level
January 29, 1981

recommended under Canadian standards. The minister must surely realize that the federal government has the worst record in the country in so far as the asbestos problem in federal buildings is concerned. In my riding, asbestos is crumbling from the ceiling in the main post office. Right here in Ottawa there are federal buildings with high levels of asbestos, and the standards are ten times as high as that which has been recommended by the United States. Will the minister commit himself now to a national clean-up program so that the men and women who work for the Government of Canada can be protected from this extremely toxic material?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for the question, and I regret that when he asked his previous question 1 had been called to the telephone just a moment before.
I want to say to him, in relation to his initial question, that he should realize that the mining of asbestos and the manufacture of asbestos products are subject to provincial legislation. What we have here is that some of those materials have been put into buildings which had existed for a long time, federal buildings as well as buildings in the private sector. At the Winnipeg airport, which was built a considerable period of time ago, some of the building materials contained a fairly high degree of asbestos fibre-there is no question about that.
The hon. member was one of a group of four members of his party who have been touring across the country examining facilities in relation to health and welfare, so he may have received some misinformation. The situation in relation to the Winnipeg airport is that when alterations are being made which involve any materials which have these asbestos fibres, the immediate area is sealed off and the workers who are working within it use breathing masks to protect themselves.
A procedure in these cases has been developed by both my department and the Department of Transport, as well as by the provincial department of labour. The federal Department of National Health and Welfare is monitoring the situation whenever such work is undertaken. 1 believe the hon. member can rest assured that every possible safety provision has been taken.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, I should like to inform the minister that this airport was built in 1963-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is not here to give information to the minister but to ask information of the minister.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, the fact is that this dangerously toxic material is 40 times the standard recommended by the United States group, and the Canadian airport, which has members of the public going into it and out of it 24 hours a
day-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.
Oral Questions


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I certainly want to say that I am sympathetic to the concern of the hon. member, who is a very sincere representative of his constituents and of the Canadian people, but I think he is operating under some misapprehensions in relation to this particular situation. Since November of 1975 we have limited worker exposure to a maximum of two fibres per cubic centimetre in the atmosphere. When the hon. member talks about the content of the insulation material within the walls of the airport, he must recognize that it is not exposed any more than in any other building in the country where that has been used.
The only way that I can see in which that content level of 40 units would be reached is if people were to eat the insulation, which seems to me to be an unlikely proposition. I would be happy to discuss the matter further with the hon. member and to reassure him outside the chamber-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Raymond Dupont (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the labour dispute between Radio-Canada and its journalists has now been dragging on for three months could the minister tell the House if he is ready to meet personally with the parties involved in order to ensure that both the union and management are ready to negotiate in good faith in order to reach a settlement as soon as possible so as to allow Francophones throughout Canada to enjoy fully their right to information?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for this important question. [English]
The matter of the dispute between the French language journalists and Radio-Canada is one of great concern to my department and it has recently been the subject of exploratory mediation by perhaps the most able mediator in the country, Mr. Guy DeMerlis. 1 want to point out that the federal Department of Labour, through its mediation and conciliation branch, not only has a better record than probably any other province in relation to settlements but also has a better record when compared to any other nation in the western world in arriving at settlements without stoppage.
Sometimes intransigent positions are taken by the parties. This has been a very difficult strike in that regard. But I am sure the hon. member will recognize in a free collective bargaining system that all the Department of Labour can do is to provide expert mediation services, and that the parties themselves must make the adjustments from their positions in order to make a settlement possible.

January 29, 1981
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Gerald Augustine Regan: We will continue to provide those services at the moment when it is judged by the experts that it is appropriate and possible to make progress. We will leave no stone unturned in attempting to achieve a settlement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT MEDIATOR
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications.
In light of the worsening conflict between a Crown corporation and the union of journalists, I wonder if the minister is prepared to appoint an independent mediator; in other words, someone who does not answer to the government, since it is directly involved?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member put a question to which he already knows the answer. He is perfectly aware that it is up to the Minister of Labour to appoint a mediator in labour conflicts between Crown corporations and unionized employees working for those corporations. I must say, however, that it is a labour dispute over which I am deeply concerned, mainly because it is still continuing. It began more than three months ago and I have the impression that such long-lasting disputes can only worsen.
As 1 said before in the House, I have already met with the president of the union involved, and again late this afternoon I will have discussions with labour spokesmen and Department of Communications officials with a view to seeking grounds for agreement and understanding better the position of the union in this matter.


Donald W. Munro: At his meeting this afternoon, does the minister intend to suggest the name of an independent government mediator in the discussion, or will it be nothing more than an opportunity for the strikers to air their views before the minister?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the meeting has yet to take place, so I will see what kind of representations the union president and the CNTU president want to make. Still I can only repeat that the appointment of a mediator is a matter which falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Labour.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FORMER SPEAKER, HON. LUCIEN LAMOUREUX
Madam Speaker:: I am sure hon. members will want to acknowledge the presence in our gallery of a former Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr. Lamoureux.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COMBINES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General. It relates to the concentration of ownership in the Canadian newspaper industry, particularly the consolidation of ownership of the The Province and The Sun in the city of Vancouver. For the benefit of the House, will the minister confirm or deny that his department was advised in advance of the consolidation manoeuvre and at that time raised no objection and in effect approved the manoeuvres by these companies?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, common practice in the House has it that the minister cannot confirm or deny that the combines investigation director is involved in an investigation.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, that was clearly not in response to my question. It related to some suggestions that the minister and his department were advised in advance. I would suggest this statement really advocates a denial of truth by the publisher of The Province and Paddy Sherman, the vice president of Southam, that in fact the consultation took place and that by refusing to comment upon it they in fact gave approval in advance.
Would the minister be prepared to explain the apparent conflict, now that they wish to prosecute those companies after in effect giving them approval to go ahead with these manoeuvres in the beginning, or prior to the event?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I am not prepared to make any comment on that subject today.
January 29, 1981


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one raised by the hon. member for Provencher. I want to say to the Prime Minister that the report to which we are referring is not one of the ad hoc committee of the British parliament; it is one of the select committee on foreign affairs. I think that may make a difference to the Prime Minister. It may make a difference to the Prime Minister as well that the chairman of the committee indicated that 26 copies of the report of the committee were sent to the Canadian High Commission on Wednesday. Obviously the government is aware of it.
In order to avoid the national shame, and indeed the national disgrace, of the resolution of this Parliament being rejected by the parliament of Westminster, will the Prime Minister now consider going back to the provinces? One of the reasons indicated by the committee for its position was:
-the Statute of Westminster makes Britain a guardian of both federal and provincial interests.
I may say that my party has taken this position throughout.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: In the interest of national pride, is the Prime Minister now prepared to go back to the first ministers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, we have the testimony of one of the first ministers, Premier Hatfield-


Thomas Edward Siddon: How about the other nine?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that it would be to no avail because the provinces-and I think Canadians were witness to this on television last September-could not agree among themselves on many subjects before them.


Charles Joseph Clark: Except the Vancouver formula.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Several of the premiers took the position publicly that they would not agree even to simple patriation with an amending formula until one got fisheries, the other offshore, the other cultural sovereignty, and so on. This has been the position of the provinces. If the hon. member's party was so convinced that the provinces could deliver unanimous agreement on patriation with an amending formula, it would be surprising that all ten of them have not made that statement by now. The fact they have not made that statement is a clear indication to me that the provinces cannot agree among themselves-


Thomas Edward Siddon: Just sit down and talk with them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -any more than they could agree with the Conservative Party of Canada when it takes its position that they should have the so-called Alberta-Vancouver formula
Oral Questions
which has not yet been agreed upon among the provinces. There is no unanimity; there is not even a consensus among the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The party of the right hon. gentleman opposite has not been able to adduce that consensus. It is because we have not been able to adduce it over the last 12 years that we say what must be done should be done, and that is what is being done.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, in light of the fact that six provinces have taken the unilateral action of the government to court, and that 64 per cent of the people of Canada stated in a Gallup poll that they opposed the entrenchment of a bill of rights by the parliament of Westminster-facts which are not unknown to British parliamentarians-is the Prime Minister, again in the interests of national pride and the integrity of this Parliament, prepared to suspend the steamrolling of the constitutional package through this Parliament until he has at least had a chance to consult with the Prime Minister of Great Britain?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 have spoken to the Prime Minister of Great Britain. 1 have spoken to her as early as last June.


Charles Joseph Clark: What did you say?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 have her word, and I still have her word, that she will make this a government measure-


Charles Joseph Clark: Did you tell her about the charter of rights?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and she will put on a three-line whip to pass it through the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, members opposite may laugh at the words solemnly delivered to me by the Prime Minister of Great Britain. This is not consistent with their position.
When the hon. member tells me that it is the select committee on foreign affairs, that is precisely my objection-it is a foreign country which is telling the Canadian Parliament what it can do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST TO EXPLORE POSSIBILITY OF PROVINCIAL AGREEMENT
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, has the Prime Minister considered the incongruity of the

January 29, 1981
Oral Questions
position he has just taken? He is asking the British parliament to lay on a three-line whip, to do something about which the people of Canada have expressed some doubt. It is incongruous that he should take that position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: If I may, Madam Speaker, I would like to put this to the Prime Minister. The propositions which the committee are now dealing with are quite different from the propositions put to the first ministers in September. The atmosphere in the country is quite different from what it was in September. The discussions have taken a new tack from those in September. I ask the Prime Minister if he will, as head of the Canadian family, exhibit some faith in that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Bob Rae: Head of the Canadian family?


Walter David Baker: That is what a Prime Minister is supposed to be. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether or not he has enough faith in Canadian federalism, as the head of the Canadian family-as he would like to call himself-to take the matter back to the provinces to see if there cannot be some reasonable agreement from the result of that process. I think the country is worthy of that move, even if the Prime Minister would disagree with it. I ask him at least to consider it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member talks about the will of the Canadian people. In this House a moment ago I quoted the spokesman for his own party, who said that the Canadian people wanted a charter of rights.


Mr. Beatty:: In Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, this Parliament is in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The British parliament is in Britain.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the Prime Minister please continue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, this Parliament is in Canada. It is studying, in Canada, a measure which the honourable party opposite says the people want. It is studying a measure which several premiers have said they do not want. Therefore, this Parliament is doing what the premiers do not want but what the people want, and what this Parliament expects they want.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: To be sure, this is the Canadian Parliament. But what the Prime Minister seems to have forgotten is that Canada is a federal system. For the sake of the country I say: is the Prime Minister now prepared to
consider taking what is a different package to the premiers than what was taken to them in September, after this Parliament has spoken?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the answer to that was given in reply to an earlier question. If the premiers really thought they could agree amongst themselves-indeed, agree with the Leader of the Opposition-they would have met by now and they would have said, "This is what we want." They have not done that.


Charles Joseph Clark: Because you have given no leadership.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They have told me privately, and they have told the Canadian people publicly, that they would not agree to patriation.


An hon. Member:: Bring it back.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, they would not agree to simple patriation until they got the offshore, the fisheries and so on.


Charles Joseph Clark: That has changed and you know it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They have said that publicly. If they say the contrary now, then I will take the hon. member's question seriously.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: That is an undertaking. Prime Minister.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I have a notice of a question of privilege in the name of the hon. Solicitor General.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to the remarks made about me yesterday by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). They are set out in Hansard at pages 6652 and 6653. The hon. member himself was raising a question of privilege. In his question he attempted to couch the matters he was referring to in hypothetical terms. However, as he proceeded it became obvious he was attempting to build a case and make unparliamentary allegations based on matters arising out of the meeting of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution, at the time I was attending that committee as a witness. He refers to statements which I made. He refers to me as a minister of the Crown making statements "on behalf of the government in a parliamentary process," as if there was any doubt that it was me he was attempting to describe. I was not in the House during most of his intervention, but he noted my return and some other remarks, tying me to the incidents on
January 29, 1981

which he was building his case. I will refer to those in a moment.
With respect to my conduct before that committee, he said:
in other forums that would fall within the definition of false pretences, under the provisions of the Criminal Code.
I want to draw that remark to your attention, Madam Speaker. He suggested that my conduct in a civil forum "would be regarded as a civil wrong, commonly called a tort". He said, referring to my conduct in the committee:
It is not far-fetched, in my submission, to draw from that that there was a deliberate intent-
-on my part-
-to make a commitment to the committee in question, which he knew was a commitment which could not be kept.
A paragraph later he said that my action-as he put it, it was a question, but I take it he was submitting that for consideration-would be subject to a quotation from Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, "Conspiracy to Deceive Either House or Committees of Either House", which he read. He also read the paragraph under the heading "Corruption in the Execution of Their Office as Members".
At that point I returned to the House. The hon. member said he was glad to see me come back. He said the passage which he had quoted under the heading "Corruption in the Execution of Their Office as Members" might be viewed:
-in the light of the very special relationship which existed in this instance between those cozy bedmates, the NDP and the Liberal members.
Madam Speaker, I consider that unparliamentary language which is designed to blacken my name and impede my work as a member of Parliament and minister of the Crown. The full explanation of the events and my conduct before the committee were described. They were closely questioned by members opposite. They were answered fully by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and by myself when I rose that day on a question of privilege. I therefore ask that the hon. member retract his statement. If he does not. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, it is appropriate under the practices of the House when an hon. member submits for consideration a question of privilege which is to be followed by a substantive motion that the motion be read before the reply.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I would like to hear from the hon. member before I move my motion.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the reason for the practice is that I may either agree with or want to second the motion which the minister has prepared. The minister owes it to the House to read his motion.


Madam Speaker:: I believe I can solve the matter now. I listened very carefully yesterday while the hon. member for
Business of the House
Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) made his speech and subsequently 1 read Hansard. I received verbal notice from the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) yesterday and written notice today that he would raise this question of privilege. I reviewed the matter very carefully, and I must say, although the hon. member for Yukon came very close to linking some of the very strong words which he used in his speech to the Solicitor General's conduct or to him personally, I do feel that the linkage was not sufficiently direct to constitute unparliamentary language, though it came extremely close.


POINT OF ORDER
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, 1 will be very brief. In the exchange between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and myself today, the Prime Minister made the statement that I had had an interview or telephone conversation with Anthony Kershaw. That was not the case. I was using a Canadian Press story, and I would appreciate it if the Prime Minister would take this as notice.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member has raised a point of order rather than a question of privilege, and he has made his point.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, could I ask the government House leader his intentions with respect to House business for the balance of this week and into next week. If he is intending to designate an allotted opposition day for next week, would he do so today?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, today the House will deal with the second reading stage of the access to information bill, as agreed upon by members on both sides of the House. Tomorrow we will begin debate on the second reading stage of the borrowing authority bill which will be introduced in a few minutes.
[ Translation]
Monday we shall resume debate in Committee of the Whole of the bill to amend the income tax legislation. Hopefully, consideration of the bill at this stage will be completed early in the week so that the bill can be passed on third reading. I also hope that we will be able to continue second reading of the bill to provide supplementary borrowing authority. Finally, Friday will be an opposition day and, if I am not mistaken, the third allotted day in this supply period.

January 29, 198 1
Point of Order-Mr. Fox


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, as the government House leader must realize, Monday, February, 16, just two weeks away, will be recognized by many people in this country as Heritage Day. The government from time to time has had legislation before the House to make that day a holiday. It is not there in this year's Bill C-37, but in view of the wide public interest in Heritage Day, would the government consider bringing some measure before Parliament to establish that day as a holiday, even before February 16 of this year?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, that might be difficult, but I shall nevertheless consider the hon. member's request.


POINT OF ORDER
Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, last Friday in an
exchange in the House between myself and the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) concerning the exact participation of the federal government in education programs, the hon. member indicated that the total contribution of the federal government for post-secondary education under the EPF arrangements, totalled some $3 billion. I indicated that it was $4 billion.
As far as the EPF arrangements are concerned, the hon. member for Hillsborough is correct. The total contribution by the federal government is $3 billion of which $1.65 billion is in cash and a further $1.42 billion in the form of tax points. If we add to the EPF fiscal arrangements the funds spent by the federal government in the field of education in this country through programs in the fields of minority language, Canada student loans, grants respecting research councils, northern education, native education and the manpower training programs, the total amount approaches some $5 billion.


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, to comment briefly on that, I wish to thank the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) for rising this afternoon, in effect, to set the record straight with regard to the figures the minister quoted on Friday in response to my question. The minister's figures on federal funding for post-secondary education in Canada under the established programs financing now conform to the figures I quoted in my questions.
The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and the Canadian Association of University Teachers have expressed alarm at the federal government's plan to cut drastically expenditures on post-secondary education. The Progressive Conservative Party shares that alarm.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously, the hon. member is debating.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Bussières: for leave to introduce Bill C-59 entitled "An act to provide supplementary borrowing authority".


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,754, 1,832, 1,905 and 1,963.
I ask. Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Text]


Mr. Stevens: For the current fiscal year, what are the estimated expenditures of the Department of Justice for (a) advertising (b) free or subsidized publications (c) other information conveyed to the public?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: The Department of Justice: (a) $2,000, (b) $5,000, (c) $421,000.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past five years, by province, what amount was awarded under the Official Language Minority Groups Program?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: January 29, 1981

Access to Information
Secretary of State
Province	1975-76	1976-77	1977-78	1978-79	1979-80National Organizations	588,490.00	658,115.00	1,409,076.00	1,623,993.72	1,971,310.44Newfoundland	23,500.00	64,100.00	162,645.00	288,899.00	243,006.00Prince Edward Island	58,393.80	77,050.00	266,000.00	481,950.00	416,100.00Nova Scotia	115,650.00	149,262.00	99,850.00	202,516.00	655,760.00New Brunswick	366,592.20	420,679.00	679,926.36	1,245,269.00	1,606.739.36Quebec	287,000.00	153,290.00	21 1,000.00	435,642.00	692,900.00Ontario	741,240.00	863,110.00	1,127,783.00	1,973,174.50	2,582,516.50Manitoba	311,090.00	374,382.03	586,550.00	818,180.00	985,815.00Saskatchewan	173,060.00	209,745.00	363,895.00	525,812.45	779,528.00Alberta	206,900.00	234,645.00	383,850.00	645,400.00	809,537.00British Columbia	150,314.00	320,500.00	502,800.00	687,619.00	921,705.00


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Does Canada have a treaty of friendship and co-operation with the Soviet Union and. if so, on what date was it negotiated?
2.	To the knowledge of the government, does (a) Great Britain (b) France (c) West Germany (d) Italy (c) Turkey (f) Greece (g) The Netherlands have such a treaty with the Soviet Union and. if so, in each case, on what date was it negotiated?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Canada does not have any treaty with the Soviet Union described as a "treaty of friendship and co-operation". Several Canadian-Soviet treaties accord due recognition to the principle of promoting friendship and co-operation between the two countries, but all deal essentially with practical measures for governing interstate relations in such fields as political consultations, commercial relations, fisheries, civil aviation, and scientific, academic, cultural and sports exchanges. The Canadian-Soviet Protocol on Consultations, signed on May 19, 1971, has occasionally been described inaccurately as a "treaty of friendship and co-operation". It is, in fact, an agreement to "enlarge and deepen consultations on important international problems of mutual interest and on questions of bilateral relations".
2. No NATO country has a "treaty of friendship and co-operation" with the Soviet Union, including those countries named in the question. Such treaties have generally been limited to the U.S.S.R.'s Warsaw Pact allies and to selected Third World countries.


Mr. Cossitt: On or about September 2 or 3, 1980, did the Minister of State for Science and Technology use a government owned private railway car and, if so (a) was the car known as No. 53 (b) what was the purpose of such usage and what were the names of all persons on board at any time (c) what was the point of departure and the point of termination of the car?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: No. (a), (b) and (c) Not applicable.
[ Translation]


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Francis Fox: that Bill C-43, to enact the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, to amend the Federal Court Act and the Canada Evidence Act, and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am, of course, happy that we were able to set aside this day in a very tight and heavy schedule for the second reading debate on Bill C-43, which deals with access to information and privacy. I am particularly gratified because this was made possible through the co-operation of all parties in the House. This unanimity shows that we are all anxious to see progress made toward enacting this important piece of legislation.

This bill has three equally important purposes. First, the bill provides a right of access to information in the hands of the government to all Canadians, subject to a limited number of exemptions set out in the bill. Second, the bill contains provisions strengthening the right of access of individuals to information about them in government files and providing a code restricting the use of such personal information by the government. Third, the bill abolishes the statutory right of ministers to prevent information from being used in court cases without review by the courts.
This legislation will, over time, become one of the cornerstones of Canadian democracy. The access legislation will be an important tool of accountability to Parliament and the electorate, while the Crown privilege provisions will create better conditions for the administration of justice by the courts. The privacy provisions will do much to protect the individual rights of Canadians.

