1982-06-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, this evening the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) steps up to the plate for the third time as the designated hitter for a team whose win-loss record is as poor at home as it is on the road. In his two previous appearances, although he has carried a budget instead of a bat, he still managed to strike out. In light of this abysmal batting average which has his other team members and everyone in the ballpark suggesting that he be traded for future considerations, and recognizing that he broke with tradition during his two previous trips to the plate by not purchasing and wearing new shoes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the Minister of Finance consider buying and wearing a new pair of Canadian-made running shoes, commonly known as sneakers, so he will have the appropriate footwear to make his getaway following the tabling of the budget.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, the entire water supply of the city of Winnipeg is endangered by the commencement of construction of a sewage lagoon near Shoal Lake, Ontario. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) has a responsibility in this matter as it is the action of an Indian band which is at issue.
The provincial minister of environment in Manitoba has repeatedly contacted the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development about this matter but has received no reply. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House demonstrate its concern for the health of the people of Winnipeg and instruct the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to ensure that he takes every step to ensure that the water supply of Winnipeg is never endangered in this way and that he immediately consult with the minister
of the environment in Manitoba as to what he should be doing to help in this regard.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a very urgent matter. On June 25 a ruling which discriminates against women who are pregnant was upheld in the Federal Court of Appeal. A woman who was critically ill was declared ineligible for unemployment insurance sick benefits because she was six months pregnant. The judge noted that had the provisions in the new Charter of Rights been fully implemented, such a ruling would not have taken place. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That instead of waiting three years until the Charter of Rights automatically makes invalid Section 46 of the Unemployment Insurance Act which prohibits pregnant women from collecting unemployment insurance payments other than maternity benefits, the federal government take immediate steps to delete Section 46 from the act to prevent further discrimination on the basis of pregnancy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, a picture on the front cover of the Alberta Report on May 17, 1982, under the caption "The Food Grab ... Ottawa's Next Big Play", excellently illustrates how thousands of farmers feel about Bill C-85, an act to establish a corporation called Canagrex. The huge hand of government is positioned to grab the buildings, the livestock and the land of the farmer. The

June 28, 1982
5.0.	43
cartoonist, David Saxby, must have read Clause 14 of the bill which would give this new Crown corporation power to buy, sell, store and process agricultural products, and acquire real and personal property by foreclosure of other proceedings or in any other manner and to "do all such things as are necessary or incidental to the exercise of any of its powers ..." etc. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That this House agrees to not pass this bill unless these unwarranted powers are removed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, this past weekend women from across Canada held a national conference to discuss the devastating impact of microtechnology on women workers. Since most clerical and service jobs will soon be automated, with massive job lay-offs which will put some two thirds of the female work force out of work, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New West-minster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett):
That the federal government give top priority to developing job opportunities for displaced workers, more relevant retraining programs for women, including apprenticeships, and that mandatory affirmative action be enforced by the federal government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, a devastating hail storm recently struck the Holland Marsh area of Ontario, causing millions of dollars of damage to vegetable crops as well as destroying hundreds of acres of land and completely wiping out many farmers. This 297region is known across Canada for its rich market garden industry and its vegetable storage and processing facilities. The reclamation of this rich farmland is one of the remarkable achievements of this century. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member
for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That the Minister of Agriculture or his representative personally visit the Holland Marsh to see first hand the damage caused to this vegetable capital of Ontario with a view to working with his provincial counterpart to determine whether or not the region should be declared a disaster area.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MARINE TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax-East):: Madam Speaker, once again I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of some urgency which affects the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). In recent months, incidents of vessel collision and near-collision with standing pier support structures for bridges and other obstacles in navigable waters once again raise the growing urgency for action in Canada with regard to fendering of these support piers. The possibility of collision at high vehicle transit periods across bridges presents the government and the people of Canada with not only a legal but, as well, a definite moral obligation to take those measures immediately which are necessary to put fendering in place so that such incidents will not, in fact, unnecessarily cause the loss of lives at peak traffic periods. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That this government take immediate steps to effect such protection in the seven critical areas known to exist in Canada before an incident occurs resulting in loss of life.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FORESTRY
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move the following urgent and pressing motion. Whereas the forest industry in the Province of British Columbia is in a state of virtual collapse; whereas the unemployed individuals in the province, as has been indicated, have committed arson in some cases in order to create employment in the forest industry of the province; whereas it is unlikely that the forest industry of British Columbia will recover the previous levels because of
June 28, 1982

protectionism in the American market; and whereas mining has a minister of state in the federal government, and also a very high priority with the federal government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That the following priorities be established by the federal government: first, an upgrading of the forestry branch, at least to provide a full deputy minister in charge, if not a minister of state; second, that a long term forest policy be developed by the federal government based on stability of the resource and long term employment for the individuals involved; third, the introduction of an international forest products marketing corporation so that Canadians can expect that Canadian institutions will market their products abroad instead of international or foreign competitors, as is the present situation in many cases.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. At a time when the Canadian economy is in critical condition, when the government should be protecting Canadian jobs and, wherever possible, stopping the flow of Canadian dollars to the United States, the life insurance plan endorsed and supported by the Department of National Defence for Canadian troops, involving more than 40,000 participants, and tens of millions of dollars in premiums, is carried by three American-owned insurance companies. Therefore I move:
That this House direct the Minister of National Defence to reopen the contract for life insurance for the troops, and limit bidding to the 33 Canadian-owned life insurance companies operating in this country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board who will know of published reports last week quoting Jayne Simms of the Public Service Commission indicating "there is definitely some kind of a push on" with regard to filling vacant
Oral Questions
positions in the public service in anticipation of a hiring freeze. The minister may also know that senior departmental officials in more than one department are indicating that there is indeed a push on, both to fill vacant positions and to turn temporary employees into permanent employees in advance of an expected hiring freeze to be brought in tonight. Departmental officials are saying it is a done thing already. How did that information about the budget get out? Presumably it got out through Treasury Board. And what is he going to do about it?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance will be making his statement on the budget tonight at eight o'clock.


QUERY RESPECTING KNOWLEDGE OF DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, the minister appears not to have understood the question. The question comes within his purview. Why are departments today, and why were they last Friday, Thursday and Wednesday, moving to fill vacant positions, with full support apparently of the Public Service Commission? How did they know that a hiring freeze is being brought in tonight in advance of the finance minister's announcement? Did it come from his department? If not, will the minister undertake to find out how the departments know?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I understood the question perfectly well. Apparently the hon. member did not understand my answer. The Minister of Finance is delivering his budget at eight o'clock this evening.