January 29, 1981
Access to Information
The legislation before us benefits from, and is inspired by, the efforts of many. It owes most, however, to the contributions of many past and present members of this House-to mention only some, Barry Mather, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts), the hon. member for Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker), and, most of all, Ged Baldwin.
The present bill has important innovations. It deals with both access to information and privacy, assuring a consistent treatment of personal information and the protection of individual privacy. It addresses the issue of access to computerized information. It includes a procedure allowing for those who have supplied information to the government to make themselves heard before decisions are made on the release of information. As well, the exemptions are made more precise and the review process has been tailored to circumstances specific to Canada. Finally, it will facilitate access to government records in the official language of the applicant.
The development of this bill has shown Parliament at its best, and, given the nature of the subject, I am sure the contribution of members will continue to be most important when the bill is in committee and even more so once the legislation is in force and a committee of Parliament is monitoring progress of the legislation.
The purpose of the access legislation is stated in clause 2 of schedule I-to provide a right to access, subject to limited and specific exceptions and with an independent review process to ensure that the right can be fully used.
Simply put, the bill reverses the present situation whereby access to information is a matter of government discretion. Under this legislation, access to information becomes a matter of public right, with the burden of proof on the government to establish that information need not be released.
The right of access created by the bill is very broad: information in any form, held by more than 130 government institutions. The right will be exercised simply by making an application to the appropriate government institution.
There are certain narrowly-defined exceptions to the broad right of access, designed to protect information which it is in the public interest to withhold. These exceptions were the most difficult part of the bill to draft. Most knowledgeable observers seem to agree with the need to protect the general areas of international affairs and defence, law enforcement, the privacy of individuals, unions and corporations, and the efficiency of government operations. There is, naturally, some concern about details of wording-which I know will not surprise the hon. members who have attempted to draft this kind of legislation, especially the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. [Translation]
The difficulty facing the drafter is that defining the exceptions requires addressing, in a single statute, the fundamental responsibilities of government. This must be done with enough breadth to capture all the areas where protection is necessary
and in the public interest. But it also must be done with sufficient precision to allow general access to the inner workings of government which it is in the public interest to see. One exemption which gave us particular difficulty is that relating to the confidentiality clauses in other statutes. There are roughly 35 such clauses. Examples of these are section 241 of the Income Tax Act and section 17 of the Family Allowances Act. By inserting these clauses in other statutes, Parliament sought to protect certain types of sensitive government information. Therefore, 1 think that Parliament should have an opportunity to review them carefully and to determine whether they should be maintained. I am confident that this demanding task can be completed within the three years provided for in the bill.
I know that the standing committee which will soon be examining the bill can help refine the exemptions still further. At that stage 1 hope to deal with many of the specific comments already made about the exemptions.
So that the committee will have a thorough appreciation of how the bill will work in practice, I plan also to outline the kind of guidelines the government will use in implementing the act. These will explain how officials can release certain information which technically, in an exemptable category, the government sees no need to withhold. As U.S. experience has shown, guidelines make it possible to achieve more openness in practice than can be reflected in legislation.
The procedures in the bill range from the very simple rules applicable to requests for access to the review procedures themselves. Procedures for requests for access are straightforward, but it is in the area of review that this bill, borrowing in large part from Bill C-15, represents a major advance on all other freedom of information legislation, existing or proposed. The bill sets up machinery to guarantee independent review of any decision by the government to withhold information under the exemptions. This independence is crucial-not so much because ministers might misuse their prerogatives without it, but because it ensures that justice will be done and seen to be done. This is vital if public confidence in government is to be upheld.
This independent review process is two-tiered. It begins with an information commissioner with sweeping investigative powers, responsible to Parliament, not to the government. The use of the commissioner is a uniquely Canadian approach, giving an independent person access to all government documents and a chance to take a position on the matter vis-a-vis the government before it is heard by the court. The commissioner's appointment must be approved by formal resolutions of this House and the other place. The commissioner would report directly to the Speakers of both Houses, not through a minister. Being fully independent from the executive, the commissioner will be free to lobby, criticize, table his recommendations in Parliament, and even take the government to court to obtain release of information.
January 29, 1981

The commissioner is the key to making access to information an effective reality for every Canadian, regardless of income, status or knowledge of the law. The procedure for triggering an investigation by the commissioner will be informal, expeditious and free of charge-an entitlement by right of every Canadian. I anticipate that the bulk of complaints will be handled satisfactorily at the commissioner level. I expect the office of the information commissioner to become over time more than an information ombudsman, more than an access advocate. I expect it to be the heart of the system. [English]
At the second level, a person who was refused access to a document even after examination of his complaint by the commissioner would have the right to apply to the federal court for judicial review. The court would be empowered to review denials and issue binding orders for the release of requested documents.
An interesting aspect of this bill is the way it reconciles judicial review and the principles of ministerial responsibility. In some cases, the government might claim the right to withhold information under an exempted category involving the responsibility of a minister to Parliament. Such a category would be injurious to national defence. Under this bill, the court would order the release of the documents in question if it determines that the minister did not have reasonable grounds for refusing access. In all other cases, the court would be empowered to conduct a full, de novo review and ultimately to substitute its opinion for that of the minister as to whether or not an exemption applies.
1 want to make absolutely clear that in all cases the commissioner and the court will have the right to examine any government record. In all cases the burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of government. In all cases the commissioner and the court will be empowered to refer evidence of illegal activity to the proper authorities. In all cases the court is empowered to overturn a minister's decision and to order release. The effectiveness of this two-tiered and independent review process has been commended by U.S. freedom of information advocates. Moreover, it is my belief that our legislation compares very favourably over all with the United States freedom of information act.
Finally, the legislation provides that a parliamentary committee will have permanent, ongoing oversight of the administration of the legislation to ensure that it is being implemented in accordance with its spirit.
I will now take a few moments to speak about schedule II of Bill C-43, which will enact a new privacy act to replace part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This important piece of legislation was introduced in and piloted through the House by a most dedicated parliamentarian and justice minister, the Hon. Ron Basford.
The scope of the access to information scheme now makes it necessary to replace part IV with new privacy legislation. This step will ensure that the rights of access to personal informa-
Access to Information
tion held by the federal government, and the protection provided to ensure compliance with this right, are as extensive as that to be granted under the general access to information legislation.
In developing the proposed new privacy act we were greatly assisted by the work which had already been done by the previous government. I understand this is reflected in Bill C-535 introduced last May by the hon. member for Welling-ton-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty).
Under the new act, the right of access would apply to more personal information than under part IV. The exemptions have been refined and brought in line with those of the access proposals. Finally, a parallel two-tier review mechanism is included involving complaints to a privacy commissioner and review of denials by the Federal Court.
With the experience gained under part IV, the government proposes to strengthen the protection of personal privacy. The new legislation will create a comprehensive code of fair information practices in the federal government's handling of personal information.
Our society is gradually becoming aware that a vital element of the right to privacy is the ability of an individual to control information about himself. This principle is reflected in the code. Further, the code will not supersede limitations imposed by other statutes but will provide additional controls.
The rights of individuals to know how personal information will be used, to ensure that the information used for decisionmaking purposes is accurate, up to date and complete, and that information collected by government institutions is relevant to their legitimate programs and operations-all these are given further recognition in this bill. The privacy commissioner will provide an independent check on compliance, having the duty to oversee and monitor the way in which personal information is collected, used and disseminated by government institutions.

Now, as a final word about privacy, I would like to emphasize that the government has not ignored the concerns of Canadians about the increasing use of the social insurance number. The provisions in the bill dealing with the use and disclosure of personal information will regulate the use of the social insurance number within the federal government. However, as was recognized by the previous government in setting up the study of the social insurance number by the privacy commissioner, dealing effectively with this problem goes beyond regulating its use within the federal government and, thus, the scope of this bill. It is anticipated, however, that the privacy commissioner's report will be tabled shortly. This will assist in developing an understanding of the problems involved and will form the basis for analysing specific proposals with respect to the social insurance number.
Schedule III contains the third piece of legislation in this package. This schedule would repeal section 41 of the Federal Court Act and enact new rules dealing with Crown privilege in

January 29, 198!
Access to Information
the Canada Evidence Act. The basic effect of this provision will be that ministers will no longer be able to absolutely refuse to produce documents to a court or a commission of inquiry on the basis of Crown privilege. In all cases, such a claim will be reviewable by a superior court.
To conclude, I want to say that the set of proposals in bill C-43 constitute a major thrust in our efforts toward openness of government. The government has already adopted guidelines for dealing openly with the press and is endeavouring to apply the spirit of this legislation before it is passed. Reforms will follow in many important areas, such as the classification system, the Official Secrets Act and the operation of the public archives. In putting the legislation together, we have found that in many areas a general approach to openness and accountability in government is frankly not going to be adequate and that precise answers for specific situations are necessary. This bill should be seen as a dramatic starting point which will lead to even more openness in many areas of government once it becomes law. I would predict that numerous federal statutes passed in coming years will contain specific access codes pertinent to their subject matter. Over time, once the principles behind this bill are established as the basic framework for openness, a great deal of information will flow to the public upon request without the need for all the protections for both parties that are contained in this legislation.

The access to information and protection of privacy bill is seminal legislation. We anticipate it will have a major influence on all institutions in the country and will constitute a major step forward in making our institutions more open and democratic.
Over the past months I have been fortunate enough to receive the representations of various groups interested in the legislation, such as Access, the National Indian Brotherhood and the Canadian Historical Association. I have also written to all provinces and I am now informed of their views. At committee stage we will have an opportunity to give careful consideration to their suggestions. I am confident that this exchange of ideas will be of considerable assistance to Parliament in producing legislation which is truly reflective of the largest possible consensus in this area.
[ Translation]


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, today we are debating the bill to extend the Canadian legislation relating to access to the documents of the federal administration. It establishes the principle that the public has the right to gain access to such documents and provides that the executive branch cannot stand in the way of appeals concerning decisions taken on that subject. In other words, today we are debating the principle of freedom of information, the responsibility of the government to let Canadians have free access to information it holds.
The House will note that the government does not respect the objectives it has set out in the bill. One basic aspect of our system, Mr. Speaker, is that any government is answerable for its actions to the people, through Parliament. That is impossible if Canadians do not know what the government is doing. When the government operates in secrecy and refuses to let the public have certain documents, it creates an atmosphere of public mistrust. It was precisely that type of mistrust we wanted to avoid in our own bill on that subject. It is a question of power and we all know that those who have information are those who wield real power. But in a democracy such as ours, power and information must be widely shared. The bill introduced by my administration was aimed at giving the public the widest access possible to government information.
Freedom of information means that the government endorses the basic principle that any such information belongs to the people of Canada, unless there is very specific and fundamental reason for keeping it secret. The government, not the citizen, must prove that certain documents cannot be released. In our bill we had set very strict criteria under which the onus of the proof fell on the government: it had to demonstrate without a doubt that a document had to remain secret. The exceptions contained in the Liberal measure make it easier for the government to refuse to divulge the information it has.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of freedom of information is not new. It is an objective which my party has been trying to achieve for a number of years.
I was happy with the recognition by the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) in his opening remarks of the pioneer work done by the former member of Parliament for Peace River, Ged Baldwin, in introducing this principle and pursuing it through the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: He began that work some 11 years ago when he introduced a private member's bill. The Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments recommended the concept as long ago as 1975. The House of Commons approved it in principle in 1976. There it rested until 1979 when my colleague, the member for Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker), as House leader of the government I had the honour to lead, introduced the law known as Bill C-15 in this House, and introduced it as a priority of a new government.
I think the House will recognize, as the country does, that most of the principal strengths and advantages of this legislation are advantages which were incorporated in the bill introduced by my colleague from Nepean-Carleton and by the Progressive Conservative government.
I will make the point that there have been some modest improvements in the bill brought down by the minister today.
January 29, 1981

For example, information now gathered by computer may be released after request. Two supplementary bulletins are to update the annual list of documents published by the government. Third parties who might be adversely affected by the release of information to an applicant must be told of the application for release and given an opportunity to object. We approve the provision which will allow translation into the language of the applicant as a matter of course. We think it is valuable to have this "Access to Information Act", as this is called, combined with a new "Privacy Act" to replace part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Those are modest improvements. I regret to say that they pale beside some of the major weaknesses and retreats that are evident in this bill, retreats from the standards established by the legislation introduced by the Conservative government in 1979.
Indeed, the difference is evident even in the name of this legislation. The bill we introduced was a freedom of information bill. The bill this government introduces is a bill entitled "access to information". It would be much more properly entitled "access to information that the government wants to release", because there is a very severe limitation, as I intend to indicate later, upon the right of the public to seek information which would have been available to the public under the legislation introduced by the Conservative government.
We have here a much more narrow bill. It gives much more power to the government and much less power to the citizen. I know of the pressures that come from the bureaucracy for secrecy. 1 know of the pressures which come from elsewhere in society for secrecy. We faced those pressures as well. The difference is that we rejected several arguments for secrecy which the Liberal government in this bill has accepted and acquiesced to. This reflects itself in the difference between what could honestly be called a bureaucratic bill and a citizens' bill, which is the accurate way to describe the freedom of information legislation introduced by my colleague for Nepean-Carleton.
I want the House to look, at this stage in a short debate on an important matter, at some of these specific new limitations that are built into this bill. For example, there is a provision which indicates that the government will not be required to list in a bulletin, material which "the head of a government institution would be entitled to refuse". That clearly is the first line of defence for a department which wants to keep material secret that might otherwise be released under the act.
A very large potential series of loopholes is written into this legislation by the widespread use of that innocent sounding adjective "reasonable". Let me cite one example of a word that appears frequently throughout the bill in a way that I believe is designed to assist the government. Under one clause, material requested must not only be identifiable in such a way that an "experienced employee of the institution" can find it, but it now must be found "with a reasonable effort". There is ample room for abuse, ample room for someone who does not want information to be released to say that it would require more than a reasonable effort, whatever that might be, to have
Access to Information
that information released to a public which has a right to that information.
Both bills define certain exemptions to the basic principles of the right to access. The minister indicated that they were narrowly defined. They were much more narrowly defined in the bill that we introduced than they are in the bill now before this House of Commons. These are the four specific categories of exemptions: national defence and international relations, federal-provincial relations, economic matters and cabinet documents. The titles of the exemptions are the same. The contents are significantly different. This bill is much more restrictive than the freedom of information legislation introduced by my colleague.
Let me deal with the question of national defence and international relations. Clause 13 of this bill provides that the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose a record containing information that was obtained in confidence from the government of a foreign or international organization of states. This exemption, which makes sense, is expanded to include information from the government of a province or "an institution thereof' or from "a municipal or regional government" or "an institution of such a government". Therefore, the scope of secrecy is very much broadened by this change in language and approach to the principle of freedom of limitation-I mean freedom of information. I wish it were freedom of limitation. Unfortunately, there is too much limitation and too little access to information.
Clause 15 stipulates that the head of a government institution may refuse to release a record containing information, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the conduct of international relations, the defence of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada, or the efforts of Canada toward detecting, preventing or suppressing subversive or hostile activities. I have no problem at all with that provision as it applies to a state allied with Canada, but what in the world is meant by the phrase "associated with Canada"?


Francis Fox: Treaties.


Charles Joseph Clark: Associated with Canada but not allied with Canada. What does that mean? What is the distinction between countries allied with Canada and countries with Canada? Of course, the treaties can explain the word "association", but what kind of countries are contemplated here? Why is this language there? Why was the original language having to do with "allied with Canada" not adequate?
What is the government attempting to incorporate in this legislation which was not incorporated in the language of the previous draft? What kind of information will be withheld as a result of this language which would have been available as a result of the previous language? That is a question of detail, but important detail that we will want to pursue in the committee.
Several of the definitions in this category relating to national defence and international relations have been widened, including that the prohibition of publication shall include

January 29, 1981
Access to Information
"information obtained or prepared for the purpose of intelligence". In this case, the purpose of the gathering becomes the standard, not the content of what is gathered. That means that if there is information which would normally be harmless to release on its basis, merit or content, that information by this law could be withheld because of the purpose for which it was gathered. The content is put aside. The purpose of the gathering is what is at issue here. That casts a very broad net underneath which a great deal can be concealed. We will want to know why the net has been cast so broadly in this case.
Further, it states that intelligence information will be withheld if it is "used by the Government of Canada in the process"-and I underline that-"of deliberation and consultation or in the conduct of international affairs". The bill we introduced stated that non-release was justifiable if "the release . . . would interfere with the formation of policy of the Government of Canada"; but now interference need no longer be demonstrated. The only standard is that the process of deliberation and consultation be affected. Here again there is a significant widening of limitation and of the scope of secrecy available to the government in keeping information from the public. That speaks of international and defence matters.
Let me come to the old bete noire of the government, the question of federal-provincial relations where its paranoia most often expresses itself most vigorously. Bill C-15, the bill we introduced, proposed to retain any record the disclosure of which "could reasonably be expected to affect adversely federal-provincial relations". What we have here now is new language which says that information will be withheld, and will include "information on . . . consultations or deliberations" and then, most interestingly, "information on .. . strategy or tactics adopted ... by the Government of Canada". That is to say, when the government next dreams up an advertising campaign to have geese flying across the country trying to persuade us to bring our constitution home in an unacceptable way, when it dreams up some new program of manipulation of public opinion trying to achieve in a devious or indirect way what it cannot achieve directly with the provinces, that information will be held secret from the people of Canada. It is not a question of substance that would harm substantively federal-provincial relations; what this government is trying to do, this government which has made such a horrendous failure of its federal-provincial relations, is keep secret from the people of Canada the tactics and strategy used by the Government of Canada in dealing with what it should regard as its partners in the Canadian confederation.
Indeed, that language might even make it possible for the government to refuse to release polls which were the basis upon which it developed its strategy or its tactics for approaching some subject that is the subject of federal-provincial negotiations.
Again, in economic matters, there has been a significant broadening of the language which, in light of the time limitation on this debate, 1 do not have the opportunity to go into at
great length. But the cabinet documents provision is of some interest. It is a very sweeping provision. The result of this provision would seem to be that the public would be denied the right to see any memorandum which may ultimately be destined for cabinet-any memorandum, any piece of paper at all that may ultimately be destined for cabinet.
The proposed law that we brought in specified that secrecy would apply only to "documents submitted or prepared for submission ... by a minister of the Crown", and other documents that were directly relevant to a cabinet proceeding.
The new clause of this Liberal bill includes discussion papers with "background explanations, analysis of problems or policy options to counsel", and it includes "records used to brief ministers in relation to matters that are before, or are proposed to be brought before", the Privy Council which are the subject of consultations between ministers.
While the previous clause 21 of Bill C-15 clearly restricted that exclusion to genuine cabinet documents, this new version allows for the possibility of labelling literally any document at all a draft for the cabinet or a memorandum to a minister, and by so labelling, by putting on it the words "for the information of the minister", the most innocent piece of paper will be kept secret from the people of Canada. That is a very large loophole, a very large cover under which things can be kept secret, and that is one provision the minister will have to defend very seriously when the matter gets to the committee. We believe it makes a total mockery of any system of freedom of information in this country simply to put a stamp on a piece of paper saying it will ultimately be considered by the cabinet, and in that way keep that information from the people of Canada whose taxes keep the government in business.
The minister spoke about judicial review. I want to make the point, because he glided over it, that in the case of these exempted categories new limits are placed upon judicial review. He used the phrase that "on matters outside the limitations, the Federal Court of Canada would be authorized to undertake to take a de novo review in every case", and that was the proposed Conservative law. In this bill that flexibility of the Federal Court of Canada is limited. It cannot undertake that kind of wide review within the four restricted categories. As 1 have indicated, those four restricted categories involve language so broad as to cover a great range of information of the Government of Canada. The court can order the release of a record only if it determines that the head of an institution "did not have reasonable grounds" on which to refuse to disclose the record. In other words, what can happen is that the court could look at a matter-and the minister has said it will be able to look at all the documents-and find that it should be released. But it also could find that the government had a reasonable reason to hide it and, therefore, even though it should be released the court would be prevented by this language from ordering its release. That is a very severe restriction placed upon the Federal Court and a very real limitation of the principle of judicial review which is held to be important by very many of us who take seriously the principle of freedom of information in this country.
January 29, 1981

Again, the previous legislation required that a committee of the House or a joint committee table a comprehensive report within three years. This provision has been dropped from this bill. Clause 72 requires a parliamentary committee to conduct a permanent review of the act. That looks on its face to be quite attractive. The danger is that it will also be looking at a great deal of other legislation, and it may well be that in fact, instead of having greater power to consider the adequacy of the freedom of information legislation, this committee will be so cluttered up with other matters it will not be able to deal with all the things with which it should be dealing.
In summary, this is not a bill that is as strong as the freedom of information legislation introduced by the Conservative government. But 1 will say this; it is better than what the Liberals had proposed to do before. That is one minor recommendation. We can have a long and detailed discussion in committee as to the improvements that can be made in this bill, and 1 would expect, certainly from our point of view, we will be seeking extensive changes in the language and in the philosophy of the bill. Because this is restrictive philosophy in this legislation, and we believe that kind of restrictive philosophy has no place in legislation designed honestly to achieve freedom of information in the country. We want a bill which respects the rights of citizens to have information. What we have is a bill that respects and protects the rights of governments to hide information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise to join in the debate on Bill C-43, this very important piece of legislation dealing both with access to information and protection of privacy in Canada, both fundamental principles, and long overdue in Canadian society. I am pleased this bill has finally come before the House and that all parties in the House were able to co-operate to see the bill through second reading today.
Let me also point out that we have been dealing in recent weeks with the Constitution of Canada and the proposed Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Members in this House will know that we in the New Democratic Party, and 1 must also say my friends in the Progressive Conservative Party, proposed that the fundamental principle of the right of Canadians to access to information, and the fundamental right of Canadians to protection from unreasonable interference with privacy, should be recognized in the Constitution of Canada.
That principle we put forward during the course of debate in committee, and 1 regret that those principles, which we regard as fundamental, were not accepted as part of the constitutional package which we put forward to the people of Canada. As I say, if we truly believe that these principles, the right of access to information and the protection from incursion into privacy, are to be recognized in Canadian society, we must ensure that they can never be eroded or taken away by an ordinary statute of the federal or provincial government. That was one of the
Access to Information
reasons we suggested that these provisions should be extended throughout the Constitution.
I would also like to refer in passing to the report of the Canadian Bar Association on this very question. The Canadian Bar Association recommended the entrenchment in the Constitution of the right to freedom of information, and they quoted Ralph Nader who said-and I certainly agree with his remarks:
A well informed citizenry is the lifeblood of democracy . . . The democratic process cannot function adequately without timely information about the activities of Parliament. A person should have the right of reasonable access to all public information in the possession of governments-
It is only if Canadians have access to information that they are able fully to exercise the other rights, such as freedom to vote, freedom to be candidates and freedom of the press, which we take for granted in Canadian society. We say that this fundamental principle should be recognized in the Constitution, and we regret that it was not accepted by the government in committee.
In commenting upon similar legislation last year at second reading of Bill C-15 of the Conservative government, I recognized, as have the minister and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) today, the valuable contribution which was made by a number of individuals and groups on this important question. This includes Barry Mather, former member of this party who in many ways pioneered in this area. He tabled a bill in 1965, some 16 years ago, and on succeeding occasions, and he was joined in that, and was in fact superseded in that, by the outstanding work of the former member for Peace River, Ged Baldwin. As I said, Ged Baldwin can truly be considered the father, mother and uncle of freedom of information legislation in this country because it was his tireless work which resulted in the review of freedom of information legislation by the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments; and it was his prodding, no doubt, that had a good deal of influence on his own government in bringing forward Bill C-15 in 1979.
I cannot leave this area without giving some recognition to the outstanding work which is being done by a number of very effective lobby groups in this area, persons working entirely on a voluntary basis, such as Access, The National Capital Association, The Civil Liberties Association, and a number of other groups which have spent a great deal of time pursuing this very important objective.
We do not need to look very far in Canadian society to see the need for this legislation and to understand why it is long overdue. I was pleased, for example, to note that the government is proposing the repeal of section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act, a section which has, unfortunately, been abused far too frequently in the past, a sweeping, exclusionary section which permits the minister simply to dictate to the courts that they cannot view particular documents, and at that point the documents are excluded from the court. We saw, for example, the present Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) using that provision with respect to certain documents forwarded to the Laycraft inquiry, and it now appears that there may have been some

January 29, 1981
Access to Information
concern about the use of that section. I am pleased to see that section 41 (2) of the Federal Court Act is to be repealed.
My colleagues in the House will be commenting upon some of the difficulties in obtaining information with respect to defence activities which may adversely affect the population of this country. One need only point to the recent shocking revelations in Gagetown, New Brunswick. 1 can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues will be speaking further on that subject.
There has been a veil of secrecy cast over the activities of the RCMP. I would suggest that one of the reasons for that secrecy and lack of accountability in the past is that there have been violations of the law, and by opening up the activities of the RCMP security service to greater scrutiny we will ensure,
I hope, that never again will the rule of law be eroded in this country and never again will wrongdoing and law-breaking on the part of the RCMP be condoned or accepted.
One need only look at the prison system in this country, which the subcommittee on penitentiaries insisted must become open and accountable; even today it still remains one of the bastions of secrecy in Canadian society. It is still a fact that in order to obtain vital information about what is going on in the penitentiaries, it is necessary to obtain this information, in some cases, through illicit channels. To find out what has happened in the Dorchester Penitentiary, for example, it would have been desirable to receive this information from the minister-and, hopefully, it will be required under the freedom of information legislation. Yet it was necessary to obtain a document through illicit channels which showed that there were serious problems at that institution.
One need only look at the abuse of opinion polls in this country by the present government and, I suspect, by the previous government as well, the right of Canadians to know exactly how this particular information is being collected and what the information is in order that we may all join together in formulating policies based upon the assessment of that information, not just restricting that information to government.
Finally there is the question of the War Measures Act. As was pointed out yesterday by one of my colleagues, we still do not have, over ten years after the event, information on which that decision was based, namely, the decision to sweep away fundamental civil liberties not only of the people of Quebec but of all Canadians. That decision, I suggest history will show, was one of the most shocking abuses of government power which has ever taken place in this country.
There is no question that in Canadian society there is a need to end the pervasive secrecy which exists, and that is the avowed objective of this particular legislation. In addition, there is no question, particularly as we approach that famous year of 1984, that we must ensure that the government does not have sweeping and arbitrary powers to intrude into the private lives of Canadians. That is the avowed objective of the privacy legislation which is being put forward for second reading today. We must recognize the fundamental right of Canadian citizens to prevent the explosion of information,
which is at present taking place in this society and which, in many cases is being abused, from being extended far too widely. That is one of the avowed purposes of this bill, as I said. Big Brother must be kept out of the lives of Canadian citizens. We have seen too many incursions.
The door has already been opened with respect, for example, to abuses of wiretapping under the Official Secrets Act. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) eagerly jumped on the bandwagon of the RCMP when they said they wanted to invade the right of privacy of first-class mail of Canadians. We have been waiting in vain for months and months for the evidence which he promised to bring forward justifying that invasion of the privacy of Canadians, and I suggest that that evidence does not exist. These trends are dangerous, and any legislation which can effectively deal with invasion of privacy will, I hope, assist us in checking them.
We also want to look at certain related areas when we talk about freedom of information and the right to privacy. We must look, for example, at the Official Secrets Act, an act which has been recognized by many as being archaic and repressive. I suggest, in looking at the repeal of that document, that we ignore the recommendations of the McDonald commission on this subject, because if they were to be accepted we would not be very much further ahead than we are now. As I said, we need to repeal the Official Secrets Act, which should be replaced only where necessary by much more restrictive provisions. It is important that the right of access to information be extended to the private sector where the activities of the private sector directly affect the interests of the public. For example, I need point only to the importance of extending this to the private sector where the private sector is engaged in the testing of chemicals in abuse of our environment, and also if the private sector has been involved in tests of products which they then attempt to flog on the Canadian market. Surely we have a right to know the results of those tests. Workers who work in the factories, plants and offices of the private sector have a right to know the conditions under which they are working. That principle must be recognized in any freedom of information legislation which is to be truly comprehensive.
We must look at opening up the processes of government. Surely it is not good enough to say that information which has been obtained is to be extended after the fact. The next great battle in this country will be the battle for sunshine laws to open up the processes of government, to open up the meeting places of government to ensure that Canadians are entitled to watch as those decisions are being made and not be provided with the information only after those decisions have been made.
We in this party take that obligation very seriously. We will be pursuing strong and effective sunshine laws to open up the processes of government at the earliest possible opportunity. That would include the obligation to look very seriously at the actions of the lobbyists who have in many cases pervasive and sweeping influence on the process of government. We want to
January 29, 1981

see what they are saying. We want to know what the bankers' association is saying to the government about the Bank Act. We want to be there when these lobbyists are making their representations to the government and to know exactly what is being said. Let us open up the processes of government by introducing tough, effective sunshine legislation.
Last year at this time when a similar bill was introduced, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) symbolized our approach to the Conservative bill, as it was then, by presenting a rose in a dump truck. Well, the rose is slightly wilted and the dump truck we need is perhaps a bit bigger than it was last year; but the principle is the same. The rose symbolizes our acceptance of the fundamental right of Canadians to information and to privacy, and the dump truck recognizes that there are still some very serious loopholes in both parts of this particular bill.
As I say, we welcome the principles which underlie the bill, but we have a number of serious concerns with it. Naturally we will be elaborating on these concerns when we get to committee, but 1 should like to take this opportunity to elaborate on a number of the more serious concerns. Of course, a number of these concerns were dealt with in the course of the remarks of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.
When we talk about the fundamental right of access to information and the right not to have one's privacy unreasonably interfered with, surely it is not a right which should only be extended to Canadian citizens, for it is all residents of Canada who are affected by the actions of government. For example, I need only point to the question of product testing or environmental testing. How can one possibly suggest that it is only citizens of Canada who are affected by possibly hazardous products, or that it is only citizens of Canada who have the right to a decent, clean environment or at least the knowledge of how that environment may have been affected? We will be proposing that this right should be extended to all residents of Canada and not restricted to citizens of Canada, a right which, incidentally, is extended in the United States and Sweden under freedom of information legislation.
We have a number of other concerns; 1 do not intend to elaborate at any great length on them. 1 acknowledge the assistance of the lobby group, Access, on this question. I should like to highlight some of its recommendations regarding areas where the bill needs improvement. For example, we believe that the right of access should extend specifically to all government institutions. If an institution is to be exempted, it should be specified by the government. We want to ensure that the indexing system adequately deals with the concerns which have been raised by Access and by other individuals and groups in this area. There must be efficient and prompt access to government records. We have some concerns about the time limits contained in this bill. We want to ensure that the poor as well as the rich have access to information, that it is not restricted to the corporate sector. We want to ensure that the fees involved in obtaining access to information are not excessive.
Access to Information
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition raised many concerns which we share about the sweeping scope of the exemption clause. 1 do not intend to repeat his remarks. We associate ourselves with many of those concerns. I would merely like to highlight one of them today, and that is the exemption with respect to product and environmental testing. 1 strongly urge the government to consider very seriously substantially tightening the provisions with respect to product and environmental testing because, as they stand now, they are completely unacceptable. Back in 1976, the kind of information which has been kept from Canadians so far and which, if the provision is to be retained in its present form, may continue to be kept from Canadians, was pointed out. I should like to give a couple of examples. Federal inspectors found ground beef padded out with pork and bags of fertilizer which were as much as 12 pounds underweight. They refused to release the names of these products. Surely Canadians have the right to know this. The reports of our health inspectors who check working conditions in mines to ensure they meet occupational safety standards are not made public. Councils have refused to disclose the names of stores which may be selling contaminated goods. The results of tests done on beer, which perhaps can be obtained in Germany or the United States, are denied to Canadian citizens. The provision with respect to product and environmental testing must be substantially strengthened.
I want to repeat our very serious concerns about the judicial review provisions in this bill. There are two standards of judicial review, not one as there should be. We recognize that the government has had to take a major leap forward in its consciousness in accepting the principle of judicial review. We welcome the acceptance of that principle, but to then in turn water it down when dealing with a number of very fundamental exemptions is unacceptable. There must be the right to full de novo review on the part of the Federal Court. This reasonableness test must be eliminated and there must be an objective opportunity for the Federal Court to examine for itself the documents in question to ensure that these important principles are indeed reflected in the decision of the government.
Other concerns have been raised. The minister referred to certain representations by a number of groups. For example, we share the concerns of the Canadian Historical Society with respect to the archives provisions. I hope the minister will be open to amendments which would reflect their concerns, and that we are not in fact restricting access to information which historians already have available to them.
We share some concerns which have been raised by provincial governments with respect to possible abuses in the section on RCMP data flow. We recognize the importance of making this information available, but we want to examine very carefully whether the wording of the bill is the most effective wording in achieving the objectives which I am sure we all share. Also we have concerns with respect to a number of the provisions on privacy. We believe that the third party access which is proposed is too sweeping. We believe there are some concerns about the elements relating to transborder data flow.

Access to Information
We want to ensure that the possible abuse of social insurance numbers can be dealt with adequately. There are a number of other concerns which we will be outlining in committee.
As I said before, we welcome the principle in this important bill. It is long overdue. But we must go beyond the bill because, if we are to be successful in ensuring full and comprehensive access to information and protection of privacy in Canadian society, ultimately it will require the full co-operation of those officials who are charged with the implementation of these provisions. It will be the next great step in this process.
I conclude by urging the government to move quickly on this bill and to bring it speedily to committee where we will propose a number of substantial amendments. I hope we will have a bill of which all Canadians can be proud.


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am also very glad to be able to participate in this debate. Because of my time commitments I find that I cannot stay as long as 1 would like or make as many of the points I would wish. But I cannot resist taking a few moments at the beginning of my remarks to congratulate my colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox), for this major piece of legislation. I have no doubt that this legislation will stand as the major achievement of this Parliament, or certainly one of them, apart from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms about which I will speak in a moment.
It has not been easy to bring about this legislation, since one is dealing with a tradition where secrecy tended to be overused. I am glad that from the beginning of this government's term a decision was made that the policy of this legislation would be complied with and that ministers have been expected to operate as if this law was in force. It is acknowledged by the government and those members of the previous Liberal government that there will be less withholding of information from the public than before. For the first time there will be the right, rather than the discretion which existed in the past on the part of the government, to information.
I must say that as Solicitor General I welcome this legislation as much as any other minister, even though in my own ministry there are many matters which will be covered by the confidentiality provisions of the measure which will not be made public. That will continue. In spite of that, there will be, in effect, a second opinion with regard to the decisions the Solicitor General must make to withhold information on the legitimate grounds which are provided in the act. Under the present system, when I stand in my place, write to a citizen or answer a reporter and say that I cannot comment on something or cannot release information, my decision cannot be challenged. But it can be challenged when this legislation is in place.
I think it is great progress that every single piece of paper, every document which belongs to the Government of Canada-to the people of Canada-will be subject to review. All of
these documents will not be released; there are exemptions, exceptions and tests provided for in the act. But a minister, such as myself, who must withhold information will see that information go through two stages of review, the commissioner and the courts, to determine by the tests provided for in the legislation whether withholding is justified. I say candidly that I welcome that. I am looking forward to being able to tell a citizen, "I do not think I can give you this information" or "I cannot tell you why this decision was made about you", and then tell them that they do not have to take my word for it. Under this legislation 1 will be able to say, "You are entitled to go to the Information Commissioner and you are entitled to appeal to the courts and have the decision reviewed." As I say,
I take very great comfort from that.
I do not know if hon. members are aware, but as Solicitor General of Canada I receive 65 per cent of all requests made to the government concerning information about an individual. In most cases, the overwhelming majority, information can be provided straight out. But from the time this legislation is enacted, people would not have to take my word for it.
The hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) referred to the nature of judicial review. It is that subject about which I particularly wanted to speak. The two of us had an exchange, in which other members participated, before the joint committee. We were dealing with the matter of whether our charter of rights and freedoms ought to contain the absolute right for a court to review a decision made by a minister to withhold information and for the court to substitute its decision for the decision made by a minister.
That is not the test provided for in some of the very fundamental sections dealing with international relations and defence. There is judicial review provided for in those areas but it takes the following form, as I understand it. The court will look at the decision made by the minister. The information which the minister has decided to withhold will be considered. The court will ask, not what it would have done if it had been the minister, but whether the minister's decision is a reasonable one and does the material fit within the class provided for in the statute. I wish to argue that the test which the government has put forward in this area is a very much better one than a completely open review in which a court would have the right to substitute its judgment and decide that the document in question should be made public.
I think the government's test is a better one, which is evident when one considers the consequences of a court substituting, in a particular case, its decision for that of a minister. As I understand it, this is what the opposition will be saying; The judge will say that the minister may have acted reasonably but he does not agree with that decision. Therefore, in spite of the fact that the minister was acting reasonably, that particular piece of information should be made public.
Let us take a hypothetical case. Suppose we are talking about a document which, if disclosed, would seriously damage relations between Canada and a foreign country. For example, say the foreign country confided in us, or sought our advice or support for some matter of great importance to the foreign
January 29, 1981

country. They send us a document and in levelling with us tell us all the political consequences. They tell us how various interest groups in the country feel about the particular issue. They try to convince us to agree with them. Let us say this is the document in question, or a document prepared by our officials relating to that circumstance, commenting on it or analysing it; I think a minister is in a good position to make a decision about whether or not the release of such a document will damage relations between the two countries, perhaps better than a judge. In fact, I would have to say that I think a minister could make that decision better than a judge. I also think the minister should take the responsibility for the decision in the same way the judge would.
Suppose we had the test which some members opposite argue should be in place, and the judge decides in that hypothetical case that he does not think the release of the document would damage relations between Canada and another country and he orders its release. Suppose the release of that document does damage these relations. Who is responsible for that? How can the situation be rectified? This is why 1 resisted the approach which would allow a judge to substitute his decision for that of a minister when I appeared before the joint committee on behalf of the government.
With respect to the question of reasonableness, there is a provision for judicial review. That review is directed to the question of how reasonable the minister was in making the decision he made. So the special kind of political decisions which ministers are supposed to make will remain with the minister, while the legal question of whether the decision was reasonable or whether the information was within the prescribed category is left with the court. I view this measure as great progress. As I indicated, it will assist me in making decisions which will be perceived to be well founded and more acceptable to those who will be affected by them. I very much welcome this new legislation.
1 would like to point out two other excellent features of this legislation which deserve a tremendous amount of recognition and support. One is that an auditing process will continue within the Government of Canada in which officials will have access to all documents within government. Independent officials, on their own initiative, will be able to have access without their requests being triggered by public requests for information, although that may also happen. These officials can come and look through our files which we claim are police files. They can make sure that there are not documents being put in there to receive the benefit of the exception which applies to them. I think that is a very valuable feature of this legislation from the citizen's viewpoint. We will not be able to use special banks for police information and other secure information as a way of hiding things which we want to keep citizens from finding out. This change is a very valuable part of the legislation.
The other change in this legislation which is very valuable is that no matter how protected a document is or how justified
Access to Information
the government may be on valid grounds for withholding the document, if it discloses any wrongdoing then it is the responsibility of the courts or the commissioner to bring that wrongdoing to the attention of the proper authorities. So not only does this legislation provide for the giving of information to citizens, but even in instances where it is determined that the withholding of information is justified if wrongdoing is revealed, it cannot be withheld under the security classification which applies to the document as a whole.
Finally, I would like to say a word in support of the passing of section 41 which in the past has permitted a minister, by fiat in effect, to withhold any document or information from a court in any proceeding. This provision is being abandoned by the government. It is perhaps the last vestige of the ancient monarchial tradition where it was not the citizens who gave but the monarch who gave. The removal of this provision is an important step forward.
I am looking forward to living with the requirement of having to defend a decision in response to a request or submission why a particular piece of information or document should be withheld and to leaving the decision with the courts. I do not know how quickly this bill will be enacted, but I know hon. members will have many ideas for improving the legislation. The minister indicated his willingness to hear good ideas and suggestions for improvement, that he is not wedded to all the language or all the ideas in the legislation.
I do hope that, in an attempt to make something perfect, we do not become involved in arguments over relatively trivial matters and thereby postpone the enactment of this legislation.
I doubt if any hon. member can stand up and say that as it is written this bill should not be passed, that it does not represent important progress or that it is not worth having. On the contrary, 1 believe that all of us welcome this legislation. Recognizing the priorities and the business to which this Parliament ought to turn its attention, 1 hope hon. members will, at a certain point, settle for something which, 1 submit, is very good and put into effect this legislation which, to end as I began, the Solicitor General of Canada would very much welcome.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by commenting on one remark made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) just a few minutes ago, that no member of this House could say that this bill should not be passed. 1 agree with the Solicitor General. 1 do not think that any member of the House would say that this bill should not be passed. However, as some hon. members would say, when the bill is finally dealt with, I hope it is in considerably different form from what it is today in terms of the exemptions, the operation of the committee which is proposed and in other areas.
The fact that House leaders of all three parties have agreed that Bill C-43 is of such importance that the bill should pass in one day and that we would eliminate private members' hour for one day in order that the matter may be considered is an indication of the importance which we attach to this piece of