John William Bosley: That is the rankest disregard for a budget leak I have ever heard, even from this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT HIRINGS PROCEED NORMALLY
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the minister responsible for the Treasury Board and for all public hiring. How does the President of the Treasury Board condone, (a) a budget leak, and (b) a budget leak which has the effect of making a mockery of the restraint that he personally has been talking about for so long? Will he undertake in this House today to ensure that hirings proceed as normal so that the people of Canada will know that, whatever happens tonight, the public service of this country was not given advance notice so that it can be protected?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I find this whole line of questioning just a lot of rubbish. I suggest that the hon. member for Don Valley West wait until the minister delivers his budget speech at eight o'clock.
18838

June 28, 1982
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Government of Canada is spending thousands of dollars encouraging people to hire students this summer. We received a letter from the Minister of Employment and Immigration urging Members of Parliament to encourage people to hire students. Will the minister explain to the House why Canada Post, a Crown corporation, hired 130 students for summer work at Gateway facilities in Mississauga and then, four days before they were to start, informed 90 of them by letter that there would be no jobs for them?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I will inquire, Madam Speaker, and report to the hon. member.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ASSIST STUDENTS
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, the final sentence in the letter reads "I wish you luck in obtaining alternate summer employment". All of these young people need money to continue their education. Does the minister think that these people, who felt they had secure summer jobs, will be able to find summer employment elsewhere? What is the minister prepared to do to help these young people find other employment?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should know that we turned the postal operation from a department into a Crown corporation. I will bring to the attention of the president of the corporation the view of the hon. member, and I will report the answer to him.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. I cannot help but paraphrase Winston Churchill a little bit on this day, "Never has so much been owed by so many to so few for so little".
The Prime Minister knows that a deal was struck late last week to transfer effective majority control of the northeast coal project in British Columbia to a Japanese consortium of 12 companies led by Tokyo Boeki and Mitsui with 38 per cent, and leaving Denison Mines of Toronto with only 30 per cent. This $900 million deal may have a greater long-term impact on the Canadian economy than will tonight's budget, as the Prime Minister knows.
Has the Prime Minister or any of his ministers referred this matter to the Foreign Investment Review Agency, or is it the Prime Minister's new policy that foreign firms can be both the buyer and the seller of Canadian resources? And, if so, does the Prime Minister not understand that the seller will sell at the lowest possible price, costing Canadian taxpayers several hundred million dollars over the next 15 years?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, most of the hon. member's question was by way of representation and argument. As far as the question on FIRA is concerned, I will take notice of it and inquire.


EXPORT PRICE OF COAL
James Ross Fulton: My supplementary, Madam Speaker, is direced to the Minister of Transport, who has a great deal of knowledge about the northeast coal deal. As he knows, the taxpayers are subsidizing this deal so far to the tune of about $750 million and have a right to a return on that very sizeable investment. The original contract, as the minister knows, provides for a return from a base rate of $95 per tonne, and all of the government contracts, federal and provincial, have been based backwards from that $95 per tonne figure. If on Friday the federal government allowed the Japanese consortium to take majority control of Quintette, as was agreed last week, what is to stop them, once they control and manage the project, from lowering the base rate per tonne?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the base rate throughput per tonne in the Port of Prince Rupert was the object of intensive negotiation. The price obtained at the time was considered to be the best possible price. Is the price that the coal mines got from the Japanese the best possible price, or is it influenced by negotiations between the coal mines in Canada and the Japanese purchasers-that is another subject. At the time of the discussion of the throughput rate in the Port of Prince Rupert, the impression was that the coal mines had negotitated the best possible price.


RETURN ON PUBLIC INVESTMENT
James Ross Fulton: I think both the Prime Minister, Madam Speaker, and the Minister of Transport are missing what happened in Tokyo in the last week, in that all of a sudden we have the buyer and the seller now being the same body.
Over the next 15 years, the owners, controllers and managers of Quintette, which is 80 per cent of northeast coal, will be deciding what kind of investment will occur, and what kind of price loadings there will be. This will make it very difficult for CN, or the National Harbours Board, or even the infrastructure parts of the corporation, to know what is going on, because they will be unable to control it. Where it has historically been the case there is a majority control such as this, has there been a reference to the Foreign Investment Review
June 28, 1982

Agency? If they take control as is now proposed, and if they decide to lower the per tonne price below $95, with its prorated escalating clause over the next 15 years, does the minister tell this House and tell the people of Canada that we are going to get a return on the $1 billion-odd we have put into this project so far?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I think I understand what the hon. member is insinuating. He is saying that because for future advantages the coal mines of Canada-or he is implying that-did not get the best price for their coal some months ago when the deal was put together-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well, I will give my hon. friend the opportunity to clear up the matter. And consequently he is saying these advantages are being paid now by way of allowing the Japanese purchasers of the coal to come in as equity owners in the coal mine itself. That is my understanding of what my hon. friend is saying. What I am going to answer to that is that obviously, if there is foreign ownership in these coal mines, it will be subject to FIRA, and FIRA and the Government of Canada will decide if those acquisitions are to the advantage of Canada as stated in the legislation itself.


James Ross Fulton: A final supplementary-


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's West.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. John C. C'rosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister wrote to the Prime Minister of Israel on June 9 asking him to agree to a cease fire and to withdraw immediately and unconditionally from Lebanese territory. Has the Prime Minister received an answer to that request from the Prime Minister of Israel and, if so, what is the answer?
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether it is still the position of the Government of Canada that Israel should withdraw unconditionally from Lebanese territory, and could the Prime Minister outline for us any steps he has taken since to accomplish these objectives?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that is the position of the Government of Canada, and I believe it is also the position of this House of Commons, which voted unanimously for a motion, moved by the hon. member himself, asking Israel to withdraw immediately and unconditionally. That motion was supported by the hon. member's party, by the New Democratic Party and by the
Oral Questions
Liberal Party. It is also a position I have taken in representations to Prime Minister Begin.


Mr. Crosbie:: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister forgot part of the question. I asked the Prime Minister whether he has heard back from the Prime Minister of Israel with respect to his correspondence with him and what steps the government has taken since then to see that these objectives are met. I would like the Prime Minister to address himself to that when he responds to my supplementary question.