January 29, 1981
Access to Information
legislation. I merely wanted to make sure that nothing flowed out of the remarks made by the Solicitor General.
It is not the intention of my party to vote against this bill at the end of this day. In fact, it is our intention to send the bill to committee quickly because there are some obvious deficiencies which have been pointed out to the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), and which will be pointed out by other speakers in the course of this debate.
This fundamental piece of legislation strikes right at the heart of ministerial responsibility. When the Secretary of State introduced Bill C-43 into the House and held his press conference, I had occasion to comment on the bill, and on first blush I joined with other observers in saying that I was absolutely delighted with the bill. I thank the minister for his kindnesses to me, but 1 must say that on close reading of that bill those thoughts have become a bit sour. If I were asked to make a comment today, I would have to say that the bill is a giant leap forward for a Liberal government, but not quite the leap that I thought it was when I first looked at the bill, and indeed which other observers thought it was on first examination.
In fact, when I first examined the bill I came to a surprising conclusion because I had thought that the struggles in which 1 first participated during the period of time when, as the then government House leader, 1 had the pleasure of piloting the first freedom of information bill through the House at second reading had won acceptance within the bureaucracy and that this work was not in vain. As I say, when I saw that a majority of the clauses were left untouched, I was happy to congratulate the minister. But I was surprised, quite frankly, when I first ventured into this legislation. I do not believe that I am speaking out of school if I say to the minister-because he has probably run into similar situations-that 1 was surprised at the number of roadblocks put up by right thinking public servants who were used to dealing with things in a particular way to the concept of so dramatically changing the idea of openness which we were discussing. These were the same public servants who had contributed to the Roberts green paper. What I found was that there was a willingness to release more information, but not a willingness to lose control over what might be released.
Among the plaudits which should be extended today, I have to say that as the then president of the privy council responsible for introducing freedom of information legislation, I do not believe our bill would have gone through the various stages known to the minister in cabinet and within the public service, and ultimately to the floor of this House of Commons, if our government had not had the commitment of the then prime minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, to the concept of freedom of information.
At the time we recognized that even our bill, which in modesty I believe, as the discussions go on, will prove to be the bill toward which the Secretary of State should move in terms of some of the exemptions and other clauses, broke new ground. At the outset, what we were talking about then was not intended to be the last word in the freedom of information
legislation, but actually the first word. It was a new concept in terms of government operations. It is something to which the public service, ministers, parliamentarians and others would have to become accustomed. Parliament should be given a free rein in terms of its work in the committee to discuss the terms of the bill. The government ought not to tramp hard in its desire to maintain the words or the breadth of the exemptions if a good case can be made for changing them, subject to the best interests of the country. That was the attitude with which the matter was pursued by our government.
I regret to say this to the minister-and I say it in a most positive way-but upon reviewing Bill C-43, it is clear to me that really nothing has been gained. It is true that the bill has some technical improvements, and they were listed by the Leader of the Opposition. In so far as improving on the breadth of the exemptions, for example, the trail that we hacked out has been paved with the same old tar by the same old road gang. The cabinet has added a high profile improvement every few pages, all the while rather gutting the important clauses in the bill.
There is nothing that is really of value that can be released that would not happily have been surrendered under the old regime. Those clauses exempting information from release have been expanded to such a degree that the bill, I must say in kindness at least at this point-and I hope it will not be so when it comes back to the House for third reading-has to be described as an organized giant leap backwards. I should say that openly to the minister because I think he has become subject to the tradition of his party and perhaps the traditions within the Canadian government other than those at the political level. While those improvements that 1 am prepared to acknowledge are noteworthy, I think we will have to examine some of the others that have been detailed by other speakers.
I want to say something about a couple of other matters now. I think all of us are blinded by the government's seeming conversion, on the face of it, to the concept of judicial review. The idea of putting this in a freedom of information bill is certainly new. 1 recall that in 1979 when I brough forward Bill C-15, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), who had been the minister for federal-provincial relations in the previous government, spoke as opposition critic. He took great issue with the idea of judicial review, saying that ministers must ultimately be responsible. I think he was putting forth very forcefully what has been the traditional line of a party that has been most conservative on the subject of freedom of information. I hope hon. members opposite will not consider themselves blasphemed if I use that term; I use it with a small "c" to protect their honour and my own.
In Bill C-43 the minister has brought forth a form of judicial review. I do not quarrel now with the details of judicial review as we will deal with that in committee, but it is balanced, indeed counterbalanced, by a broadening of the exemptions to such an extent that 1 believe, when putting
January 29, 1981

traditional review into operation, the concept will not be as fully utilized as it would have been under Bill C-15. We will want to look at this in committee.
There has been talk about the exemptions. 1 shall not bother with the specific aspects of some of them because in the 20-minute time limit that we have imposed there is not time to do so. Whatever has been accomplished by inserting the concept of judicial review has been limited, narrowed and diminished as a result of the broadening of the exemptions in the bill. When we examine the bill clause by clause I think we shall have to review that aspect very carefully.
This becomes more worrisome when considered in conjunction with clause 51 of the bill. In Bill C-15 the court was required to rule whether the government was entitled to refuse to disclose a record. That was a straightforward direction and it is retained in Bill C-43 for the less important exemptions. But if the grounds for refusing disclosures are related to federal-provincial affairs, international affairs, defence, special investigative bodies relating to law enforcement or the financial interests of Canada, the judge must be satisfied not only with respect to that test but must be satisfied that the refusal to release was done not on reasonable grounds. In other words, not only have the exemption categories been greatly enlarged; the question before the court is not only whether they apply but whether it is reasonable to think that they might apply. I think this is the best example of the broadening of those exemptions and it is the only example I want to deal with now because of the time limitation. Committee members will find as they go through each of those exemptions that there are words that fudge, make woolly or make vague the specific aspects of exemptions.
Whether we sit to the right of Mr. Speaker or to the left of Mr. Speaker, if we honestly believe in the principle that everything is "releaseable" except that which is specifically exempted, then I think the work of the committee will have to concentrate on those exemptions and attempt to remove the woolliness. This is necessary so that what the Solicitor General wanted to say about the exemptions will come true; that if there is a refusal, the case before the information commissioner and, ultimately, the court will be clear, and there will not be the necessity for the so-called Philadelphia lawyer to advise a suppliant for information from a government or a department as to exactly what those words mean. Some people call them "weasel words". That is a vulgar expression but for the moment I will adopt it. If 1 may say so, I think in using that kind of word the Secretary of State has perhaps succumbed to the blandishments of certain people in the public service. He knows who they are because he has to deal with them, as I did.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, that is the issue. I do not suggest that those who make such blandishments act in bad faith. Indeed, I believe they act in good faith. But 1 believe the minister has succumbed, perhaps aided and abetted by the fact that there has not traditionally been within the Liberal party that desire for openness that I found when I took the matter to my cabinet colleagues.
Access to Information
I have just one final matter to raise, Mr. Speaker, because we will be dealing with all of this at length in committee, and that is with respect to the parliamentary committee. The requirement is dropped that within three years of the coming into force of the act a committee of the House must undertake a comprehensive review of the act and produce a report. Oddly enough, section 72 requires the committee to conduct a permanent review of the act and 25(2) requires the committee to review all acts except Bill C-43 within three years. 1 do not know why that occurred but there may be an explanation for it.
The cumulative effect is that the freedom of information committee will have a continuing reference but instead of a stipulation that the entire scheme be reviewed, only other acts must be reviewed within that short period. At the same time all government institutions will produce yearly reports on the act. I am worried that the effect and intent could be to put the committee in the position of reacting to a yearly barrage of criticism on the operation of the act from inside the public service.
It is in that sense that I want to have the parliamentary committee aspect reviewed. 1 am happy that the government has taken steps to include it; it was a step in our Bill C-15. 1 worry about the reason for the change. In the drafting of Bill C-15 I wanted to have that parliamentary committee not only as the place of criticism of the operation of freedom of information, but of the way in which the whole program could be reviewed by its proponents and supporters, not just its detractors. I am concerned that may not happen.
I look forward to working with the Secretary of State, his officials and other members of this House of Commons who will be dealing with this statute. I hope the work will be comprehensive and that the committee will allow the broadest number of witnesses to come.
Tribute has been paid to Access. There have been other organizations as well which deserve credit. When we were involved in the preparation of legislation as a government, I suppose, like everything else, all of us wanted to see our bill improved by the next. That is the attitude with which 1 approach the work and I look forward to the end of the day when this bill will be referred to the appropriate standing committee of the House.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) mentioned that the bill would be referred to a committee at the end of the day which brings to mind that I discussed the matter with the House leader of the official opposition and with the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) who is representing the New Democratic Party on this issue. There is unanimous agreement to make a request that the bill be referred not to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture but rather to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

January 29, 1981
Access to Information
Therefore, I ask for the unanimous consent of this House that the order of reference be modified and that there be reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby has just left the chamber for a minute. However, 1 had a discussion with him about this point. He is agreeable, I am agreeable and we are agreeable to the request. Therefore, 1 think it appropriate to make a House order to that effect.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Hon. members have heard the request of the Secretary of State. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their applause and I hope I will get a little more when 1 am finished.
I begin on an agreeable note and I hope my remarks will also be agreeable. However, 1 must say I was somewhat surprised at the tone of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). While he did approve of the principle of the bill, it seemed to me he was somewhat overly critical of its substance. I found that a little surprising coming from a leader of a party who is opposed to the entrenchment of a charter of human rights and freedoms in the Canadian Constitution. On the other hand, I thought the remarks made by the House leader for the Progressive Conservative Party were much more constructive and much less strident. I will try to put my remarks in that category as well.
I am participating in this debate today not as an expert in law but as an ordinary citizen. 1 am concerned that big government, big corporations and big unions can withhold information from the average individual which may affect their very livelihood and in some cases their very lives. It is important that we, in a free society, have laws which prevent that kind of insidious use of information which may be a threat to a person's ability to earn a living and in some instances even a threat to his life.
As a member of Parliament I have sometimes wondered whether, in the performance of my duties, I have been given all the necessary information that I have asked for and to which I believe 1 have a right. There is a tendency in big government for some people to withhold information which they think may not be convenient for them to release. I think that is wrong. We must have protection in law for legislators and representatives of the people to have full access to any information they need in the performance of their duties. With the coming into force of this bill, which I hope will be relatively soon, at least now there will be redress if access is denied.
I am pleased the parties have agreed to have a short debate with time limitation on speeches so we can send this bill to committee. 1 hope that we will see more of this party co-operation with agreement to limit the amount of verbiage which
pass as speeches in this chamber. It seems to me that if someone cannot express themselves in 20 minutes, they should review what it is they want to say and find out if anyone is going to listen. I look forward to the day when all speeches in this chamber, with the exception of major speeches by party leaders, are limited to 20 minutes.
This bill is another step in the desire to enhance and protect personal freedom in our nation. In a world of increasing complexity, both information and the power to withhold it are potent weapons. Because we have agreed that information may be gathered surreptitiously under certain circumstances, it is more and more urgent to have written law to protect precious individual rights, which all too often can be arbitrarily suppressed for the common good by some nameless but powerful individual or group whose anonymity made them immune not only to prosecution but also to appeal.
I have some reservations about the bill, as I have about almost every bill, but one must assess one's reservations or the weaknesses one sees in a bill, with the over-all benefit of the bill itself.
First, I want to deal very briefly with clause 11(4). This clause gives the head of a department the authority to require a monetary deposit before a search is started for the production of a record. I can understand the reason for that. In fact, l agree that there should be some incentive for people not to make frivolous requests or to expect that very costly requests are going to be carried out without any onus on the individual making the request. I would hope that in the regulations to this bill there will be some circumvention of the power of heads of departments to require deposits that are so big as to be impossible for individuals to make. In other words, I hope that heads of departments will not be allowed to use that section of the bill as an excuse not to provide information or to fulfil requests for information.
Second, clause 22 also gives me concern. I can understand the need for exemptions. However, it might well serve governments better to release the kind of information referred to in clause 22 than to keep it secret, or attempt to keep it secret, only to have it leaked in a brown envelope. Unless there is a mechanism for preventing that kind of leak which is designed usually to embarrass a government, 1 feel that it would be in the best interests of the government to release it. So I wonder about that clause as well.
Third, clause 26 is the clause on severability. My concern with that clause is pretty much the same as with the clause requiring a deposit. I hope that regulations will be devised to prevent officials who wish to withhold certain information, which may not be of the type or kind specified in the exemptions under this bill, from severing the information requested. I know that is not the purpose of this clause. I hope the regulation will make the purpose abundantly clear and circumscribe any attempt to use clause 26 to prevent release of the information.
January 29, 1981

Clause 28, the transitional provision in the bill, gives me concern as well. I am not sure of the purpose of that clause or what it means; that is why I am concerned about it. I suppose it falls into my general concern about the way in which legislation is written. I hope that one day in this country we will have in our legal drafting department some draftsman who can speak at least one of the official languages of this nation.
1 wish to comment on a few more clauses. I want to refer to clause 37(2) which is a very powerful clause promoting exactly what the bill intends to do. I quote that clause:
Notwithstanding any other act of Parliament or any privilege under the law of evidence, the information commissioner may, during the investigation of any complaint under this act, examine any record under the control of a government institution, and no such record may be withheld from the commissioner on any grounds.
That is a very good clause. It gives the commission the power needed to enforce the act. It is a very positive clause.
1 am pleased that the bill provides for the commissioner to make reports to Parliament. Not only must he make annual reports, but he can make special reports if he so chooses. However, 1 do have one concern. I would like to see it provided that the reports of the commissioner stand as a permanent reference to a committee of this House or a joint committee of both Houses. It could be the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs or the committee referred to in the bill which will be established to review the functioning of the act. I believe it is clause 73 which establishes the special committee or committees to review the act and make recommendations. That, of course, will be done by members of Parliament.
Today we have heard a lot about what this bill does not do. It is important to put on record what it does. I want to talk for a minute or two about the contents of the bill. The bill would provide a right of access to information in government records "in accordance with the principle that government information should be available to the public, that necessary exemptions to the right of access should be limited and specific, and that decisions on the disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government".
The second part of the bill dealing with personal information in government files would reaffirm the right of individuals to see and amend personal information and broaden that category to include all personal information, not only personal information used for decision-making purposes.
As promised in the Speech from the Throne, the bill would abolish section 41 of the Federal Court Act so that the government would no longer have the absolute right to withhold information from the courts during any litigation. A minister's objections to disclosure on public interest grounds would be subject to review by a court. The court would have access to the information at issue and the right to decide whether that information should be introduced as evidence. There are a number of exemptions. They are limited, defined and specific.
Access to Information
Another provision in the bill which is absolutely essential to protect individual rights is the third party notice. The bill would establish a third party notice procedure with respect to information provided to the government by unions, businesses and other commercial enterprises. It would require that such persons or organizations be notified when information that could adversely affect their interests is to be released, allow them to make representations as to why the information should not be released, and to appeal a decision to release it. There is a two-layer appeal system provided in the bill, the appeal to the commissioner and, if the individual is not satisfied with that decision, there is a judicial review before the Federal Court.
In closing, I congratulate the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) on introducing this bill. I hope it will have the deliberate but not delaying scrutiny in committee that it deserves and will soon be entered into the statute books of Canada as the law of the land.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, for each of us in the House of Commons who has been involved in this issue of privacy and freedom of information over the course of the years, today has to be considered a happy day. Clearly on our side of the House there are concerns about aspects of the bill, both as it relates to privacy and to freedom of information.
We will be supporting this measure. We will be moving to get it before committee as quickly as possible and will be making proposals in committee and in the House designed to make this a better bill for all Canadians. 1 think I would be doing an injustice to all of those involved in these issues over the years if I did not say that the bill before the House today represents a significant step in the right direction.
Credit has been paid to Gerald Baldwin, our former colleague, who is well known as the father of freedom of information in Canada. Perhaps I would broaden that to refer to the committee of which he was the co-chairman and of which I am co-chairman at the present time, the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. It went on record a number of years ago as being in favour of the concept of freedom of information and pressing the government to take the action it is now taking today. It is important that we recognize the work being done by so many members to promote action in these two areas.
It might be useful at the outset of my remarks to review briefly some of the philosophy behind this legislation and something of the history behind it. During the course of time I have been here, the last eight years, it became apparent to me that the government's attitude toward control of information has been that if it has information related to its activities, as to how decisions are made which affect the day to day lives of Canadians or how Canadians' tax dollars are to be spent, that information is the property of the government. The onus is put upon the average Canadian to justify having access to that information. If governments want information about the private lives of individuals, they maintain the right to compel that
6704

January 29, 1981
Access to Information
information on pain of penalty of law if the individual chooses not to give it.
It was felt necessary by members on this side, who believe that the role of the state should be limited and the state should be the servant of the people and not its master, to turn that onus around. Control over information is not a right of the government. That information is not the property of the state but of the people of Canada.
In those instances where the government feels there is a compelling reason why information should be suppressed, the onus should be upon the government to justify taking that action. In those instances where the government feels it is necessary to compel information from individuals, the onus should be put upon the government to justify compelling release of that information, not put upon the individual to justify his reluctance to give it. This is why we felt it was important to bring in integrated legislation which would deal with both aspects of this matter, freedom of information and privacy.
It has been said in the past that in some ways legislation on privacy and on freedom of information are somehow in contradiction with one another, but that is not so. The two concepts are different sides of the same coin. The real issue here is the control of information. Who owns information, who controls it? Does it belong to the state or does it belong to the people? That is why the first bill of the Clark government, introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), was a bill which would have brought forward the concept of freedom of information.
In conjunction with my colleague, Senator Jacques Flynn, the then minister of justice, I was working on a complimentary bill on the issue of privacy which would be passed separately by this House but which upon passage would interlock and integrate those two principles; it would ensure, for example, that the mechanisms of access to one's own file would be the same as those used for files about how the government was spending your money, or how decisions are made. The exemptions would as much as possible be consistent so we would not run into the situation where public servants were put in the position of having to choose between, on the one hand, penalties for withholding information, and on the other hand penalties for giving out information to which they felt the public should be entitled. We felt it was essential that we should eliminate or at least reduce the possibility of conflict and try to have as coherent a package as possible, recognizing the philosophy that information belongs not to the state but to the people of Canada.
As I have mentioned, my colleagues who have spoken before me have given their evaluations of the government's bill, and particularly of the freedom of information section. They have pointed out at least four areas where Bill C-43 is weaker than the legislation proposed by our government.
First, it is apparent that the government's legislation will make it harder for interested individuals to discover what
documents actually exist. Clause 5(3) implies that if information appears to be exempt from release, it does not have to be even listed on information bulletins.
Second, these exemption categories, particularly in the areas of international affairs and defence, law enforcement and investigations and economic interests of Canada, appear to go much further than the Clark government's bill to protect information from release to the people of Canada.
Third, the powers, status and pay of the information commissioner appear to have been considerably eroded.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, it does not appear that the additional power given to the courts will come close to promoting the degree of openness that ought to be expected in this bill. This is largely the result of the fact that when a judge decides on the appropriateness of withholding information or documents in certain categories, he cannot determine whether the department head is entitled to withhold it, but merely if he had "reasonable grounds for doing so". For my purposes I would like to shift the focus of the debate from the freedom of information section of Bill C-43 to the privacy section of the bill.
Hon. members will remember that I introduced a similar private member's bill earlier last year which was the final draft of the bill prepared by Senator Flynn and myself for introduction under the Conservative government. I am pleased, obviously, to see that the substance of that bill has been incorporated in the government's legislation which has come forward, and I am delighted by the fact that, while there has been retreat on some of the important areas of the bill, by and large the substance has been incorporated in this legislation.
In fact, the timing of this debate could not have come at a more appropriate moment. Parliament is currently embroiled in an historic conflict over the type of rights that ought to be entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. The current government has endlessly argued that a complete and fundamental bill of rights ought to be included in any constitutional amendments we send over to Britain. Yet, Mr. Speaker, shockingly, one of the most basic of human rights has been left out of the government's charter of rights, and that is the right to privacy.
That right has an ancient history both in the west and in the history of man throughout the world. On this continent the right to privacy, for example, dates back to the first, third, fourth, fifth and ninth amendments of the constitution of the United States. Judge Thomas Cooley, in his influential treatise on torts, described privacy as the inalienable and natural "right to be let alone". Almost 100 years later the Younger committee redefined the concept as the right of "freedom from intrusion upon oneself, one's home, family and relationships". In the western democracies the right to privacy was born out of the Enlightenment's suspicion of the state. To paraphrase Locke, the democratic state became the sum total of the persons comprising society. In this sense the state was established to serve society, a group of individuals who led their own private lives.
January 29, 1981

In terms of the history of man the need for personal privacy is a universal quest in the human experience. According to I.C. Velecky, evidence of this fact can be found in the social conditions of ancient Greece and was manifested in the customs and communal life of primitive tribes.
The amount of privacy each one of us wants or needs varies from one person to another, but every one of us requires at least a modicum of privacy if we are to protect our very humanity. It is not because we have some evil to hide from detection, but because each one of us needs to keep part of our life private if we are to maintain our dignity and pride. Clearly the historical root of the right to privacy can be said to be inalienable and natural.
In Canada there has been legislation in this field over the last several years. For example, in 1974 there was the legislation which gave control over electronic surveillance, and in March, 1978, part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act was proclaimed. 1 must stress that part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act was totally inadequate. Indeed, even though it provided for the publishing of an index of federal government data banks which would give Canadians some indication of which government departments held information about them, the government made a conscious decision not to publicize that right because it did not want to be overburdened by people seeking to exercise those rights. What could be a more devastating criticism of the government's commitment to the right of privacy than the fact that it wanted to leave it largely unmentioned?
My party has put forward an amendment to the government's constitutional package to enshrine the right to privacy in the bill of rights. Freedom from unreasonable interference in privacy, family, home and correspondence is the very least people demand that the state provide Canadians. Despite the government's perceived commitment to privacy, members opposite voted down our amendment, striking a blow at the very heart of our Canadian traditions. Government was created by the people to serve the people. It was not created, as members often seem to feel, to give the state the powers to interfere with people's lives.
The reasons it is essential we have legislation on privacy have been obvious to anyone living in modern society. As the needs of society for information about the individual have increased, the threat to privacy has increased commensurately. Indeed, in a survey done by the Department of Communications, 52 per cent of the respondents felt that computers were reducing people to just numbers; 69 per cent felt that computers caused errors because they do not take human factors into account; 37 per cent felt that computers threatened personal privacy; and 52 per cent felt that computers caused violation of confidentiality. This bill goes some distance along the way toward addressing some of the concerns which were left unaddressed by part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
One of the very essential areas which is not covered in this legislation is the public concern, and a very justified public concern, about the development which has been taking place in the use of the social insurance number, moving it toward
Access to Information
becoming a universal identification number. The Clark government, as part of the legislation which we drew up, had a proposal to roll back the use of the social insurance number to six purposes for which it was basically designed. One of those instances, which would be the Canada student loans provision, would be a sunset law over the course of three years, and after that time the government would not be able to insist upon it in that area.
We believe it is essential that the federal government act now to show leadership in the whole field of privacy. We do not believe it was adequate for the government and for the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) to take the action of striking that provision from our bill, because the evidence is there today that a real and grave threat to the privacy of Canadians exists in the case of abuse of the social insurance number, and that it is essential that the federal government should show leadership, acting in this area, demonstrating that it is prepared to restrict its use of social insurance numbers. Instead, what it has done is simply broaden the study which we had commissioned into the use of social insurance numbers at the provincial level and among the private sector, and to ask the privacy commissioner to look at the federal government as well. We believe that is totally inadequate.
It is interesting to note that even one of the most compelling arguments in favour of social insurance numbers has been its very credibility; that it is believed there is only one social insurance number per customer. Yet in testimony before the McDonald inquiry it was revealed by one RCMP officer that 50 per cent of all cases of false pretences in one detachment he was policing made use of social insurance number cards.
The lack of security surrounding the social insurance number was illustrated recently by the case of the Calgary man who obtained 109 social insurance numbers to enable him to collect 59 UIC claims and a monthly income of $33,000. Similarly, two chaps from Montreal used 60 social insurance cards over a period of two months to collect $32,867 from the UIC. Then there was the case of the Winnipeg man who secured 25 social insurance cards and proceeded to collect $92,000 over four and a half years.
Members on this side of the House applaud initiative, but this is not the sort of initiative we believe the government should be condoning or should be putting programs in place to foster. Yet the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has cautioned Canadians that it is essential that social insurance numbers be used even more in the future than they have been in the past. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that my time is rapidly running out.
In wrapping up my remarks let me say that we support the government's legislation which is going forward today. We believe that it should be considered in committee and that it should be considered closely. Neither the legislation which we proposed last year nor the legislation which is before the House today should go without improvement. Both of them deserve close scrutiny and the attention of all members of

Access to Information
Parliament. We believe that this is an important step forward. We will be calling upon the government to show flexibility before the committee in listening to Canadians and be prepared to make improvements to this legislation so that we will ensure once and for all that the right of Canadians to control information about themselves and about how government is affecting their lives and spending their money belongs to them and should not be under the sole jurisdiction of the state.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in this matter will be short. I trust, as a matter of fact 1 am relatively certain, that I will be able to put those particular points of view across in the 20 minutes allotted to me and thus will be able to demonstrate, as have colleagues on both sides of the House, that the particular agreement which we have been able to reach in this debate to reduce our speeches to 20 minutes as opposed to 40 minutes is an exceptionally good idea, a great step forward, indeed almost a great leap forward, as the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) originally described the bill, a description which he later retracted.
At least the method of dealing with this bill is a great leap forward, and I am sure even he agrees with me on that. I hope that we will all be able to agree from time to time, and I hope lots of times, on dealing with other debates in the same manner. It is an enlightened approach which we have taken and this is something on which we should be complimenting all our House leaders and for which we should be pressing our caucuses.


Walter David Baker: It all depends on the substance of the legislation.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) spoke of onuses of proof and the fact that in his opinion the onus of proof should be on the government with respect to those items which they wanted not to release to the public view. On its face I have to say that I agree with the hon. member. I think that he is putting forward a wise position, but I am a little concerned with respect to some of the presumptions which appear to underlie his concept in the way in which he put it forward.
1 have sat in this chamber since 1974 and many of my colleagues have been here even longer than that. Those who have sat on the government benches have come to the realization that when colleagues from the other side of the House speak of what people's rights are, they seem somehow to make the distinction between a government member, whom they judge does not speak for the people, and themselves, whom they judge do speak for the people.
Perhaps I have an old-fashioned idea of what this place should be, but I believe the presumption should be that all members in this place, including hon. members who have been elevated to the ministry, speak for the people, and that the opposition has no particular claim to speak for the people over that which we are able to exercise from this side of the House and on these benches. So long as we can all agree on that
presumption, 1 concur with the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe that the onus be on the party presuming to withhold the documents from public view.
However, I do not share his view that the method to be used in determining whether a document is being fairly or unfairly held is one that should be given over to the courts. I happen to believe that the method which has been struck upon in Bill C-43 is the appropriate and proper method because, in my view, it takes from the courts a job which 1 am sure any judicial appointee in this country would not want to have. It seems to me, from my practice of law and from what 1 have heard in the Hosue, that the judges on our benches are jealously protecting the concept of the division and the distinction between the judiciary and the legislative branch. If we are going to put the judges of this land in the position of being asked to make political decisions-because that is exactly what we would be asking them to do-then how can they stand up and claim to be separate from this place?
The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) earlier spoke of the particular problem in which any judge would find himself in terms of having overturned a political decision on some item relating to external affairs and relations between countries and ourselves, a political decision made on behalf of the minister. In my view, the same sort of thing applies to any other minister in the government. Once a political decision is taken, it is reasonable and fair that a commissioner in the first instance, and a court thereafter, make the determination as to whether or not the ministerial discretion or the ministerial decision-making power was exercised in a fair and reasonable manner. If it were not, I challenge any member of the House to find in himself or in any minister of the Crown sufficient political clout to withstand the kind of public pressure, and political pressure from this House itself, which would be brought to bear on a person who challenged the finding of, first, the commissioner and then the court that the decision to withhold a document was unreasonable. I cannot believe that anyone would withstand that kind of pressure, and I think that that is the kind of pressure that is built into this this bill. It puts the political decision-making power squarely where it belongs, namely, on the cabinet, and it withholds it from the judges of our land who, I am satisfied, would be running as fast as they could from that kind of power. 1 am satisfied they do not want it.
In terms of the indeces of private citizens which currently exist in Canada, I was interested as well in the comments made by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe. I share with him many of the concerns which he expressed in terms of the ability of an individual citizen to have access to those banks of information which are continuously being increased on us all. We all want to have access to information, if for no other reason than to correct the faults which many of us find are there. I cannot say specifically that I heard that hon. member complain about funds being used by the government to publicize a particular act-I would not say that without having first researched it, something which 1 have not had a chance to do-but it is passing strange to find that at
January 29, 1981

least his party would challenge and chastise the government, for using public funds to publicize its position. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, were I allowed to use stronger language, I would be able to describe more aptly what they have done in terms of commenting on what this government has done with public funds to publicize a particular act of the government, a bill, a position or a point of view that was put forward.
But when it comes to something which they would like to have publicized, the fact that public funds were not used for the purpose, of course, is wrong too. So we find ourselves in the strange position of being dammed if we do and dammed if we don't, and only the party over there can do the damming.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: You are getting to them, Bob.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I do not know whether I am getting to them. 1 am starting to hear some life on the other side. It is good to know they are listening. There are occasions when one's words fall either on deaf ears or the ears of those who do not want to hear. But today someone is listening, and I express my appreciation to hon. members across the way.
The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe made reference to social insurance numbers. There are many members on both sides of the House who share his comments and thoughts with respect to the ever-increasing use of social insurance numbers. As a matter of fact, some of my colleagues and I have absolutely refused to provide our social insurance numbers when we felt that it was an unreasonable and unfair request. This practice has crept in. Perhaps we should be exercising some leadership in an attempt to stop it.
The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe formed part of a government which started a review on how those numbers were being used. He should know-and indeed he must know-that the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien) renewed and continued the mandate which in fact had been given by the former government. More than that, he enlarged the mandate with respect to that review and examination to determine just how widespread the use of social insurance numbers had become, for what they were being used, whether they were being used for the kinds of things which should be allowed and whether there were uses of which we were not even aware that should be stopped. The mandate has not been concluded; the report has not been done. 1 am glad to say that the government does not act in advance of the reports and recommendations it is seeking. It would be false economy to ask for a report and then prepare legislation in advance of it. It would be wrong to request a report and then attempt to pass legislation through the House without the benefit of the report. It is my understanding that in fact the report will be available shortly. Once we have it, we will be able to examine social insurance numbers much more comprehensively than we would have been able to had we brought that matter in at the same time as
Access to Information
this legislation. In short, it would have been premature. I am glad it has not been done without the benefit of the report and that recommendations will come forward once the report is completed.
I had the honour of being parliamentary secretary to the secretary of state in a former government when in fact the green paper on freedom of information was being discussed. I was parliamentary secretary at the time the committee appointed to conduct a study was examining that paper.
1 recognize full well the difficulties of the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) in bringing forward this particular piece of legislation. It was not an easy job. It is not the kind of thing one can sit down in a night or even a full month of nights and come forward with, because of the balancing act one must do between the rights of access and privacy. Also there are difficulties with periods, commas and words in terms of drafting. I sincerely congratulate the Secretary of State for bringing forward this piece of legislation. All of us recognize that it is high time, but we are glad it is now before us and we are moving forward to have the matter sent to committee. Ultimately we hope it will be brought into law.
I echo hon. members on both sides of the House who have said it would be folly for us to believe what we have before us in its present state is perfection. It will require work, polishing and amendment before it comes back. The minister indicated that he is prepared to assist in that regard. It would be folly to believe after it has been considered in committee, brought back to the House and debated at third reading, that it will be perfect. Indeed, it will not be, but it is a starting point. It is a credit to the House that we are moving toward that position.
I want to make the point as strongly as I can that the review provision included in this bill is the correct direction in which to go in terms of attempting to retain the division between the judiciary and the legislative branches. Also it gives credence to the concerns expressed not only by those people who want further, more and greater access to information, but also those who have expressed the possible severe interference which could take place if we go too far. I need go no further than the police chiefs associations that have been very concerned, not only the ones in Canada but also the ones in the United States when its particular legislation was passed. It seems to me that associations across the world have been concerned whenever this type of legislation came forward. They are concerned among other things, that if we go too far, we will run into terrible problems in terms of how information such as the names of informants will be kept secret. If in fact informants come forward to assist in combating organized crime, surely we will have to be careful to ensure secrecy. Such information cannot go through many hands. We all know how easily information such as that can slip through fingers, disappear or get into the wrong hands. Surely we would not want one informant disappearing by taking a long walk off a short pier.
It would result in the drying up of that source of information and the inability of our police forces to obtain the assistance they need to combat the crime which we all want

January 29, 1981
Access to Information
stopped. I think the government has achieved this balancing act in this bill.
We should all listen very carefully to the groups which will come forward with their particular points of view. As members of Parliament we have received the usual lobbying documents in this particular case. I have copies of Access documents about which the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) spoke. We will look at these documents very carefully. I am particularly happy to have heard the minister indicate when he introduced the bill this afternoon that we will be receiving amendments with open minds. In fact, I have some particular amendments which 1 want to bring forward. 1 will be attending committee meetings diligently in order to see that my points of view are brought forward. I trust that the opposition members who have spoken this afternoon will be doing the same.
1 hope we all realize that we are producing something as nearly perfect as we can but not totally perfect and that we are not creating some kind of a panacea. We will create a tool which perhaps will make this House more lively from time to time and will afford the press gallery an opportunity to obtain information which its members now feel is not readily available.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Will it mean more brown envelopes?


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: It will probably reduce the number of brown envelopes being used on the hill; perhaps that will be cost-effective. But I have the feeling that all of us on the Hill, being as busy as we are and having a volume of information going across our desks, will find that access to more information, in addition to not being a panacea, may have the effect of glutting our offices as well. 1 trust that when we have this kind of information available to us and it is not accomplishing the kind of miracle which I know some hope it will, we will not blame the legislation. 1 hope we will not come up with some kind of perverse decision about the government making certain that this legislation does not work. If it works at all, it will have done so because, by putting forward the bill, by stating the concept and by coming up with these words, the civil servants, whom I think we all recognize are here to serve Canadians, and not somehow not to do their will, will recognize that it is the wish and the will of this Parliament and Canadians, wherever they are, to have access to information being produced by those same civil servants at the request of and on behalf of the government. Knowing that their will has been expressed will, in fact, indicate through their own actions the kind of openness which the government has expressed is its will in this bill.
If that takes place, and I am almost certain it must as a result of what we are doing here, then I think we will have accomplished a step toward what we are seeking. As I say, it will be a panacea for us. But certainly, contrary to the expressed opinion of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, it
is a giant leap forward, not a giant leap sideways or backward, as he would rather characterize it.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak briefly on the freedom of information legislation. I think it is a step in the right direction, and I would like to commend the government for bringing it forward. There are many changes which we would like to see made in it. We will be addressing those here today, and we will be moving some amendments in the committee.
I think this legislation goes a long way toward improving the accountability of government. 1 think Parliament itself is fairly accountable, since we are before the eyes of the public. What we say and do here is written into the verbatim transcript of Hansard. Quite often, when we become involved with government and some of its programs, information which should be accessible to the public at large and to members of Parliament in some cases is hidden away. It is not released at times when it actually should be in order to make government more accountable. I think the disclosure aspect with respect to many pieces of information is necessary so that members of Parliament and the public can be made aware of some of the things which our government-either elected members or public employees-does.
A few instances come to mind in which we can actually obtain more information about our own country in the United States than we can right here at home. The most recent incident is with respect to the events at Gagetown. A few members of Parliament from this caucus had to obtain their information about the spraying of Agent Orange in New Brunswick from the American government. We should be able to find information about our country here at home and not in another country. We should have full disclosure in these cases which affect the public to a large degree.
There are other matters about which information would be very useful to me as a member of Parliament. This is particularly true in cases where 1 have gone to government departments and asked for internal documents which contain the interpretation of the statutes or supplementary regulations which are used to enforce those statutes. In some cases I find it is impossible to obtain that information from government departments. This puts us in a very awkward position when we are dealing with the public and trying to overcome some of the problems they run into in dealing with certain government programs. As I mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, I think this measure goes a long way toward accountability.
There have been different reports on this subject, recommending government accountability. The D'Avignon report and the Lambert commission report come to mind. The freedom of information legislation is certainly not the be-all and end-all, but it is a step in the right direction. I am a member of the public accounts committee. Quite often cases come before us which would not be there if we had a freedom of information act in place in this country.
January 29, 1981

i would also like to tell the House that I had an opportunity to serve as a member of the task force on regulatory reform, which was struck by this government. We heard a great deal about people who could not obtain information they needed in order to function properly. I think this hampers our process. People cannot work effectively if they are at the disadvantage of not having all the information which pertains to them or where the government has set a regulation in a unilateral way without a great deal of consultation with the people who will be affected. The government does not allow a great deal of intervention. It does not consult people who will be affected by regulations. Then the regulations are enacted, and we still do not have access to the information. We do not have access to the internal workings of the regulations and the statutes of Canada. This places the general public at a great disadvantage when dealing with government. Companies, labour unions, consumer groups and individuals throughout the country told us of their frustration when they came before the task force on regulatory reform.
Although it does not directly relate to this bill, at this time I would like to say that 1 enjoyed being a member of the task force on regulatory reform. I hope the government will move to implement some of the recommendations made in our final report, which was tabled in this House on December 19. It was presented to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). 1 encourage him and his government to take action with respect to some of those recommendations. These recommendations, along with this freedom of information legislation, will do a great deal to bridge some of the gap between the public and the government. 1 suppose I should say the private sector and the government.
My main concern about freedom of information is with respect to the protection of the rights of individuals about whom the government has information in its files. 1 want to see very stringent controls applied so that information about individuals or companies will not be released by the government, which would place individuals in an embarrassing position or which would place businesses, large or small, in an uncompetitive position. I hope these rights will be protected and that there will not be any information released with respect to the internal secrets of a company which would place it in a bad position in the free market.
As 1 said, these many concerns will be addressed in the committee, Mr. Speaker. I have enjoyed the opportunity of speaking briefly on the freedom of information legislation. In closing, I would again like to commend the government for taking a step toward improving government accountability.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I really had no intention of rising on this bill until problems with respect to certain files in my office brought it to mind. I thought I should relate to this House some of my thoughts with respect to the obligation of ministers of the Crown to be more forthcoming with members of Parliament. After all, Mr. Speaker, there are not very many of us. There are only 282 of us in Canada. As members of Parliament we have taken an
Access to Information
oath before the Clerk of this House to respect Parliament and our obligations to the Queen.
Often it is necessary for an hon. member in the exercise of his duty to have additional information about the people with whom he may be dealing. Some time ago I had a problem with respect to representations made to me by a constituent. I suspected that somehow this constituent may be a member of an organization which was not operating in the interests of Canada. In that regard I made inquiries of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) because 1 wanted a private briefing with him in order to obtain information which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police might have on that person and the organizations with which he was involved.
As a member of Parliament, I take my obligations to Canada seriously. 1 did not want to wind up taking a position on behalf of that person which would in any way jeopardize my obligations to Canada or assist in the promotion of some organization the real purpose of which may not be in the interests of Canada. I was disappointed because I did not get that confidence from the minister. The minister's view was that he should not tell me anything and, therefore, 1 was on my own.
In a way it is sad that we must have a freedom of information bill. Ministers of the Crown have an obligation to members of Parliament, their colleagues, to be forthcoming, even if it is on a very personal, private or confidential basis. We, as members of Parliament, are entitled to the confidence of ministers, and ministers are entitled to rely on our undertakings not to divulge the sources from which we obtain confidential information. To some extent, this bill is required by members of Parliament because in many cases we have not been able to obtain some of the most elementary information from the Crown.
I would like to outline a matter of elementary information because some suggestion has been made that contracts and things which might affect private corporations and businesses should not necessarily be made public. I understand that line of thought. However, recently, I have been carrying on a running battle with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) concerning some leases on waterfront property in the city of Mississauga. The waterfront property was at one point in the town of Port Credit.
Roughly six years to eight years ago the Government of Canada leased a large harbour facility in Port Credit to a company called Port Credit Harbour Marine. That lease was negotiated in a very interesting fashion for a period of 20 years, and it covers an important marina on a very important commercial facility in my city. Over the past year 1 have been renegotiating a lease on an abutting property with the Government of Canada for the Port Credit Yacht Club. Strangely enough, the rental arrangements for this very significant facility occupied by Port Credit Harbour Marine are not available.
Members of Parliament sometimes have other methods of learning about matters. 1 was told that 1 could go to the