REPLY TO CANADIAN REQUEST-POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF PEACEKEEPING FORCE
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, as a supplementary question I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether Canada is prepared to consider being a member of an international peacekeeping force in that area, if one is set up either under UN auspices or agreed to by the parties. As the Prime Minister knows, it has been stated by Israel that Israel would like a more effective peacekeeping force. Israel has asked the United States to participate. Would Canada be prepared to participate? Would the Prime Minister deal with those points?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will attempt to answer the questions in order. Yes, 1 did receive an answer from Prime Minister Begin. His attitude was contrary to that which I had expressed and the House of Commons had expressed. He believed Israel should not withdraw immediately and unconditionally.
In so far as a so-called peacekeeping force is concerned, the hon. member will realize that his question is hypothetical in its very form: if a peacekeeping force is set up, what will the Government of Canada do? I do not believe I should attempt to answer a hypothetical question, but as a partial response to that, and to the second question, I will say that I discussed the matter with the Secretary General of the United Nations when I met him on Friday of the week before last. I discussed the matter with him and his officials at some length. The question of such a force was raised, and we exchanged views on it.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question was to be directed to the Minister of Finance. I am surprised he is not in the House on the day of his budget.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Jarvis:: He is out buying new shoes, Mike. They are likely imported shoes, too.


John Carnell Crosbie: Does he want any mukluks?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

June 28, 1982
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will address my question to the Prime Minister. Will there be a budgetary lockup for Members of Parliament similar to that which has been held for some 30 or 40 years, which will allow Members of Parliament the opportunity to study the contents of the budget and provide them with the means by which they can responsibly respond to the elements of the budget? If these lockup privileges are not to be extended, would the Prime Minister explain why they will not be extended?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the first point I would make is that as far as I know this practice has not existed for 30 or 40 years as the hon. member alleges.


Mr. Nielsen:: It has indeed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe it is a practice which began much more recently, some ten years ago, during my administration. I would be interested in hearing about the precedents or the historic references the hon. member has, which allow him to suggest glibly that the practice has existed for 30 or 40 years.
In so far as the proposal made by the hon. minister is concerned, perhaps the Minister of State for Finance has more recent knowledge than I, but to my knowledge, the offer of the Minister of Finance to the opposition on Friday was that they have an advance copy of the budget and a briefing on it provided they undertake not to break the embargo until after the minister has finished speaking.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I am advised that the practice of budget lockups was undertaken when the Hon. Donald Fleming was the minister of finance. I can go no further back than that, but the practice has been in existence for some while, and I think the Prime Minister knows that.


APPLICATION OF RULES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, may I put a supplementary question. If it is such an important principle for the government to keep Members of Parliament gagged during the time the Minister of Finance is making his speech, why is it that, when the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal Party were in opposition, they left the House of Commons while the former minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West, was making his speech? Why the double standard? Why have we changed these rules now, when the Prime Minister himself was following a different practice as leader of the opposition?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it is true that increasingly this practice of the lockup has been abused by-perhaps by members of both parties. 1 do not recall the circumstances when the hon. member for St. John's West read his budget, but the Minister of Justice, a former minister of finance, reminds me that it was begun by
the Conservative opposition when he was minister and that it is a practice that is-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Why the double standard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is asking why there is a double standard. It is not a double standard if it is practised by both sides.
I wish the hon. member would listen to my answer, which is that this practice has been going on for some time. As the Minister of Finance points out, it is certainly not fair to Members of Parliament that the people listening to the electronic media-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Why did you leave?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is asking supplementary questions. It he wants to ask a supplementary question I will sit down and hear it, but if he wants to hear my answer he should at least be polite and listen while I am answering.


CANADIAN UNITY
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-DufTerin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice. The incoming executive director of the Canadian Unity Information Office has said that he has been specifically asked to look into CUIO's practices in awarding contracts. What practices in awarding contracts led the minister to issue that request to the new executive director?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, several questions were raised in committee, and I have asked the new director to ensure that all current practices within the Canadian Unity Information Office are up to standard. That is part of his mandate, and since he was newly appointed, I asked him to make sure that all the usual guidelines were followed under his direction.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, specific questions were not asked in committee as they related to the awarding of contracts by CUIO. Perhaps the minister could elaborate on that.


INVOLVEMENT OF EMPLOYEE IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The new executive director also says that he has been instructed by the minister to review CUIO's guidelines governing the political activities of its employees. Could the minister confirm that he gave three months' notice to Mr. Patrick McDougall, a former employee of CUIO, as a result of his involvement with the Liberal election campaign in the Newfoundland provincial election?
June 28, 1982


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, it is true that Mr. McDougall told me he had taken part in the Newfoundland election campaign, and since he was working under contract and was hired under an exchange with the private sector, he was not aware of all administrative practices. I told him he had been unwise, even though it was after working hours, to take part in the Newfoundland election. Since under his contract, he had to be given three months' notice if we wanted to release him from his duties, that is what we did, and, in fact, he himself offered to leave when he realized he had committed an indiscretion.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is connected with the question I put to the minister last week on the status of UFFI victims. Could the minister inform the House on the results of work being done with the National Advisory Council on UFFI, since it seems the minister had a meeting with Council representatives over the weekend?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question, I can report that the National Advisory Council on UFFI has asked me to allow all home owners to remove the foam from their homes, if that was their choice. Saturday, I accepted this recommendation on behalf of the government, which means that during the next few weeks, a task force including representatives of associations of UFFI victims will work in close co-operation with officials from my department to assist home owners who want to remove the product from the walls of their homes this summer. I have therefore decided to change the regulations of the assistance program for UFFI victims to reflect this new aspect. In addition, the courses we are offering contractors will also be offered free to home owners who want to remove the product from their walls themselves.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport about the Gilson report, which I understand he will table today after three
Oral Questions
o'clock, and which was developed in a sort of Polish government style, behind closed doors, without any public input from grain producers. Will the minister subject the Gilson report to public scrutiny and do as Mr. Justice Emmett Hall did, that is, allow the Standing Committee on Transport and the Standing Committee on Agriculture to hold hearings across western Canada on the Gilson report and its recommendations?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I do not think it is fair to say that representatives of farmers in the west did not take part in the negotiations that took place under Dr. Gilson. Representations have been extensive. There were 67 different groups represented. The next step will see those who took part in negotiations going back to their associations and defending the Gilson report in part or in total. In coming days other ministers and I will similarly meet with representative groups-wheat pools, railways, and all kinds of associations. In the fall we will present a bill on western grain transportation which will be extensively debated in the House and in committee, so I dare say there will be a lot of participation in the process that will lead to the Final legislation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, 50 of the 67 organizations that the minister referred to do not grow grain or ship grain that is subject to the statutory rates. This is consultation El Salvador style-on land reform they consult with the land owners, not the land users.