January 29, 1981
Access to Information
assessment department of the Region of Peel and that if they would tell me, then it was fine, but the minister would not tell me. In effect, the minister would supply the information to a municipal department of the government of Ontario, but he would not supply that information to a member of Parliament. So here we have a lease on which a company is paying rent to the Government of Canada for the use of Crown property, the Crown is negotiating a lease on the abutting property to another person, and it is impossible to find out the terms of the lease on the abutting property.
It turns out that the rent being charged to Port Credit Harbour Marine is significantly less on a square footage basis, a building value basis, an anchorage basis or any other basis than the rent which the Port Credit Yacht Club is being asked to pay. The rent which the Port Credit Yacht Club is being asked to pay is higher than the rent paid by any yacht club in the entire greater Toronto area. Indeed, the rent is three times the rent on a mooring basis or a square footage basis than the rent paid by the RCYC, perhaps the richest yacht club in all of Ontario or indeed, Canada.
The facts and figures upon which rent is determined, upon which a fair lease is arranged and upon which the ministry relies are withheld simply because, I presume, the information would not back the government's claim with respect to a negotiable fair rent. That is wrong. I expect that on the passage of this act the government will be obligated to supply the information.
I am bothered by the cost to the bureaucracy involved in scanning requests for information to make sure that those requests are not of the class and kind prohibited under the bill.
I say again, if we did not have the situation where governments have refused to come clean and be fair to the citizens of Canada, we would not need this bill. But because governments for some time now have refused to be open and above board, we are required to organize a bureaucracy to judge and arbitrate on whether a piece of information can be released.
If one really believes that our democratic representative system is worth while, one would expect the government at least to have the belief that members of Parliament are trustworthy and that if a constituent has a need which the government can fulfil, the member of Parliament could get the information, if it is possible, and thereby solve the matter. Because of the refusal of the ministries to be above board, open and free with members of Parliament and with people, we must introduce a bill which-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased indeed that at long last there is before the House of Commons Bill C-43 dealing with freedom of information and the right to privacy. This matter has had a rather checkered career going back as far as the days of Barry Mather, the former member for Surrey-White Rock, who brought in a private member's bill. That was followed by a bill brought in by the former member for Peace River, Mr. Ged Baldwin. They were the forerunners of freedom of information in Canada.
Following those two private members' bills in June, 1977, a green paper entitled "Legislation on Public Access to Government Documents" was tabled by the then secretary of state, now the Minister of State for Science and Technology and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts). The Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments reported on the green paper.
Senator E. A. Forsey was joint chairman of the drafting committee. He is now retired from the Senate. The other joint chairman was Gerald W. Baldwin, the former member of Parliament for Peace River, now retired. Senator J. M. Godfrey is still in the other place. Mr. Andrew Brewin, formerly the member of Parliament for Greenwood, is now retired. I was the fifth member of the committee.
Next came Bill C-535, a privacy bill presented by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty). He spoke on this matter today and expressed considerable concern about the use of social insurance numbers by the federal government and the fact that there is no mention of this practice in Bill C-43. I point out to him that the study of the use of social insurance numbers was commissioned by the privacy commissioner and was extended to May, 1980, and was to include a study of the use of social insurance numbers by the federal government. The hon. member will recall that the matter was initiated by the Conservative minister of justice in the last Parliament.
Obviously, to include specific provisions dealing with social insurance numbers in this legislation would prejudice the findings of the privacy commissioner. However, it is understood that the general provisions in the bill dealing with the collection, use and dissemination of personal information by the federal government will apply to social insurance numbers, and this will accomplish much of what the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe wanted to achieve.
There are some very important points in Bill C-43. The bill represents a significant development in making our institutions more open and more democratic. This is what it is all about. We call ourselves a democratic nation, and we want to be sure it is democratic in every way. Openness is certainly part of what we are looking at. Canadians will have a powerful tool to gain greater insight into the activities and functions of their government when this bill is put in place. Politicians and civil servants will be more accountable to the Canadian public, and I am sure the Canadian public is quite concerned about this.
January 29, 1981

The people will also become more aware of the operations of their governments. This is openness, and it is the kind of openness we want Canadians to have today.
An independent review process will be established, which will take away a minister's right not to give information at his own whim and fancy. But matters would be determined by courts if necessary.
The burden of proof with respect to withholding information will be put on the government, where it rightfully belongs. After all, at the present time it is the government which has the documents and is able to withhold them if it wants to. Moreover, a judge would be able to overrule a decision of the government to withhold information and order the release of a document. This is in accordance with our present judicial process which, I am sure, is quite adequate to carry out this function.
I am also pleased that section 41 of the Federal Court Act would be abolished so the government would no longer have the absolute right to withhold information from the courts during any litigation.
Access to information is a prerequisite to the exercise of other fundamental rights and freedoms.
In summary, we need openness of government. In effect, we need freedom of information, and we will get that to some extent in this bill.
There are four basic principles in the bill. The first is the right of Canadians to have access to all information held by the government, except where specific exemptions apply. Second, the burden of proof is to be upon government to justify the withholding of information. Third, it is the right of the courts to order the release of information which has been wrongly withheld. Fourth, there is a procedure to ensure that no exemptions, however drafted, could be used by any government to cover up evidence of illegal conduct. In my view, this set of basic principles goes a long way toward addressing the present situation.
When we talk about freedom of information, we must also consider the right to privacy. Part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act, entitled "Protection of Personal Information", received royal assent in July, 1977. The legislation became operational on March 1, 1978. The objects of the legislation were to inform individuals of the types of personal information which the government holds about them and the uses to which such information is put. It was also to provide the right of access of individuals to information about them held by the government, to control the way in which personal information held by the government is used and made available to others and to regulate the collection and storage of personal information. This is the important issue in the interrelationship between protection of personal information and access to information legislation. There must be a proper balance between the public's right to access to information held by the government and the protection to which the individual is entitled regarding his personal privacy.
Access to Information
I refer hon. members to the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments for June 27, 1978, and particularly to page 34:6. Under the heading "Personal Privacy" we read:
-your committee favours the approach taken in the U.S. legislation and in the Australian minority report bill whereby the use of the term "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" implies a balancing process in which the right of privacy of affected individuals must be balanced against the right of the public to be informed.
I also refer hon. members to the Australian act of parliament of August 25, 1980, where the same concern is indicated with regard to the right to privacy. Included in the bill we find that amongst other things a document is exempt from disclosure if its disclosure would involve the unreasonable disclosure of information relating to the personal affairs of any person.
Some concern was also indicated about the possibility of a conflict between privacy and freedom of information. It was determined by the Australian government that there was in fact no conflict. However, the Australian government put in a precautionary clause that the whole matter would be subject to review three years after the act came into effect.
I hope the government will consider doing exactly the same thing in this jurisdiction. It is to be noted that this bill provides the right to make corrections to personal information in government files. This is a very important aspect of the bill. It will strengthen the protection of privacy by imposing strict controls on the use and disclosure to third parties of all personal information held by government departments and agencies. Under this bill an individual would have to be notified when information that could adversely affect his or her interest is to be released and the individual allowed to make representations as to why the information should not be released, and to appeal a decision to release it.
Let it be understood that personal privacy is the right of access to one's own file and to know and control what information the government holds about us. This freedom of information legislation extends the right of access to all retrievable personal information held by the government.
In the United States the right of access is granted under the U.S. freedom of information act to a third party to obtain personal information, provided the access does not amount to a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. In this case, the onus to establish that the invasion is clearly unwarranted, rests with the government and/or the individual whose privacy is being invaded. Our bill, in effect, follows this same tenor, and the same principles will be carried out and adopted. In practice this means the government is put on the defensive, as is the individual and, of course, where either fails to establish a case, the information would be released.
There is much history that goes with freedom of information. Among developed countries, Sweden has the longest history of public access to government information. It goes back as far as 1766 to one of the country's basic constitution laws know as the freedom of the press act. There have been freedom of information laws in the United States since 1966.
6712

January 29, 1981
Access to Information
Denmark and Norway have had freedom of information laws since 1970, Austria since 1973 and France since 1978. Unfortunately, freedom of information has been far from generally assured in the United States throughout history, particularly during the cold war period when an administrative tendency to protect national security information was intense.
The green paper on public access to government documents which I mentioned earlier was a very important document as far as freedom of information in Canada is concerned. This green paper was referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. The committee insisted on strong freedom of information legislation. It criticized the green paper for its broad and ill-defined exemptions to public access, and it opposed the green paper's preference for ministerial authority or disclosure of information. The committee also reasserted suggestions for a review process.
Fortunately, this bill we have before us today addresses many of the concerns we had at that time. However, there are many more concerns, and it is desirable that some changes take place when the bill is before the committee.
I might mention one thing with regard to fees. There is always a cost involved when this kind of service is provided. At the present time it is suggested that an application fee of up to, but not exceeding, $25 be charged for the processing and releasing of documents. Many witnesses who appeared before the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments suggested that the fees to be charged for information provided should be solely the reproduction costs so that people across Canada would have the same access to information. Charges for supplying information should, if possible, be consistent and low in price throughout government agencies and departments so as to be within the means of the ordinary citizen. I point out to hon. members that in the green paper to which I have already referred under the heading "Fees" we find on page 27 the following:
Under the American freedom of information act, agencies may charge applicants only for the actual costs incurred in the search for and reproduction of documents requested. The cost of reviewing documents for exemption cannot be charged. The legislation also provides that departmental officials may waive any fees chargeable where it is "in the public interest" to do so. In practice most departments waive all fees under $5 and some departments waive all fees under $25 on the grounds that it would cost more than the amount of the fee to collect it. As a result, when total fees collected are compared to the total volume of requests, the average fee turns out to be less than $1 per request.
I hope we will have the same results in Canada, although there have been occasions where this has not necessarily been the case. I refer to the celebrated Rosenberg case. Someone asked for information regarding that case. In order to get all the information and records requested, it cost the United States government about a quarter of a million dollars. I hope we in Canada will not fall into that same trap.
It should be pointed out that everyone will be entitled to this information. However, we must be realistic. Most ordinary citizens will not ask for information. It will be writers, the media, those writing their theses for Ph.D.s, politicians, legislators and so on. We have to be fair and ensure that they have
access, but the cost must be considered. Certainly a reporter doing an in-depth story should not be able to get a free ride at public cost. In his study, "Will the Doors Stay Shut" Professor Rankin said, and I quote:
Properly understood freedom of information offers no threat to full and frank discussion of policy alternatives within the executive, since only the facts and data are to be available.
Information in the hands of the people, freely available with few exceptions, and clearly defined exemptions are essential to any democracy. This is imperative to the efficient functioning of governments. There is a middle ground on which the public can be best served and government will not be prevented from doing its job.
There is a general trend in the west today for more openness in government. Bill C-43 is not everything to everyone in the area of freedom of information and the right to privacy, but it is a big step in the right direction. I look forward to its going before a committee of the House of Commons to be discussed further and, hopefully, amended.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, my purpose this evening is to make some general remarks respecting the principles and provisions involved in Bill C-43, which would enact the proposed access to information act and the privacy act. Let me begin by pointing out that the process followed in the bill before the House is rather unusual in that the bill contains relatively short provisions which simply refer to schedules of the bill, which in turn contain the proposed access to information act and the privacy act.
My purpose is not to consider the legal technicalities of the bill but rather to deal with the proper principles involved in freedom of information legislation. I will not attempt to review history, but it might be noted that the parliamentary cabinet system of government was not one which easily gave rise to free access to information in the hands of government and government officials. In fact, the tendency of governments under the parliamentary system was to guard very zealously their right to information and only yield it to those who inquired under the strictest of conditions.
That is why in the parliaments of the British Commonwealth it became the practice for members to seek information by the various means open to them in the parliamentary process. We need only look at the order paper to realize that the same system prevails today. The order paper of this House of Commons is crowded with questions by members which have been left unanswered. Therefore, today we have the same attitude which existed many years ago on the part of government, to yield information only under very strenuous urgings by members of the opposition and other members of Parliament.
We hope the present freedom of information tendency will give rise to greater access to information, not just to members of Parliament, but to all citizens of Canada.
The thought in that regard cannot be better expressed than it was by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) when he spoke in November, 1979, at the time the freedom of informa-
January 29, 1981

tion bill of that time was introduced in this House. He said that the starting point for a freedom of information law is a freedom of information attitude. We can all take a lesson from those words, and realize that free information and free access to information is not something that can be written on a piece of paper. It must exist in the spirit of the government of the day. As the Leader of the Opposition said, the government must have a freedom of information attitude.
The history of freedom of information in British Commonwealth nations is relatively recent and evolving. Some provinces of Canada have enacted freedom of information legislation, but it is still in the very beginnings of its development. Members ought to view the bill now before us in that light. We cannot expect it to be a perfect document, but we hope it evidences a proper attitude on the part of the government. We hope that in committee and in future years in this House of Commons and elsewhere the government will move to remedy any defects in this bill which are bound to show up in the future as it is administered and applied.
1 should, as others have done, pay tribute to the work done in the past by members of this House with respect to freedom of information. Of course, the person who first comes to mind is the former member for Peace River, Ged Baldwin, who served in this House for many years. His major concern was freedom of information.
Let me quote very briefly one of the remarks he made with respect to the need for freedom of information legislation. He said it was necessary to break the long and encrusted tradition of secrecy which has been the ruling fashion of the bureaucracy since the first day.
I also want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), who stood in this House in the fall of 1979 and introduced Bill C-15, which was a true freedom of information bill. I want to note for the record that his efforts and those of his colleagues at that time were lauded by the Canadian Bar Association. I quote from what was said about the efforts with respect to Bill C-15:
The strength of the legislation lies in its recognition of the principle that government information should be available to the public, that exemptions should be limited and specific, and that the exceptions should be reviewed independently of government.
That is the pith and substance of freedom of information legislation. With that in mind, I want to note the subtle difference between the legislation 1 have been describing and the legislation now before us, which by its name merely provides for access to information. There is a real difference in the philosophy involved in the two terms.
Freedom of information represents a commitment to the right of members of Parliament and citizens generally to have access to government information. It is in the nature of a right. Access to information, on the other hand, merely provides a mechanism by which citizens, members of Parliament and others can get at the information they seek within the very limited framework of the access to information legislation. We should be careful to note the difference in philosophy. We hope that the government during the course of this debate, in
Access to Information
committee or at some subsequent time, will recognize there is a very substantive difference between merely granting access to information as opposed to establishing and enshrining the principle of freedom of information.
What is at stake in this matter for the public? Information is the lifeblood of knowledge. It has been said many times that it is knowledge which sets society free. We ought not to take lightly this type of legislation because it does not have an immediate effect on the economic or other aspects of our national life with which we are perhaps more concerned on a day to day basis.
Another important feature of broad interest to the public is the right to privacy. Under English common law and the common law which prevails in most of the provinces of Canada, the right to privacy has not been as well developed as it is in many national jurisdictions. We look forward to greater recognition of that kind of right and the enshrinement of that kind of right to privacy in legislation which applies across this land. I believe it is the right of every person to keep his or her own personal records and information, and only in very limited circumstances should other persons, government agencies, corporations and the like have that personal information.
Not everyone believes in this concept of freedom of information, nor does everybody believe in this right to privacy. In particular, governments that seek more to enslave than to liberate their populations are opposed to this kind of legislation. This has extended even beyond those government which perhaps do not have the democratic way that has evolved in Canada through our long association with the traditions of Great Britain and the British Commonwealth; this principle has also been neglected by some of our democratic states. They seek to keep in the hands of government and government officials information which ought to be disclosed to the public. I think we need only look at the unfortunate Watergate matter. Fortunately it did not occur in this country. It occured in the United States. Just that kind of thinking was involved. There was a tendency among government officers involved in that case to cover up, smarm over the events that took place and keep information from the public. That is why in some cases governments, even of a democratic kind, are inclined not to allow the right of access to information because that could cause to be disclosed the kinds of improper activities which were prevalent in the Watergate matter. Before we look askance at our great neighbour to the south, let us remind ourselves that this very kind of thing occurs in Canada. It would not be proper to take a superior attitude, but to learn from their experience.
May 1 just briefly review some of the details of this legislation in order to indicate the kinds of concerns I have and I think the kind all members of this House and all Canadians ought to consider in respect of this measure. First of all, it does provide the right of access to government information, but that information is in the form of records kept by government institutions. While this appears at first blush to be very broad,

January 29, 1981
Access to Information
I can assure you there is a great deal of information which ought to be publicly disclosed that is not in the form of records and not in the hands, under the control or within the jurisdiction of government institutions as defined in the bill.
I hasten to point out that the long list of government institutions contained in the schedule is another reminder of the extent to which government operations have grown in this country. As I leaf through the bill 1 see seven or eight pages listing government institutions which are subject to this bill.
It has been pointed out by other speakers that there is a fee involved in exercising one's right under this legislation in connection with attempting to obtain access to the kind of information covered by the act. The fee appears to be very nominal in the sense that it cannot be more than $25. However, any payment can be used as a deterrent under certain circumstances. 1 hope that provision for the right to impose a fee for access to information will not in any way be a deterrent to the right of access granted by the legislation.
Of course, there are exemptions provided for in the bill. We all recognize there must be exceptions to the right of access to information in areas such as foreign affairs, national defence and intergovernment dealings. However, the bill does not describe all the exemptions with the care and caution 1 recall Bill C-15 did, as introduced in 1979. However, we can only hope, as 1 have indicated time and time again, the government has the right attitude toward the provisions of this bill, and as difficulties develop in respect of exemptions as outlined the government will move to remedy the situation.
Attention ought to be drawn to the access which is granted by the bill. This is not simply a matter of walking into a government department or institution listed in the bill obtaining the records one may seek. There is definitely a relatively complex procedure involved. In the case of personal information the provisions of the proposed privacy act apply, and they involve a slightly different procedure. There may be no difference in principle, but a person may find himself deflected from one set of provisions to another set, particularly by a government officer who is seeking to deny access rather than to allow ease of access.
When a person is denied access under the legislation, he can make a complaint to the information commissioner. That may seem like a relatively simple matter, but as a lawyer who practised law 1 can assure you that when you are dealing with the Government of Canada and its various departments and emanations, nothing is simple. There are forms to be completed, there are time limits to be met, there are office hours to be observed, there are places one must go, there are addresses one must find, and, as I said-and I repeat and underline- nothing is simple. When we see provisions that say there may be complaints to the information commissioner and that the information commissioner may conduct an investigation, we do not know what to expect. That may be something like appearing before the Supreme Court of Canada on a weighty case or it may, if the proper spirit is there, be simplified in order to give real effect to the right of access.
In the end there is a right to review refusals to grant access to information in the Federal Court. 1 have to repeat what I just said. If you think the procedure involved in dealing with the information commissioner can be complicated, then go down to the Federal Court and see how it operates; look at the myriad of regulations you are put through as you seek access to the Federal Court. 1 do not want anybody to be lulled into thinking they can walk into government departments, talk to information commissioners, speak to judges and get the information they desire, because they can be put through very difficult and very complex processes, processes which I am afraid may be very expensive.
That is about all I need to say in respect of the mechanics of the legislation. I should add in respect of the privacy section that provisions similar to those provisions in Bill C-43 are to some extent already in force. There is a privacy commissioner operating in Canada. According to the report filed by the privacy commissioner for the year 1979, there were what 1 consider to be a relatively small number of complaints made to him under existing legislation. As I read the report, in 1978 there were 286 complaints, and in 1979 there were 159 complaints. Those would be complaints in respect of persons who sought information of a personal kind from government departments. We may not be dealing here with a vast thing. I repeat that if the proper spirit prevails in the government, there will be no need to go through these processes.
Let me say very generally in concluding my remarks in respect of Bill C-43 that what we really have to look for in this bill is a determination as to whether we have before us merely a paper tiger, a piece of legislation which will indicate that there is some right of access to information, but the mechanics are there to allow government officials effectively to deny that right of access.
What we want, and what has been effective in other jurisdictions in Canada and elsewhere, is a sunshine law, a law that allows the sun to shine in on government legislation and government activities. It is that kind of legislation which can have a real purpose in a democratic society. It can keep the government within the spirit and the intention of its powers; it can root out evils in government for the benefit not only of all Canadians but, indeed, also for government itself. I hope that is what we have before us in Bill C-43. I hope we have a sunshine law and not a paper tiger. I repeat what I said in the beginning, in the words of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, it is a freedom of information attitude that will resolve these problems, and that is the beginning of a freedom of information law. Thank you.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on this very important piece of legislation. As hon. members have pointed out earlier in the debate, the need for a free flow of information is essential in a democratic society. If the democratic process is to work and to function well in a healthy state, citizens must have information. Information is what is required to make decisions. With-
January 29, 1981

out full, complete and adequate information, you cannot make proper decisions. That is true, not only for governments having information, but also for citizens of the country having information.
There is no greater need today than the need for adequate, essential information to be available to decision-makers, whether they be people or government. In the type of society in which we are living today we have to make very important decisions, decisions which affect not just a few people, not just a little community, not just a little country, but which affect large masses of people, not just for a week or a year but for generations to come.
Because of rapid technological and social changes, we have within our hands the power to destroy the environment and to affect the genetic pool of the human race, of plants and of all living things for generations to come. These are very important decisions which we as a race now have the power to make.
As the critic for science and technology for my party, 1 find that it is important that we have in this country not only legislation but, more importantly, practice and custom, as the previous speaker pointed out. We can have legislation in the books, but lawyers and bureaucrats will always be able to find a crack or exemption to prevent the release of any information which they do not want to be released. In the end, it is the practice, the custom and the appreciation of the importance of the process of free information that will determine how effective and how real this legislation is.
In the field of science, as I have indicated, the free flow of information is totally essential. Information is needed to spread understanding and knowledge. In a period of very rapid technological changes, we are making decisions, the ramifications of which we are not certain of a year, a decade or a generation later. It is essential that we have free information so that when it becomes known, observable and shown that these new technologies are having a negative and harmful effect on the environment or on the human being, the public is made aware of it, because if the public does not know about it, then the natural social progress of public pressure to change technology and to set boundaries to these technologies, will not occur. We depend upon the public eventually to make decisions as to what technologies are developed and how they are developed. The public cannot make those decisions unless there is a free flow of information available.
Information is not a privilege but a right. It is an essential right in a democracy. It is essential if a democracy is to work and be healthy. It is essential if we are to live and see new science and new technologies developed and if they are to be developed in a human and responsible way.
So I ask: does Bill C-43 guarantee that this will occur? I am afraid I cannot answer that, in spite of the enthusiastic "yes" which I hear from the benches opposite. There are areas in the bill which suggest that important information will not necessarily become public. I refer, for example, to clause 20 of the bill which reads:
Access to Information
Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this act that contains
(a) trade secrets of a third party;
We have chemical companies which will not reveal publicly what the contents of their products are, and yet their products are being used over a wide area and will affect the environment for years to come. 1 feel that the public should know exactly what is being put into the environment and what is being put into the food chain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simon Leendert de Jong: I suggest that knowledge which will have an effect upon such a wide area of space as our environment for many years to come, something which will have such an effect upon the health of so many people as will these new products being introduced into our food chain and into our diets, should not be considered private property.
Surely all this should be public knowledge so that no mistakes are made. Surely mistakes can happen, and I think we all agree that mistakes will happen, when knowledge is possessed only in a little corner here or in a little patent office there. If the government has the knowledge, then surely it has the responsibility to make certain that that knowledge is made public.
Earlier this month I brought a case to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) concerning a certain fungicide called captan. The Canadian government has been reviewing tests and studies concerning the carcinogenic qualities of this fungicide. We could not get this information in Canada. This information was shared with the U.S. government, and we had to use freedom of information legislation in the United States to get Canadian documents which had been sent to the U.S. government. What do these documents reveal? They reveal that this particular fungicide is not very safe, yet it remains on the shelves. The documents reveal that the company which manufactures this product, namely Chevron Corporation, a big chemical company, asked the testing corporation to change five pages of its data because it showed that this particular product was having a mutational effect on test animals.
Chevron Corporation did not want to see these test results, so it deliberately asked the company to change the results. This information was contained in the secret government documents.
I believe that such information should be made public so that the public knows how responsible these corporations are. I am afraid that there are too many loopholes in the bill in front of us for this law to have had much effect when it came to my attempting to get information about the fungicide captan. Recently my colleague and 1 have drawn attention to certain aerial spraying of a chemical called Agent Orange in New Brunswick. I wonder if clause 15, governing our relations with other countries, would not have prevented making that information public in this country. Yet, it was important that that information became public information. We know from the experience in the United States with veterans returning from