REQUEST THAT RECOMMENDATIONS BE SUBJECTED TO REFERENDUM
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. If the minister thinks the Gilson and Snavley reports are so good will he submit them to the grain producers, that is, to those who hold wheat board permits, and allow them to vote on whether they want Mr. Justice Hall's recommendations or the Gilson report recommendations? Let us have no more nonsense such as consulting with outfits that do not grow grain or ship grain that is subject to the statutory grain rates. The minister has deliberately saturated his consulting process with people who are opposed to statutory grain rates, opposed to orderly marketing, and opposed to the Canadian Wheat Board. That is what he has built this stacked deck on, with the Gilson report. Will he submit the question to a referendum-Mr. Justice Hall's report or the Gilson report, which one?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, most of the farm leaders who attended the negotiations are elected on an annual basis, so it must be terribly difficult to be the leader of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool or the Alberta Wheat Pool and not represent the will of the members of those pools. If anything, they are more in the hands of their members than we are in the hands of the electors.

June 28, 1982
Oral Questions
Be that as it may, I repeat that there will be an extensive process of consultation between representatives of the groups who were at the Gilson exercise and their members in the weeks ahead. I and other members of the cabinet will meet with a good number of these associations. The process of consultation will be really exhaustive by the time we come to debate the bill in the fall. Then there will be parliamentary views expressed on this bill, and if my hon. friend wants to bring other people to committee to discuss the issue, he will have a chance to do that.
I have been involved in this issue for a couple of years now, and almost everywhre I went in the west people would say, "We have discussed this problem now for decades; it is time to act". My hon. friend would like to go back to the past; I suggest he come forward to the present and into the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT REPORT BE REFERRED TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Why is the minister circumventing the parliamentary process at this particular time? We have the Gilson report tabled, and it is very complex with many areas which require clarification. Would the minister not consider referring the report to a standing committee where he, and indeed Dr. Gilson, would avail themselves to clarify some of the very important recommendations made in this report so that Members of Parliament would have a clear understanding of its recommendations before legislation is brought before the House?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, those representatives who were at the Gilson exercise, as I call it, suggested that now they have the report they should go back to their different memberships and discuss the conclusions reached by the federal representative. They are the ones who want to take it up with their members. Again I say that after the federal government has made its decision on this issue, we will have plenty of time in the fall to debate everything in the Gilson report.


Mr. Clark:: Just like VIA Rail.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not know what will be retained by cabinet from the Gilson report, but I am quite willing to say today that it is a tremendous effort and generally well received.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: By whom?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well received by people who looked at it this morning. But I will immediately add that it was almost impossible to read what was on the faces of those representatives yesterday or last night because, before expressing their own personal views on the Gilson report, they want to go back and discuss it with members of their associations, which I think is a hell of a good democratic process.


ROLE OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, surely the minister should and does realize that he has a responsibility to the members of this House who are elected to serve the interests of their constituents. Fortunately the bulk of those members are situated on this side of the House, but the minister insists on not allowing those members the opportunity of participating in this debate.
Will the minister, before the adjournment of the House, consider referring this report to the standing committee so that members can question the minister and Dr. Gilson to clarify further the recommendations? And since the minister is sold on the report and the consultations, are we to assume that he accepts the recommendations? If not, are there any areas with which the minister does disagree?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, in my understanding of the parliamentary process the role of the opposition is not to comment, favourably or unfavourably, on investigations or reports asked for on our way to legislation. The role of the opposition is to comment, favourably or unfavourably, on propositions that the government intends to put into law.


Charles Joseph Clark: Why did you set up the task forces?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is what the opposition will have a chance to do in the fall. If every report were brought to the House and to committee for discussion, I suggest there would be no end to it.


MARINE TRANSPORT
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, my qestion is for the Minister of Transport. I should say to him that the Gilson report, as well as the subject matter which concerns me, is perhaps a little more important to more Canadians than is the ports bill.
In light of incidents, both here, in the U.S., and in certain parts of Europe, involving either direct collisions with bridges carrying vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or near collisions, including Halifax harbour and the St. Lawrence River, I ask the minister whether or not these incidents raise once again in the minister's mind not only the legal obligations which might obtain but also the moral obligation to extend some form of bridge piling structure fendering so as to protect lives in the event of an accidental collision.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act the Government of Canada authorizes the construction of bridges over certain waters, and it has responsibility for maintaining traffic in those waters. When it comes to bridges such as the two in Halifax which my hon. friend has in mind, those are
June 28, 1982

intra-provincial bridges and consequently it is the responsibility of the province to protect the pilings of those bridges. I understand that this is a rather difficult argument to carry to the limit, so we are looking at ways now where, with the cooperation of the provinces, it might be possible to attack this very interesting and important safety matter.


DEPARTMENTAL APPROACH
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, in recent years hundreds and hundreds of lives have been lost in avoidable accidents. Of the 16 existing situations, seven are critical and four are extraordinarily critical. Do I understand the minister to be saying that he and his officials are attempting to develop an approach which will, in effect, result in cost sharing, or total absorption of the cost by the federal government, because it is a multiprovincial problem? Is the minister saying that in fact his department will look at this, and that it is perhaps something we might approach even as early as this summer?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, indeed I was being very cautious because this can be a rather expensive venture. However, in the last number of months, in the maritimes in particular, we have come to some kind of agreement with the provinces under which we are making savings in transportation and allocating those savings to other purposes in the area of transportation. So it is in that limited context that we are looking at it now. It is a question of substantial importance, I am very familiar with and aware of it, and like my hon. friend I think something might be done or could be done, and if something can be done I will try to do it.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS, COOK ISLANDS, NEW ZEALAND
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Javeta Short, the Minister of Internal Affairs, Cook Islands, New Zealand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the public concern which has been generated in a number of places in Canada regarding the use of the chemical Tordon 101 and Tordon 10K, by utility companies to control the growth of brush near power lines, can the minister say if this defoliant chemical, sometimes called Agent White, has been adequately tested so that her department can recommend it as being safe to use, and that there are adequate
Oral Questions
controls on its use to ensure that it does not pose a public health hazard?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, that defoliant includes one element called Picloram which is on the IBT list. Replacement studies are under way in order to permit us to make a proper health assessment as soon as possible, but there is no reason, to our knowledge, for people to worry about Picloram being a residue on food because of its usage which is licensed and controlled by the provinces. In the case to which the hon. member referred, the province of Ontario has approved Picloram for roadside clearing, but only by licensed applicators. This will be in areas where there should be no population. The only warning which appears on the label is with regard to occupational safety, in other words, for those spraying with that pesticide.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the status of women. This past weekend the minister will know that there was a very major national conference which brought women from across Canada to meet here in Ottawa to discuss their concerns about the tremendous impact of high technology particularly on female workers. Of course this revolution is happening now, but it will be worse in the future. Since most clerical and service jobs which employ primarily female workers will soon be automated, what plans does the government have to replace the massive job losses which will put some two thirds of the female work force out of work?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the government has already launched a task force which is investigating this very problem. The task force, headed by Dr. Margaret Fulton, has already met in Toronto and will be holding meetings throughout the country. In addition, we, that is, the status of women, as part of the field trials' operations in the Offices of the Future Program which was announced a couple of months ago, are very much aware of this impact on our monitoring and will be devising programs to look into the situation very carefully.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I am sure that task forces are fine, but action is needed now. Both short-term and long-term plans by the federal government are needed now. We were told at this conference that retraining programs for displaced female workers are now practically non-existent or, if they do exist, that they are practically obsolete, such as secretarial training, for example, that few women can get into trades training and that women will be pushed into the low-paying, part-time, nonunionized jobs; this is their future.

June 28, 1982
Oral Questions TRAINING PROGRAMS


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, in view of this extremely serious situation, does the minister not agree that it is imperative for the federal government to institute mandatory affirmative action, to develop future-oriented job-training programs, including apprenticeship training, and to give major priority to job creation for women? What does she, as the minister responsible for the status of women, intend to do about it?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should be very much aware of what is included in the National Training Act which was passed by the House and is now awaiting royal assent. This particular act addresses many of the problems which she has raised. I suggest that she examine some of the special training programs which are in effect, and the money which has been put into nontraditional training by the government. I urge the women of the country to examine these programs and to take advantage of the programs which are in existence now. I suggest to them that they are not aware of what is available. It is part of my job and of the hon. member's job to ensure that they take advantage of them.


IMPORTS OF SPUN ACRYLIC YARNS FROM MALAYSIA
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Madam
Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of State for International Trade. Imports of spun acrylic sales yarns from Malaysia are increasing rapidly and are resulting in the loss of work, particularly in Perth, Ontario, but in other factories across Ontario and Quebec. Why was a specific restraint with Malaysia not renewed for the 1982-1986 period, similar to the restraints with other countries?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of that specific product being included in the MFA bilateral agreement with Malaysia, but I will check and get back to the hon. member.


REQUEST THAT IMPORTS BE ROLLED BACK TO FORMER LEVELS
Paul Wyatt Dick: Madam
Speaker, at the same time will the minister check and report back on what action the government will take to roll back imports to the former restraint level and re-establish specific restraint levels through to 1986, which would make them consistent with the recommendations of the textile and clothing board?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, all the bilateral agreements which we have negotiated under the MFA are under discussion right now within the department.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of State for International Trade. In light of the fact that the minister has not seen fit to go ahead with the national trading corporation, could he explain to the House why he is considering supporting the Canagrex bill which gives the right to buy and sell agricultural products within Canada by the federal government to a Crown Corporation?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, First of all, the request for the national trading corporation was different from the Canagrex legislation. The Canagrex legislation will fill a void which is not at the present time being handled within the private sector.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Last week the minister told the House that, despite the $3 billion which has been cut from the capital program of the Department of National Defence, none of the major projects has been delayed or cancelled. Would the minister tell the House whether or not any smaller projects, such as the replacement of five gate vessels for the naval reserves, have been delayed or cancelled?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, following the answer which I gave the hon. member sometime ago on the capital investment or rather the capital expenditures of the Department of National Defence, he should know, as an ex-minister of national defence, that we project our capital expenditures on a 15-year basis. There are, of course, many fluctuations which affect these 15-year projections, such as fluctuations in American inflation, in the rate of Canadian inflation, and also the rate of the Canadian dollar. All these issues are taken into consideration in our capital expenditures. We must re-evaluate and adjust, as years go by, what we can do with the financial resources given by the government to National Defence. It is not a question simply of what we can do this year or next year. We have to project over the long term, and it depends a lot on the economic situation.


MANPOWER LEVEL OF ARMED FORCES
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question will be quite short. As a means of finding the money which the minister will be short of, is he contemplating reducing the size of the manpower of the Canadian forces?
June 28, 1982


J. Gilles Lamontagne: No, Madam Speaker. I think the accepted strength at the moment is 83,400 or 82,800. I can correct that if I am wrong, but I think it is 83,400 people. At the moment we are at full strength. There is no question of cutting the authorized strength approved by the government.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I am sure he is aware that there are Canadian citizens and other persons who would be ordinarily resident in Canada who are trapped at the moment in Lebanon. To date, Canadian representatives in Lebanon have not been able either to identify them properly or find out where they are. Would the Prime Minister consider making representations, both to the authorities in Beirut and to the authorities in Israel, asking that they assist us in identifying our citizens and residents who are in that war-torn country and in attempting to have them conducted out of the country with safe passage?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will inquire into the matter. I understand that the Department of External Affairs has been in touch and assisting with these cases. The hon. member shakes his head no. I will inquire into it, and if there is any way in which we could help, obviously we would want to do so.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It concerns the Gilson report. The minister has had the report for some two weeks. Obviously he and his department have studied it and his officials have communicated their feelings about the report to him. Could the minister indicate to the House whether there is any part of the report about which he has any great concern or any serious questions?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I said that I would not comment on it because obviously my colleagues want to be associated with me in the decision-making process. But there is one thing in the report which obviously comes to mind immediately. As my hon. friend remembers, in the statement of last February 8 the government had indicated some parameters, some general principles. One of those principles was that the cost for the next four years to the federal government would be at the level of $3.2 billion. It comes out as $3.5 billion in the Gilson report. If my hon. friend, like me, is rather skeptical about the rate of
Tabling of Documents
inflation indicated as an assumption in the report, then he might conclude that it will be more than $3.5 billion. That is one of the difficulties.
Another observation which might be made is about all the predictions, about the terrible things that were to happen. We all remember our NDP friends yelling all across the west that this was going to be the downfall of western agriculture. The fact is that should the government adopt the Gilson report, or something approaching it, the increase of the cost of transportation to the farmers would be rather moderate. Should the government accept the whole thing it would be 50 per cent more than the Crow in four years' time, and after 10 years it will be 220 per cent of Crow, which is far away from what those guys had been predicting all along. This is particularly true considering what the defeated government of Saskatchewan kept announcing all through the campaign which took place there. Therefore, one now realizes the unfairness of these boogies that were built up by the NDP and its Saskatchewan wing.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Wednesday, June 23, 1982, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, with your leave, I wish to table, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), the Gilson Report on Western Grain Transportation-Report on Consultations and Recommendations, and in French "Transport des grains dans TOuest- Rapport sur les consultations et les recommandations".