January 29, 1981
Access to Information
Vietnam that many of them developed various illnesses because they handled Agent Orange. Also we know that Canadian personnel were involved. If any of the Canadian personnel-and I hope none will-develop an illness because of handling Agent Orange, it is important that they know exactly what they were handling. They should be in positions where they can make claims to the Department of Veterans Affairs or the government to receive disability pensions. It is important to the Canadian personnel involved that this information be made public. Then they could make claims to the government for their illnesses, if they can show that they were caused by handling Agent Orange.
1 have dealt with many veterans in my constituency who have tried to make claims. It is a very tedious and difficult process. They are required to go through too many loops to make their points. If the government is conducting various secret tests in which personnel are being used as guinea pigs, and if it is not making that information known because it may interfere in its relations with another country, it is not to the benefit of the servicemen. If the information is made public, of course, it is of benefit to them. We will continue to try to make such information as public as possible.
1 am concerned about many clauses in the proposed legislation. For example, clause 15 deals with international affairs and refers to "any state allied or associated with Canada". What does "associated" mean? The government could refuse to make public any information that might disturb its relations with an associated state. For example, there is an arms embargo against South Africa. A certain corporation might try to manoeuvre around this embargo and might be interested in obtaining certain information concerning importing and exporting arms permits. They may apply to the government for copies of such permits, and the government may say, "No, you cannot have those because under this section it disturbs our relations with South Africa". I do not think that would be right. If it occurred, surely it would destroy the spirit of freedom of information.
Also I think of other entities such as the Crown corporations which will be exempt. The records of any corporation in the public domain which uses public funds or deals with public lands should be open. For example, under this particular exemption, an environmental impact study by Dome Petroleum of proposed drillings in the north could be considered ineligible for public disclosure. Surely this study would have such an effect upon the public domain, public lands and the future that it should be open to public perusal. The public should be allowed to look at such an environmental impact study because its land and future are at stake.
If we expect our citizens to make wise decisions, this type of information should be made available to them. I could look at some of the regulations concerning the information commissioner, who is supposed to be an ombudsman but is compelled to hold his proceedings in private. Further on in the bill it is indicated that the court can hold its hearings in camera. This
leaves the court open to a charge that secret laws are bad laws. It will be difficult to know what is reasonable and what is not, without public precedent.
The bill makes reference to reasonable disclosure, but that is a matter which will have to be defined in the courts. If the court hearings are held in camera, we will be faced with the ultimate irony, that is, that the best kept secret will be how the proposed access to information act works. It will be a double contradiction. No one will be able to figure out how the act works because the proceedings will be conducted in secret. It is ultimate lunacy.
In the end the importance will be the practice and desire of the government, its commitment in terms of philosophy, its commitment to public access and its commitment to the principle that in a free and democratic society and in a society of rapid technological change information is essential.
The spirit in which these commitments are applied is essential. It is the philosophy of those who are applying it which will ultimately determine how well we as a society will survive and function in the years ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate this evening in the debate on the access to information and privacy legislation proposed by this government. I say that for two reasons, which I suppose are evident to anyone who knows a little bit about my adult working life. First, I spent more than a decade as a journalist and now almost ten years as a member of Parliament and until recently sat on the back benches. If 1 have learned nothing else over that time and my time as a journalist, it is that nothing is more important to this massive and diverse country than to have Canadians better understand why governments reach decisions and what the base of debate in the House of Commons means to them.
The Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) emphasized that the adoption of this legislation means certain important principles will become part of the legal fabric of Canada. One of these basic principles is that Canadians will have access, as a matter of rights, to all information held by the government, except where specific exemptions apply. When the Secretary of State led off the debate this afternoon, he made it clear that he looks forward in committee to members on all sides of the House reviewing the exemptions in the bill.
Another principle is that the burden of proof will be on the government to justify the withholding of information. It will not be for the politicians but for the courts to adjudicate, with power to order the release of information which has been wrongly withheld.
There is obvious significance in enshrining these principles in law with provisions to ensure that Canadians will be readily able to exercise the legal rights under it. This bill is the culmination of efforts that have been under way for may years. It represents a significant advance in the application of demo-
January 29, 1981

cratic principles to the relationship between citizens and their national government. The spirit of co-operation exhibited here today in allowing consideration of this legislation to proceed is evidence of the basically non-partisan nature of the movement toward more open government in our country.
I should like to add, as others have in the debate, to the tribute which is due a former member of this House from Peace River, my friend, Ged Baldwin, who devoted to this endeavour so much of his wisdom, energy and concern for the public good. Community leaders, including parliamentarians of all political persuasions, have added their voices to the cause. It would also be remiss to neglect the contribution of the media in ensuring that this issue has remained high on the public agenda.
As 1 indicated briefly a few moments ago, my first involvement in this issue was as a journalist in the 1960s when the proposals we are now considering were usually described as "right to know" laws. The concept was initiated and tested in other jurisdictions, and we have enjoyed the benefit of that experience in designing Bill C-43.
Under the title "access to information" Bill C-43 encompasses both what I prefer to think of as freedom of information and also the protection of personal information, involving the rights of an individual to privacy. Both are vitally important, but I will concentrate my remarks this evening on the question of freedom of information.
It is a fundamental belief that citizens are entitled to information about their government so that they can participate fully in the democratic process. Correspondingly, it is a duty of government to inform the public. This means, of course, that government has an obligation to provide information about its policies and about the legislation and programs approved by Parliament. Clearly, citizens must be aware of the laws which affect them in their daily lives and the programs which have been designed to serve them. More than that, it is also critically important that information be available to them about the policies and issues on which they make judgments, if they are to exercise their rights of citizenship. I do not deny that there is also an obligation upon the people to make some effort to seek the information they require to make those informed judgments. That is a duty of citizenship. Nevertheless, it is a duty which government, in its attitude toward communicating with people, can render either easier or more difficult.
The access to information bill before this House forcefully demonstrates the desire of this government to assist citizens in obtaining information, by conferring upon them the right to have it, with clearly delineated exceptions. The legislation reflects, in its design, the intention to make it easy for citizens to avail themselves of their rights under Canadian law.
I would not be satisfied, however, if we went no further; or worse, if the government and its public servants conducted themselves so as to observe only the letter of the law, narrowly interpreting its intent. The objective is surely not only to give
Access to Information
citizens legal rights which they may invoke; the objective must also be to provide to them information freely, as and when they can use it, so that it will be unnecessary for them to invoke those legal rights.
A spirit of openness must prevail. As the minister in this government who is charged with particular responsibilities for communicating with the public, I have given high priority to encouraging that spirit of openness. One of the first steps taken in this regard was approval by the government, in April, of formal guidelines encouraging public servants to communicate fully with the public within the bounds of their responsibilities. Communications with the public, including particularly members of Parliament and the news media, are part of the responsibility of managers in the public service. They are expected to discuss frankly information within their areas of responsibility, information which describes or explains programs and policies which have been announced or implemented by the government.
I would like to add a thought which must go along with our expectation that public service managers will communicate openly with the public. Members of this House will surely agree that public servants should not be asked to speculate about future policy decisions, or to go beyond factual information and into areas of policy deliberations and advice. In fact, these areas are the responsibility of ministers, not their public servants. Nor, of course, would we expect them to disclose information specifically prohibited by law. Public servants acting in good faith under these guidelines will not be considered as having violated their oaths of secrecy. However, we must seek to ensure that they are not subjected to criticism within government or drawn into the political forum for speaking openly, fully in compliance with government policy.
Efforts are under way within the government to advise departments and agencies of the importance the government attaches to its belief in openness. Public servants at all levels have much to learn and do to give effect to the access to information provisions, and steps are under way to communicate the spirit in which they should be administered.
There will be administrative challenges in adjusting to the requirements of the legislation, which are being attended to under the direction of my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). Other measures are in train, under the direction of my colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais), to facilitate access by Canadians to the services of the government. And that is very important in conjunction with this bill.
In espousing a freely open spirit in the provision of information by government, I am also mindful of the opportunities for the government to assist Canadians in learning, not only of government activities, but also of the nature of the country and of the things which make us proud to be Canadians-our heritage, our diversity and the endowments of nature.
It is a fundamental priority of this government to reinforce the national identity. This is far more than a matter of distinguishing the activities of the federal government and its institutions through identification of the federal presence

January 29, 1981
Access to Information
throughout the country, desirable though that is; it is also important to develop policies and programs to support the Canadian national identity and a sense of participation by citizens throughout the country. Of course, I commend my colleague, the Secretary of State, for his efforts in that area.
The very size of the country, its widely dispersed population, its ethnic diversity, the two official languages and the special character of the regions of our country all underline the importance of seeing the country as a whole and as more, much more, than the sum of its parts. At the same time, those differences and diversities are part of the richness of Canada and reinforce our particular identity as a nation.
In my brief time as the Minister for Multiculturalism, Mr. Speaker, I have learned a great deal about how diverse this country is. I do not think many Canadians realize that the majority of citizens living in the prairie provinces are neither Anglophone nor Francophone. Many people in other parts of the country living in communities with one large majority group of a particular origin, unfortunately, do not have the full sense of how diverse we are, except for the few who have been able to travel widely.
1 want to say that it is natural for informed citizens to be skeptical of government, anxious to improve it and yet, I hope, respecting our democratic institutions. It is also an obligation upon good citizens to attempt to understand the issues facing this country, so as to judge the efforts of government, of whatever party, to resolve those issues. In turn, the government has a duty to assist its citizens in this understanding and, as well, to be mindful of its role in furthering other aspects of citizenship, not the least of which we may unashamedly call love of country.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to address myself to several points made this afternoon by other members in the debate on this important bill.
Earlier today a member of the New Democratic Party criticized the government-I believe it was the member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-because in our charter of rights and freedoms we do not have the right of access to information. I simply want to point out that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) made it very clear in that committee-and it is on the record-that he wants the experience of this very important legislation before considering moving forward on that front. Certainly, that is possible.
Many references have been made to the Americans taking a lead in the area of access to information. 1 point out only that their access to information is not enshrined in their constitution. Yet, Sweden has it enshrined, and it is not as open in providing access to information as is the American government.
I would also like to comment on the remarks made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), who seemed to have his head firmly planted in the past in all his criticisms. Surely this legislation gives recourse to the courts and ombudsmen, and neither Parliament nor government can be supreme over the rights of the citizen in this matter.
If I could, I would like to make a point with respect to comments made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member for Yel-lowhead seems very critical of the exemption, at the moment, of any matter which might injure relations between the federal, or national, government and the provinces. Again, 1 simply point out that the government has attempted to release polls and information as requested by the opposition. But, finally, the government is answerable to the ombudsmen and the courts if matters appear to be unsatisfactory in response to demands for information.
Also this afternoon the right hon. member for Yellowhead questioned what the words "associate state" in clause 15 of the bill means. I simply suggest they have the same meaning as they had in clause 15 of his bill.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, as a journalist, temporarily retired, as someone who may return to journalism and as someone-as are all members of this House-deeply committed to trying to have Canadians better understand this country and better able to focus on issues which this Parliament debates, I believe this legislation is fundamental to the future of our country.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to commence my remarks on a positive note. I believe this is a hopeful beginning and that this is a piece of legislation which is long overdue. I appreciate the tribute which has been paid to members of this chamber-some of whom are no longer here-who are active in this field. I commend hon. members opposite for their objectivity in giving a great deal of credit to our friend and colleague, Ged Baldwin, the former member from Peace River.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: If anyone epitomized the spirit of freedom of information I think it was Ged Baldwin when he was carrying on a long and unremitting campaign for this piece of legislation.
I am sure Ged Baldwin would agree, however, that this particular piece of legislation is merely a hopeful beginning. All of us who have been in this place for very long can remember other pieces of legislation which the government opposite claimed would be very important, some of which were introduced with a lot of fanfare. I can think of the competition act, the Canada Water Act and the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act, all of which were to be landmark pieces of legislation, but which never amounted to very much.
Coming back to the existing situation, I must emphasize the very major step taken in this piece of legislation in the form of repealing section 41 of the Federal Court Act. This particular provision should be put on the record once again to emphasize exactly what an improvement it is that we as parliamentarians no longer must contend with this provision. 1 had almost
January 29, 1981

memorized this particular provision, simply because I hated it so much. It reads as follows:
(2) When a minister of the Crown certifies to any court by affidavit that the production or discovery of a document or its contents would be injurious to international relations, national defence or security, or to federal-provincial relations, or that it would disclose a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, discovery and production shall be refused without any examination of the document by the court.
That is the part which really hurts. It was an outright sanctioning of an executive privilege without judicial review, and it was probably unique in the civilized countries of the world. Had the United States of America a piece of legislation like that, none of what happened when the country purged itself during the Watergate crisis would have been possible. In getting rid of that kind of provision, this particular act, if nothing else, advances the cause of freedom of information a great deal.
However, this act in itself is not enough. It is true that it is a hopeful beginning, but as the hon. minister who just spoke commented, there must be more than the letter of the law. There must be a genuine willingness in this place to give information on a reasonable basis within reasonable time limits to hon. members. Although delay is the deadliest form of denial when it comes to economic relief, it can also be deadly when it comes to providing information.
Let us look at the rather incongruous title of Bill C-43, which reads:
-An act to enact the access to information act and the privacy act, to amend the Federal Court Act and the Canada Evidence Act, and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof.
Upon reading that description, one must ask oneself whether the government's approach is consistent and whether the government will carry on this kind of openmindedness in other areas. Section 43(9) of the proposed Canada Oil and Gas Act, Bill C-48, which was recently dealt with in this House, seems rather strange and somewhat counterproductive to the spirit of this bill. It reads:
Proceedings in an appeal to the Federal Court of Canada under subsection (5) shall be held in camera on request made to the Court by a party to the appeal.
Subsection (5) refers to infractions of the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act. I underline the words "in camera". There may be some reason for such a provision, and I am not prepared to dismiss it out of hand as not being appropriate, but on the face of it, it sounds very strange to me that under a statute which calls for access to the Federal Court of Canada, a party to such an appeal can have it heard in camera.
1 would not have been so apprehensive if the word "may" was used, but the words are "shall be held in camera". I do not understand why that particular terminology is used with respect to that act. After all, it would appear as though there is nothing which would involve national security. It would appear prima facie that it would not necessarily involve any of the considerations which would be necessary to have it exempted. Even if that were so, just as this legislation provides for judicial review, so should the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, if the government intends to be consistent.
Access to Information
Why should the government deprive a judge of the option to decide whether or not an important matter such as one emanating from the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act should not be held in open court? It is an incongruity and an example of why some of us are skeptical that the government will not continue to enact legislation in other areas which is inconsistent with this hopeful beginning with respect to access to information.
Another aggravation to all of us in opposition, and perhaps some of us while we were in government, is the apparent obfuscation in providing information on the order paper, which is another inconsistency. I have before me one example, and I only brought it along to emphasize or underscore a small point. In June, 1980, I asked a fairly routine question of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) about a matter in which l had some interest, Judge Rene Marin's commission of inquiry. My question was:
Wilh reference to the commission of inquiry, relating to public complaints, internal discipline and grievance procedures within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, was action taken to implement the commission's (a) 32 recommendations regarding the handling of public complaints (b) 13 recommendations regarding a federal police ombudsman-
And it goes on. I received an answer after six months, but it was no good and was deliberately obscured. For example, it says that of the 13 recommendations regarding a federal police ombudsman, seven will be proposed for legislation and six will be modified and proposed for legislation. That does not tell me very much. Which seven recommendations and which six recommendations? Now I must go back to the order paper again. As a famous author once said, "If you are going to talk the talk, you have got to walk the walk".
This piece of legislation, while a step in the right direction and while I want to be positive about it, should set the tone for the same kind of openness and the same kind of conduct found in other areas.
There has been much injustice as a result of section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act. The minister who introduced this bill well remembers, for example, an incident while he was solicitor general involving two RCMP staff sergeants which he knew, Gilles Brunet and Don McCleery, and how someone, who was not even a solicitor general but an acting solicitor general, used this provision to invoke executive privilege to the detriment of these two members.
Last spring I wrote to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) congratulating him on his appointment. 1 mentioned that I was sorry that one of his first acts was to invoke section 41(2) and to withhold information regarding a matter involving the Canadian Dairy Commission. When he wrote me thanking me for my good wishes he was good enough to say that he, too, regretted invoking section 41(2), but nevertheless he did it.
It is good to see that from now on the ministers opposite will not have this option available to them. Like the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) I do not wish to get into a technical dissertation on the bill at this time, but 1 think it is fair to say that there are many loopholes, as it were, in this

January 29, 1981
Access to Information
legislation. The jurisprudence which will build up in interpreting this bill will be fairly lengthy and probably fairly timeconsuming before we get to the kind of expedition whereby we will see ready, quick and efficient access to information.
There will also be a fairly long period of delay before some information will become available under this bill. 1 hope perhaps some of the drafting can be improved in committee as well.
1 want to say to the minister that we do not think our bill was perfect. We do not suffer from that syndrome. We are prepared to admit that occasionally some of the things we do can be improved upon, but we have never seen that kind of humility emanating from the other side of the House. It will be a refreshing change if it ever happens.
Clause 28 of the bill reads as follows:
The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this act
(a)	during the first two years after the coming into force of this act, in the case of a record that was in existence more than two years before the coming into force of this act; and
(b)	during the first five years after the coming into force of this act, in the case of a record that was in existence more than five years before the coming into force of this act.
Now, let us try to figure that out. As my friend says, it does not mean immediate access, and it is certainly not going to provide very current information about matters we would like to know something about, perhaps during this session of Parliamant. There are certain areas that I think would benefit from close scrutiny and redrafting in committee.
Some of the possibilities that exist for getting around the provisions of this bill ought to be discussed in this House and in the committee-not in any paranoid fashion, but with a clear recognition that there have been abuses. These are not instances brought up by members of Parliament who, heaven forbid, might have any partisan reason for advancing them! I should like to put on the record one abuse that was reported in The Globe and Mail of November 21, 1980:
Privacy commissioner Inger Hansen says federal 'bank robbers' are laundering sensitive data files before they are opened to individuals.
Mrs. Hansen said in an interview that information is being taken from files that might be opened to the public and moved to data banks that are closed to the public.
If a freedom of information bill before the Commons becomes law, Mrs. Hansen would have greater access to closed files than she currently has under human rights legislation. But, she said, information could still be hidden by moving data on individuals to files on protected projects.
Government departments and agencies also can destroy files, as the RCMP security service did with Operation Checkmate files containing details of disruptive tactics used on individuals and groups across the country.
1 remember that my hon. friend opposite expressed great skepticism when 1 suggested that it was not marijuana that was burned by the Security Service in Quebec some time ago. He assured me that it was, but as he now knows, more than that was burned.
Last year, Mrs. Hansen won the right to look at data banks that arc closed to individuals. However, she can't disclose anything about them, or even confirm they exist.
After Walter Rudnicki-
That is a name most of us know.
-was fired in 1973 from his high level planning job with what is now Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., he was allowed to see his security file. It was bare except for a single handwritten note stating that he had been granted security clearance in 1966.
Without belabouring the point, Mr. Speaker, I hope we see from experience just what kind of jiggery-pokery has existed in areas where federal public servants had the responsibility of providing access to information.
it is sincerely hoped that as a result of this piece of legislation, which 1 commend my friends opposite for introducing, there will be no more of this kind of manoeuvring that is implicit in some of the fears of Inger Hansen and that we will finally find a way to provide speedy access to information rather than waiting two years or five years. We hope too that such openness will extend beyond this piece of legislation; that there will be a vast improvement in the quality of answers to questions on the order paper; that they will be provided much sooner; that there will be the same kind of openness in committee; and that in general this legislation will be the harbinger of a great new and enlightened change in the House of Commons, where there will be some accountability. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, then it will be one of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced in the Parliament of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with my colleagues in recalling the many years of effort put forth by our former colleague, Ged Baldwin from Peace River, who laboured long and hard trying to gain acceptance in this institution for the idea of freedom of information.
1 had the honour and pleasure of occupying an office across the corridor from Mr. Baldwin. We spent many hours talking about freedom of information, and he related to me numerous cases in which he had been involved and in which justice would have been done faster and with less heartache for the people concerned had freedom of information legislation been in place.
1 cannot help but think it ironic that this bill should be introduced for debate today, Mr. Speaker, because 1 happen to be dealing with such a matter in my office at present. It is a matter that should be opened up because certain information is being denied.
I am sure hon. members are aware that at the present time a justice committee in the province of Ontario is hearing evidence from various witnesses regarding the bankruptcy of a couple of provincial companies. It has for the last couple of days been considering, and I presume for the balance of this week it will be considering the involvement of those two companies with a federally incorporated trust company.
January 29, 1981