June 28, 1982
Order Paper Questions


PETITION
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, further to the petitions tabled by a number of my colleagues on Wednesday last and on this day, directly following the tabling of the Gilson report on grain freight rates, I am pleased to present petitions of some 834 residents of Manitoba. They are people who were excluded from the consultation process of the Gilson report and who call upon Parliament to maintain the Crow rate. They recognize that changing the Crow rate will reduce farm incomes, contribute to the breaking up of communities on branch lines and increase trucking and road costs. Mindful that three royal commissions have recommended the retention of the Crow rate, they pray that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) will heed the message of this timely petition.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,539, 3,540, 4,059, 4,072, and 4,226.

GRAPHIC ARTISTS, STUDIO S & B


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is a complete list of all business done by any department with Graphic Artists, Studio S & B, 400 St. Antoine St. West, Montreal, including the nature of such business, the dates involved, the subjects involved and the money paid both in each case and in total?
2.	Did Graphic Artists, Studio S & B perform government work through any advertising agency, including Vickers and Benson and, if so, what are all the details in this regard?


David P. Smith: In so far as the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is concerned: 1. Studio S & B supplied CMHC with graphic design services, including typesetting and camera-ready art, for the production of a variety of communications materials. This material is designed for use by the corporation to inform members of the housing industry, lenders, home owners, landlords and the general public of its programs and services.
Amount Spent
	April I, 1980	January 1, 1981
	December 31, 1980	December 11, 1981
National Housing Act changes	$118,433		
Energy Conservation	64,183	$ 31,430Canadian Home Insulation Program	51,714	26,014Metric Conversion	1,192	-Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program	29,272	24,662Real Estate Marketing	-	2.981Corporate Identity Program	-	90,719Housing Technology Incentives Program	-	2,970Canada Mortgage renewal plan	-	9,668Human Resources Centre	2,411Exhibits	-	363Total 1980/1981-$456,012.	$264,794	$191,218
2. CMHC did not purchase services from Studio S & B through Vickers and Benson or any other agent during the period April 1, 1980, to December 11, 1981.
In so far as the Department of Supply and Services is concerned: 1. Since April 1, 1980, there have been no contracts placed with Graphic Artists, Studio S & B.
2. Although Graphic Artists, Studio S & B provide graphic services to most advertising agencies in Montreal and, in the past, have provided services to several of these agencies doing work on government campaigns, the details of such subcontracting services are proprietary to the advertising agencies.
In so far as other Departments are concerned: none.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With respect to the advertisement ordered by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation explaining certain housing provisions in the budget and headed "Attention Homeowners", on what date did CMHC request the advertising firm of Vickers and Benson to book space in newspapers across the country?
2.	Is the government aware that Linda Santucci, a representative of Vickers and Benson made telephone calls to certain newspapers including the Charlottetown Guardian requesting that the original insertion be not printed?
3.	Did the government give Vickers and Benson instructions to "kill" the advertisement and, if so, what are all the reasons that the government would attempt to keep the advertisement from getting into print and specifically, was one of the reasons that someone in government realized that the advertisement was prepared prior to the budget with pre-budget information in the hands of Studio S&B, 400 St. Antoine St. West, Montreal?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. November 9, 1981.2. No. 3. No.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): 1.	Did the Department of Employment and Immigration adopt a new policy for the renewal of the contracts of specified term employees and, if so (a) in what way does the policy differ from the previous policy (b) which other departments use this policy at present?
2.	Will the effect of the new policy be to require existing term employees to reapply for their positions at the end of their contract and, if so, what will be the impact of this on service to the public and on employee morale?
3.	Are any other departments considering adopting a similar policy?


David P. Smith: 1 am informed by the Canada Employment and Immigration Department and the Public Service Commission as follows:
1. No. However, in response to a Public Service Commission directive, national headquarters of this Commission/Department in May of 1981, instructed its regions to take appropriate measures to implement controls on the use of "term" employment. This was done to ensure that "term" employment is not
June 28, 1982

used as a substitute for normal staffing processes, as well as to prevent a recurrence of a situation which existed prior to 1980, whereby a number of "term" employees acquired extensive periods of service without enjoying the rights of indeterminate status.
(a)	The Public Service Commission has not altered its policies with respect to the employment of specified period employees. When a specified period (term) employee's period of employment is terminated by virtue of the specified period expiring and a need continues to exist for work of a term nature, the department concerned is required to obtain referrals from the appropriate referral agency (PSC or CEC) and make another specified period appointment on the basis of merit (most qualified available applicant).
With respect to long term specified period employees (at least five years of continuous service) on August 24, 1980, the Public Service Commission advised departments that a procedure had been established to secure indeterminate status for certain specified period employees who had been appointed for terms of five consecutive years. This procedure allowed appointments without competition through the use of an exclusion order to nullify the effects of appeal rights under section 21(b) and priority appointment rights and consideration under sections 29, 30 and 37 of the Public Service Employment Act. The procedure was intended to deal with situations where specified period employees had had at least five years of consecutive employment in the past without having attained indeterminate status. The new procedure was not intended to provide for an alternative to the normal staffing process for filling positions on an indeterminate basis (i.e. a competition). In this regard, the Public Service Commission reminded departments on January 7, 1981, that the normal procedure to be used to fill positions on an indeterminate basis is the competitive process. This process applies equally whether or not the position to be filled has been temporarily staffed with a specified period employee.
(b)	The procedure outlined above applied to all appointments to departments under the Public Service Employment Act.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	In so far as the Public Service Commission is aware, all departments are following existing policies with respect to specified period employment.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	With reference to the supporting paper No. 1/81 of the Department of Transport Directive, File 2080-1 of January 7, 1982, are Francophones being contacted to relocate to Ontario in order to meet designated quotas of Francophone participation and, if so, in which provinces?
2.	Do the Francophones being recruited have to be currently employed in the public service position which is similar to the position in Ontario which is going to be filled?
3.	Are other language groups such as Polish, Ukrainian, Italian, Portuguese and English being recruited in the same manner as are Francophones with respect to public service positions in the Department of Transport and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, will the relevant recruitment directives be made available to Members of Parliament?
Order Paper Questions
4.	In the Department of (a) Agriculture (b) Communications (c) Consumer and Corporate Affairs (d) Employment and Immigration (e) Energy, Mines and Resources (f) the Environment (g) External Affairs (h) Finance (i) Fisheries and Oceans (j) Indian Affairs and Northern Development (k) Industry, Trade and Commerce (1) Justice (m) Labour (n) National Defence (o) National Health and Welfare (p) Public Works (q) Regional Economic Expansion (r) National Revenue (s) Secretary of State (t) the Solicitor General (u) Supply and Services (v) Veterans Affairs (w) the Treasury Board (x) the Ministry of State for Science and Technology (y) the Canada Post Corporation, are other language groups such as Polish, Ukrainian, Italian, Portuguese or English being recruited in the same manner as are Francophones with respect to public service positions and (i) if not, for what reason (ii) if so, will the relevant recruitment directives be made available to Members of Parliament?
5.	With reference to the supporting paper, does the Department of Transport, in its Action Plan, ensure that language groups other than Francophones are explored for availability?
6.	Which of the departments and the corporation listed in part 4 ensure that language groups other than Francophones are explored for availability?
7.	Docs the Department of Transport establish areas of competition to include all geographical areas where Polish-speaking, Ukrainian-speaking, Italianspeaking, Portuguese-speaking, Indian-speaking, English-speaking or any other language groups are available and (a) if so, where are the areas (b) if not, for what reason?
8.	For each department and the corporation listed in part 4, are there established areas of competition to include all geographical areas where Polishspeaking, Ukrainian-speaking, Italian-speaking, Portuguese-speaking, Indianspeaking, English-speaking or any other language groups are available and (a) if so, where are the areas (b) if not, for what reason?
9.	Does the Department of Transport make personal contact with qualified (a) Polish-speaking (b) Ukrainian-speaking (c) Italian-speaking (d) Portuguesespeaking (e) English-speaking (f) any other language group employees to encourage them to move to Ontario for employment and (i) if so, what means of advertising is used, where is it distributed and at what cost is it produced and distributed (ii) if not, for what reason?
10.	For each department and the corporation listed in part 4, is personal contact made with qualified (a) Polish-speaking (b) Ukrainian-speaking (c) Italian-speaking (d) Portuguese-speaking (e) English-speaking (0 any other language group employees to encourage them to move to Ontario for employment and, if so (i) what means of advertising is used, where is it distributed, and at what cost is it produced and distributed (ii) if not, for what reason?
11.	(a) With reference to the supporting paper, in which provinces does the Department of Transport promote career opportunities with the department by advertising competition posters for all language groups in all high schools, community colleges and universities (b) does the department meet with potential employees from all language groups before it makes a decision on possible employment of a particular person and (i) if not, for what reason (ii) if so, what process is used to ensure all language groups are given equal access to Department of Transport jobs?
12.	In each department and in the corporation listed in part 4, are potential employees from all language groups met with before making a decision on possible employment of a particular person and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, what process is used to ensure all language groups are given equal access to all Department of Transport jobs?
13.	Does the Department of Transport initiate, maintain or increase contact with educational institutions, professional institutions and other organizations in each province and territory in order to identify (a) Ukrainian-speaking (b) Polish-speaking (c) Portuguese-speaking (d) English-speaking (e) Italianspeaking (0 any other language group sources for specific occupational groups and levels and (i) if not, for what reason (ii) if so, in what manner and how often is this done and what process is used to ensure equal contact with all language groups?
14.	For each department and the corporation listed in part 4, is contact initiated, maintained or increased with educational institutions, professional institutions and other organizations in each province and territory in order to identify (a) Ukrainian-speaking (b) Polish-speaking (c) Portuguese-speaking (d) English-speaking (e) Italian-speaking (0 any other language group sources for

June 28, 1982
Order Paper Questions
specific occupational groups and levels and (i) if not, for what reason (ii) if so, in what manner and how often is this done and what process is used to ensure equal contact with all language groups?
15.	Does each department and the corporation listed in part 4 develop resource pools for language groups other than Francophones and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, for which language groups?
16.	Does each department and the corporation listed in part 4 make full use of other language group resource pools at every opportunity when hiring public servants and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, how many persons from each language group were hired in each year 1970 to 1981?
17.	Does each department and the corporation listed in part 4 identify persons in all language groups other than Francophones who are capable of acceding to intermediate and senior level positions and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, how many persons from each language group acceded to an intermediate or senior position in the department in each year 1970 to 1981?
18.	In each department and the corporation listed in part 4, by year from 1982 to 1990, what are the projections for each language group's recruitment proportions and how many persons from each group will be hired?
19.	What will be the government's over-all employment in the public service, including Crown corporations and the military, in 1990 and what projected proportion will be made up by each language group?
20.	For each department and the corporation listed in part 4, are training and development needs determined for all language groups through employee evaluation reports and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, how often and can samples of the evaluations be made available to Members of Parliament?
21.	For each department and the corporation listed in part 4, is use made of all language group pools for special assignments and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, what are all the types of assignments?
22.	For each department and the corporation listed in part 4, does the department encourage all language groups with suitable potential to participate in departmental exchange programs and, if not, for what reason?


David P. Smith: I am informed by Treasury Board Canada and Transport Canada as follows:
The Official Languages Program in the Public Service of Canada is founded on the principle that whether in dealing with the federal government, or in pursuing a career within it, Canadians of each of the two major linguistic communities would have equal opportunities to use their first official language. The equal status of both languages in federal institutions is an explicit objective of both the Official Languages Act of 1969 and of the new Constitution. It is also the objective of the Official Languages Resolution passed in 1973 by Parliament, with the support of all parties, which calls for achieving, within the merit principle, the "full participation in the public service by members of both the Anglophone and the Lrancophone communities".
It is important to note that where the linguistic composition of the public service is concerned, the terms "Anglophone" and "Francophone" are not limited to people whose mother tongue is English on the one hand, or French on the other. Thus "Francophones" include all Canadians of different ethnic origins and mother tongue (such as Polish, Italian, Portuguese, etc.) who are more at home in French than in English. In terms of the official languages policy, French is their first official language. Clearly then, to contact, recruit or train Francophones or Anglophones is also to do so for the above groups as a matter of course.
One of the means approved by the resolution for achieving the participation objective was "further recruitment efforts ... ". Where in any federal department or agency, the participation rate is significantly different from either the general population figures or the more specific labour force statistics, the department concerned is expected to review its situation to ensure that its recruitment practices do not discriminate against qualified Anglophones or qualified Francophones, and within the merit principle, progressively eliminate the disparities observed.
In the Department of Transport's Ontario region, as in various parts of some other departments and agencies, it is the Francophone participation rate which is low. Where this is so, departments are expected to build up contacts with French language educational and professional institutions, resource pools and other sources in order to complement existing Anglophone sources upon which the federal public service has traditionally relied and which it continues to use.
Where Francophones are contacted for availability to fill positions, these positions are not closed to Anglophones, who may and do also apply, and are given equal consideration with Francophone applicants. The decision to employ a particular candidate is then based on his or her ability to meet the qualifications of the position.
"Training programs offered in the French language" are another means approved by the parliamentary resolution. Accordingly, training and development are among the measures proposed in the memorandum to which the question refers. Since these measures are also mentioned in the question itself, notably in part 20, it should be particularly remembered that training and development courses in French are open not only to Francophones but also to bilingual Anglophones, and the converse is true of courses in English.
Since, as stated, the policy makes no distinction between Anglophones whose mother tongue is English and those with other mother tongues, or between Francophones of French mother tongue and those with others, further distinctions between the specific language groups on which data are requested in the question are not relevant to the implementation of the official languages policy. Except as provided above, the following numbered parts of the question are therefore not applicable: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (b), 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,20,21,22.
1.	No. Although a statement to this effect was mentioned in the supporting paper as a possible recruitment strategy, it has not been implemented.
2.	No.
11. (a) As required, the Department of Transport promotes career opportunities in educational institutions in all provinces and these campaigns are directed towards all Canadians.
19. The government has established no such projections for
1990.
June 28, 1982