The Speaker of the Ontario legislature issued a warrant for the Superintendent of Insurance in the department of finance and one of his officials to appear before the committee to give evidence and assist it coming to conclusions about the twisted events that led to the bankruptcy, receivership and winding up of three companies. The committee is also interested in the bilking of hundreds of innocent victims of their life savings, which amounted to millions and millions of dollars.
To the surprise of everyone concerned, I am sure, the federal officials were advised not to appear before the provincial committee. Two levels of government are involved, one going against the other. Some people may ask what the connection is. When a federal company is incorporated and operating in a province, it comes under the jurisdiction of a securities and exchange commission or, in this case, the Ontario Securities Commission. That body is responsible for seeing that companies operate within the laws of Ontario. Federal officials are in possession of certain information that is required by the provincial committee so that it may reach a decision, but that information is denied.
It is strange that on February 5 the committee will appear in the Supreme Court of Ontario to test the validity of the Speaker's warrant and to ask the court to order the Superintendent of Insurance and one of his officials to appear before the committee and co-operate with it.
I asked the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) some questions regarding the appearance of the Superintendent of Insurance and other officials before the justice committee. He told me he had advised them not to appear.
On several occasions I have tried to plumb this matter with the minister in an effort to get some concrete information. Several hundred people have lost millions of dollars as a result of what appears to be a mammoth fraud.
The minister has tried on several occasions to pass off the connection between Astra Trust, Re-Mor and C & M Financial Consultants Ftd. They are the three companies involved in this mammoth bankruptcy. They are interconnected through common ownership of share stock and directors. The minister has said that we should not try to link Astra Trust and Re-Mor unconditionally. He has said the nature of the inquiries is different, that the RCMP is investigating Astra Trust and that the province of Ontario is investigating Re-Mor. No information has been given by the minister, and now he has told his officials not to appear before the committee nor to give information.
These three companies collapsed last spring. As we all know, bankruptcy is a federal matter. Information available indicates an agreement was made by the principals in Astra Trust to make an additional investment of $2 million over an agreed period of time. That money came from Astra Trust investors to Re-Mor and then from Re-Mor, in the form of mortgages, it went out to a group of companies controlled by the principals of Astra. Then it went back into Astra Trust. In other words, it went out of one pocket into another pocket in the
Access to Information
same pair of pants. That is the dimension of the fraud we have before us.
I hope this bill in some way will allow information of this sort to be made available. I hope also that when a provincial body with financial responsibilities is trying to investigate a fraud of this nature, where federal officials have been involved-as 1 will show later-this bill will allow a large measure of mutual co-operation. The matter can then be looked at, and we can get to the bottom of it so it will not happen again. Therefore, we can save innocent people from being taken this way again.
The minister would have us believe that his officials were unaware of the source of the $2 million of so-called additional investment. The evidence is to the contrary, and I will come back to that point in a moment.
I am convinced by what I have read about this and by the information I have been able to gather that they did know and that they knowingly allowed a provincial mortgage company, namely Re-Mor, to be used as a conduit for money going out of and into Astra Trust.
But there are other pressing questions. What magic hold did the principals of Astra Trust have on the president of the Liberal Party of Canada that he would comment in a memo of his law partner? This memo was read into the record of the Ontario committee the other day. It says:
Stanbury pointed out problems, pressures and flak he would receive if this application is turned down.
The application, of course, is the application of Astra Trust for a trust licence. Maybe the freedom of information bill would help us get that out. But seriously, what problems, what pressure and what flak is he referring to? When Astra Trust was in violation of the Trust Companies Act and its regulations, it was the president of the Liberal Party of Canada who informed the president of Astra Trust. It was the president of the Liberal Party of Canada who arranged for his law partner to draft a rescue agreement designed to funnel $2 million of additional investment by three directors into Astra Trust. We have to ask ourselves whether this is the normal function of a president of a political party. Does he, in the normal course of events, mount rescue operations? Did anyone ask where the $2 million originated? What is the hold which the president of Astra Trust has on the president of the Liberal Party of Canada? Was there quid pro quo for such exceptional and diligent assistance? That sort of information being brought before this committee is a reason why we need a freedom of information law.
The connection between Astra Trust, C & M and Re-Mor is solid, and the depth is known. The Ontario justice committee sitting on January 14, 1981, at page 21 of its minutes recorded a means dated December 6, 1978. In part, we find:
RCMP investigating mortgage frauds in the Niagara region.
It goes on to say that the Ontario Securities Commission wants to put a receiver into C & M unless Humphrys, the Superintendent of Insurance, strenuously objects. That is in the record of the committee in Toronto.

January 29, 1981
Access to Information
Finally we have a letter from Mr. Humphrys to the Ontario Securities Commission. I mention this in particular because when I tried to get information about this matter through questions to the Minister of State for Finance, he tried to tell us there is just no connection at all between Astra Trust and Re-Mor and that they are not connected in any way. I have been saying that if we had a freedom of information act, perhaps this would have come forward and the investigation in the Ontario legislature would not have been necessary. This letter is quite straightforward, it is not at all derogatory, but it does show the connection. It is addressed to the chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission, Mr. J. C. Baillie. It reads:
Dear Mr. Baillie: Re: Astra Trust: I am pleased to be able to inform you that the second instalment under the agreement whereby Messrs. Montemurro, Luciani and Vasko are buying the Spanish property was received by Astra Trust on January 15. The next instalment of $500,000 is due on March 31. We have renewed the company's licence to March 31, the normal expiry day of our licences, and will renew it quarter by quarter as further instalments are paid in the absence of any other problems. I was pleased that the January instalment has been paid since we now have a total of $500,000 put up by these directors, a considerable improvement in the position of the agency funds.
The agency fund is now accumulating a considerable amount of cash and short-term deposits. I think it is important that these funds be invested with a good yield in order to permit the fund to meet the interest payments required under outstanding contracts. Also, a good yield is needed to build up a reserve against possible losses under other investments that are in the portfolio.
Now we come to a very interesting part. The letter goes on to say:
I think at some point it would be appropriate for the commission to release the fund from its control-
The commission he is referring to is the Ontario Securities Commission. The letter continues:
-and I am suggesting that this might be considered after the March 31 instalment is paid. In the meantime, I think the company might be given general authority to invest funds received pursuant to the purchase agreement or as the consequence of maturing assets. I think it would be appropriate for the commission to give blanket authority to the company to invest such funds in short-term government securities or corporate papers of good quality.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to limit in any way the hon. member's right to participate in this debate, but I must say that over the past few minutes, although he has been very generous in mentioning the words "freedom of information" once or twice, it seems to me that we are talking about a matter which has been the subject of questions during question period.


Erik Nielsen: Unanswered.


Francis Fox: It is beyond me, and I have tried to follow the hon. member very closely, to see how it really fits in with Bill C-43.


William James Kempling: It certainly does fit in. We have asked numerous questions on this matter about the connection between Astra Trust and Re-Mor. We have been told by the minister that there is no connection, that one is a provincial company and the other is a federal company.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I may have done the hon. member and the minister a disservice in
this case, when he rose to point out the problem of relevancy, by not speaking. In actual fact, the Chair has recognized that the hon. member is pursuing a matter of some particular interest to him. As it happens, I was in the chair the other evening when the hon. member pursued this matter during the adjournment motion. The fact is that simply relating it verbally to the bill under debate now does not necessarily mean it is relevant. The hon. member has a problem with relevancy. If he could bring the matter he wants discussed closer to the principles of the bill under debate, that would fall more within the rules of the House.


William James Kempling: I listened very carefully. I do not want to belabour your point, Mr. Speaker. I accept your words. However, I listened very carefully to the Minister of State for Multicuituralism (Mr. Fleming), and I did not find too much relevance in his comments. I have nearly completed my remarks. I have only a few minutes left. I will just finish reading this letter and make some concluding remarks. I quote:
I think it would be appropriate for the commission to give blanket authority to the company to invest such funds in short-term government securities or corporate papers of good quality.
After March 31, if the instalment then due is paid, investment authority might be widened somewhat, but with a continuing attention to the maturity dates of the contracts-
I would be happy to discuss this suggestion with you on the telephone or otherwise at your convenience. I expect to be talking with Mr. David Anderson who seems to have been the catalyst in getting this thing moving.
This was only six months before Astra Trust went into bankruptcy. The Superintendent of Insurance was saying they were renewing their licence every 90 days. In the meantime, innocent people were investing thousands, if not millions, of dollars into Astra Trust. They were eventually bilked out of that money. If that is not a clear case for freedom of information, I do not know what is.
We want some importance attached to these matters. We hope this bill will be amended in committe. I am going to watch to see whether it will be amended to allow more free information to pass back and forth between provincial and federal authorities. Looking at the massive evidence that has been gathered in this one instance, had there been more openness and more forthright information passed between the two levels of government, a large number of the people who have been victimized by this unfortunate affair would not have lost their funds. In fact, they probably would have been investing in other areas. The reality today is that 320 people, most of whom are in very dire straits as a result of this mammoth fraud, are in a situation which could have been considerably alleviated by a good passage of information back and forth and less restriction between federal and provincial authorities.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Does the hon. member seek the floor?


Erik Nielsen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am not just standing to pass the time of day.
January 29, 1981


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Others do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the bill is entitled a bill to provide access to information. 1 am reminded of the bill which provided for wiretapping and electronic surveillance, which was called the protection of privacy act. Now we have an access to information act. It does reveal how many hurdles one will have to get over before getting even close to information, if they get it at all. 1 am very skeptical. I am very cynical that the attitude spoken of by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) is simply not there with the people across the way.
The treasury benches have no interest in providing information to members of Parliament, let alone providing information to other individuals who are entitled to it. My prediction is we will see precious little information released under the provisions of this bill. All one has to do is look at some of the questions on the order paper to examine that attitude. Those members who spoke of attitude were quite right. When the freedom of information bill was introduced for the first time, the prime minister of the day said, and it is quite true, that it is as much a matter of attitude as anything else.
One question has been on the order paper for some three and a half years. It is on page 170 of the latest order paper, question No. 1,705, which reads as follows:
Did the government receive any funds for payment of the swimming pool at the official residence of the Prime Minister at 24 Sussex Drive and, if so, in what manner?
It is a very simple question to answer. The government may want to answer it under the provisions of this bill. The answer may be that because it endangers national security, it will not provide the answer. They may wish for a number of reasons to refuse the information. However, the question is at least deserving of an answer. No answer has been forthcoming, and the question is perennial on the order paper, every single order paper that is printed.
At page 158 of the order paper, there is a question which was asked last October by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie). It is a very simple question. Having performed for a short time responsibilities on the treasury benches, I know the answer is easily obtainable. It simply asks:
What amount of government funds has been allocated for research into the causes and treatments of cancer?
The Ministry of National Health and Welfare together with Treasury Board should be able to provide that information within a week.
Speaking of attitude with regard to providing information, at page 1 30 of the order paper there is a question which was placed on June 27 last, over six months ago, which simply asks:
Is Mr. Kenneth Backwell employed by the Department of Public Works and, if so (a) in what capacity (b) what is his annual salary (c) is he connected with the property management division?
When I was minister of that department, questions were answered immediately, forthrightly, fully, correctly and hon-
Access to Information
estly. The question simply asks if a certain individual is employed by the Department of Public Works, in what capacity and at what salary. That is the attitude of this government, which is going to administer this bill it is asking us to pass, presumably without amendment. At page 129, there is another question which has been on the order paper since last June:
Did the Minister of Supply and Services order an investigation of Madame Claudette Nadeau, President and General Manager of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and, if so, is it anticipated that there will be a change in Madame Nadeau's status and, if so, would such a change have any significance in connection with any present investigation?
That question could be answered in the negative if the government wished, but at least it could be answered. If members of Parliament in this place cannot get information to simple questions such as that, what hope has the ordinary citizen of obtaining information under the bill before us? I suggest there is very precious little hope because the attitude is not there. The attitude of this government is an attitude of preservation of secrets.
Another question which my friend, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) put on the order paper on May 14, over eight months ago, requires an equally simple answer. He asked:
What was the expenditure by the Privy Council Office for the fiscal year (a) 1977-78 (b) 1978-79 (c) 1979-80, for the commission of inquiry concerning certain activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
What more simple a task is there than looking at the books of account of the government to answer that simple question? His second question was:
What was expended for (a) legal counsel (b) non-legal investigative services?
Again a question requiring a very simple answer and one which is quickly and easily compiled by Treasury Board officials, if not in the ministry responsible. Again this is a question of attitude. If the answer to a question is going to be embarrassing to the government, the information is not produced. Believe me, being the cynic I am, if a request for information under this bill is going to provide embarrassing exposure or answers or information that will embarrass the government the information will not be produced, and there are enough barriers, loopholes, nooks and crannies in the provisions of this bill to allow the government to duck the production of information asked for.


An hon. Member:: Crooks and nannies.


Erik Nielsen: Crooks and nannies, yes.
Another example of the attitude and failure of this government to provide information is to be found on the order paper at page 108 as follows:
Did Mr. Michael Pitfield pay back to the Receiver General of Canada any portion of the moneys paid to him at the time he ceased to be Secretary to the Cabinet and Clerk of the Privy Council following the general election of May 22, 1979 and, if so (a) on what date (b) what was the amount returned and how was it arrived at?

January 29, 1981
Access to Information
That is a very simple question requiring a very simple answer, but one which would be embarrassing, so the government is not answering.
The questions 1 have referred to may be embarrassing, but what about the expose made by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) a short time ago in respect of directions which have been given in the Privy Council office concerning the withholding of information from members of Parliament in response to questions put on the order paper? If the attitude is to freeze out or prevent members of Parliament from obtaining information as a result of that type of very simple question, what hope is there indeed of any citizen obtaining information under the provisions of this bill?
Another simple question on the order paper which has been there since April 15 is:
What is the complete employment history with the CBC of Mr. Lionel Martin and is he presently stationed in Cuba (b) what were his qualifications that led to him being considered suitable for employment with the CBC?
That is a question requiring a very simple answer.
Again on the same page a question by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
What was the cost of operating the Metric Commission during 1979?
Good Lord, sir, how simple must a question be before it is deserving of an answer? That question has been there since April 18. With that kind of record for refusing to provide information to members of Parliament what hope, sir, is there for any member of the public at large to achieve the release of any information under this bill, the provisions of which are fraught with all sorts of refuge for the government to seek if it does not want to provide embarrassing information?
Here is another question on page 102 which has been there since last April:
Docs the government have any plans for the two Cadillacs formerly used by the Prime Minister up until May 22, 1979 and, if so, what are they?
That has reference to the present Prime Minister. That requires a simple answer which could be knocked off in a matter of seconds.
Someone else wanted a list of Canada Council grants, and that question has been on the order paper since last April.
Here is another question which I am sure, if application were made under the provisions of this bill, would receive the same short shrift, and it is to be found on page 97 and has been on the order paper since April. It is a very simple question:
How many persons named in the Taschereau papers on national security were not prosecuted and who were they and what was the reason?
If the answer to the question would endanger national security, that is all the answer that need be given, but there the question sits, and has since April. I ask why that is so, and I suggest it is because the attitude of this government in respect of providing information is not an attitude which will facilitate the provision of information, but will preclude the release of such information.
Finally, and I just want to mention one more before 1 give the minister time to sum up, this question appears on page 97 and was put on the order paper on April 14 of last year. It is:
Were there any individuals mentioned in the Taschereau file on National Security that were then or thereafter or at any time since, cabinet ministers and, if so, what are their names and in what connection were they mentioned?
If it is not in the interest of national security to provide that information, only that need be the simple answer to the question. One wonders why these questions are not answered.
I have very little hope that even with the passage of this bill in an improved form, with these rascals on the government benches now-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hon. rascals.


Erik Nielsen: Hon. rascals, I am sorry; I do not want to be unparliamentary. I think there will be very precious little opportunity for any citizen to get information.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Following the very non-partisan debate we have had today I wonder if I might seek the indulgence of the House so the minister could have the normal few minutes to reply beyond ten o'clock. I realize our arrangement did not include this arrangement, but I wonder if we could sit a few minutes beyond ten o'clock in order that the minister could reply?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House has heard the proposal by the hon. parliamentary secretary to extend the minister a brief opportunity to respond.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in a signal the minister passed across the floor he indicated that four minutes would be sufficient. I would be prepared to give him five. If the House would so order, I would give him the opportunity he wants.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will give him the same Five.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for the co-operation they have extended during the course of the debate today. I want to thank the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) in particular for his courtesy in allowing me a few minutes to respond following his highly objective and non-partisan speech, the type of thing he is very well known for in this House.
He spoke a great deal about the question of attitude. 1 was listening to some of the questions on the order paper read by the hon. member for Yukon.
Sometimes I get the impression that these are questions which they should have asked themselves during some of the time they were in government a few months ago. However, I suppose the hon. member did not have the time either to ask himself those questions or to answer them during that brief period of time.
January 29, 1981


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. 1 simply rise to express my resentment and to question the parliamentary practice of referring to me as being non-partisan in my speeches in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Objection sustained.


An hon. Member:: A point well taken.


Francis Fox: For the first time this evening I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. member.
In summarizing this debate I want to say that 1 think there was indeed a good deal of consensus concerning the principles behind the access to information legislation introduced in the House today. It is indeed legislation which benefited a great deal from the thought and work of many members on both sides of the House. We on this side of the House had the benefit of legislation which had been brought in by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I think we have made a sincere effort to build on that legislation. We do indeed believe, because we had the benefit of that legislation, that we were able to bring forward perhaps a somewhat improved bill.
In looking back at the bill perhaps I could go back to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Yukon when he expressed his skepticism about the fact that there is a bill. If I were sitting in the opposition, I would take great solace from the fact that the government was indeed coming forward with this type of legislation.
If the hon. member wants to speak of latitude and feels that there have been occasions when he did not obtain the information for which he was looking, he will have to admit that with the type of legislation introduced today, the question of latitude is no longer paramount, since a citizen of this country would have the complete right of access and the right to ask the official who is really responsible before the House, the information commissioner, to take on his case and contest any refusal on the part of the government.
So this is indeed a very significant advance which is being proposed to Parliament in this legislation. I think the fact that
Access to Information
we have found wide consensus this evening is an indication that members want to see progress made.
In the course of my speech at second reading of the bill I indicated that our approach was not a highly partisan approach to this bill but that what we are looking for is as wide a consensus as possible. We wanted to obtain the best bill possible in this area, as we want to do in other areas. However, this is an area where we welcome particularly the input of members of Parliament. I am not saying we have agreed to every amendment that may have been proposed by the other side, but obviously we have given a great deal of thought to reasonable proposals in the area of ministerial responsibility. The government decided to take the route of judicial review. However, we felt there was a possible conflict between the principle of ministerial responsibility and the principle of judicial review. We opted for judicial review. Perhaps there is a slight conflict with the concept of ministerial responsibility, but we did opt for the system which would bring the most openness possible to Canadian government.
I should like to thank all members who have participated in the debate this afternoon. I hope when we get into the committee stage, we will see the same type of positive reaction on the part of the opposition and that they will help us to get the legislation through the committee stage as quickly as possible because it does indeed represent a significant advance in terms of Canadian legislation.
Once again I want to thank hon. members for their contribution to this debate, and I look forward to hearing their comments during the committee stage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: By order made earlier today, there is no adjournment debate this evening. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.05 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, January 30, 1981