Mr. Corbett: 1.	In (a) 1981 (b) 1982 to date, in each federal penitentiary, how many persons committed suicide?
2.	For the same period, in each federal penitentiary, how many prisoners suffered bodily harm as a result of action by (a) penitentiary staff (b) penitentiary inmates?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
1.	(a) In 1981, 12 inmates committed suicide. These suicides occurred at the following institutions: Laval Institution-1; Archambault Institution-2; Leclerc Institution-3; Regional Psychiatriac Centre, Ontario-1; Kingston Penitentiary-1; Collins Bay Institution-1; Warkworth Institution-1; Edmonton Institution-1; Kent Institution-1.
(b) In 1982, two inmates committed suicide. The two suicides occurred at Archambault Institution and at the Federal Training Centre.
2.	(a) Information not available. Statistical data is not maintained on bodily harm suffered by inmates as a result of action by penitentiary staff.
(b) Between January 1 and December 31, 1981, there was a total of 56 major and 185 minor assaults committed on inmates by other inmates in maximum and medium-security institutions. Between January 1 and March 31, 1982, there was a total of six major and 42 minor assaults committed on inmates by other inmates in maximum and medium-security institutions. For detailed statistics by institution, please see table below.
A minor assault consists of an incident in which no bodily injury is incurred, or the injury is superficial as, for example, abrasions or bruises. A major assault consists of an incident where the injury results in hopsitalization or treatment which prohibits return to normal routine or where it is evident that the perpetrator intended to cause grievous bodily harm.
Assault on Inmates by other Inmates for the period January 1, 1981 to December 31, 1981:
Institution	Major Assaults	Minor AssaultsDorchester	3	18Springhill	1	7Correctional Development Centre	0	12Laval	1	26Regional Reception Centre, Quebec	0	1Archambault	1	13Leclerc	1	5Cowansville	0	1Federal Training Centre	0	1La Macaza	0	1Millhaven	0	7Kingston	0	3Prison for Women	1	3Collins Bay	5	19Warkworth	1	0Joyceville	8	8Edmonton	2	5Saskatchewan Penitentiary	2	8Regional Psychiatric Centre	1	4Drumheller	6	10Stony Mountain	2	10Bowden	2	2Kent	4	7Regional Psychiatric Centre, Pacific	1	2Matsqui	7	5
Order Paper Questions
Mountain	2	3William Head	4	0Mission	1	4Total 56 For the period January 1, 1982 to March 31, 1982:	185Institution	Major Assaults	Minor AssaultsCorrectional Development Centre	0	1Laval	0	4Archambault	0	2Leclerc	0	2Millhaven	0	1Collins Bay	1	5Warkworth	0	1Joyceville	0	7Edmonton	1	1Saskatchewan Penitentiary	0	1Drumheller	1	12Stony Mountain	2	2Kent	1	0Matsqui	0	3Total	6	42


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question 4,317?


Mr. Dinsdale: Did the Metric Commission provide information on the metric system in braille for the benefit of the blind and, if so, what was such information?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes. Conversion charts prepared by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind have been provided by Metric Commission Canada on request. Metric Commission Canada is currently co-operating with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind in the production of additional materials in braille, in large print, and in audio cassette format for the visually impaired.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, last year on June 18, prior to the royal wedding, I put a question on the Order Paper numbered 2,644 in which I inquired whether or not the post

June 28, 1982
Access to Information
office intended to issue a postage stamp commemorating the royal wedding. In view of the fact that a year has come and gone since that time and that the stork has beaten the post office, could the parliamentary secretary indicate when the post office will be supplying an answer to that question?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I do not know the answer to that offhand but I will be happy to make inquiries on behalf of the hon. member.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Madam Speaker:: Just before the House enters into debate I would like to indicate the grouping and voting arrangement for the report stage. Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) should be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the name of the Minister of Communications and motions Nos. 10, 21 and 22 standing in the name of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) concerning disclosure and access to information should be debated together but voted on separately. Motions Nos. 6, 9 and 18 should be debated together and, if required, voted on separately. Motions Nos. 7, 8, 19 and 20 should be debated together with a vote on motion No. 7 disposing of motion No. 8 and the vote on motion No. 19 disposing of motion No. 20.
Motions Nos. 11 and 12 should be debated separately and voted on separately. Motion No. 15 in the name of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) gives the Chair some misgivings concerning its procedural acceptability. The motion appears to go beyond the scope of the bill. However, there is some doubt in the mind of the Chair in that Clause 3 to Schedule 2 defines personal information as "(c) any identifying number". Because of this doubt, and unless I am persuaded otherwise, it is the Chair's intention to give the hon. member the benefit of this doubt and to put the motion to the House.
Therefore, as motions Nos. 13, 14, 16, 17 and 26 are consequential and related to motion No. 15, it is my intention to group them for debate with a vote on motion No. 15 disposing of motions Nos. 13, 14, 16, 17 and 26.
Motions Nos. 23 and 24 should be debated separately and voted on separately. Motion No. 25 in the name of the hon.
member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe seeks to amend two acts which are not before the House. Therefore, in accordance with Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citations 792 and 773(8)(a), I must rule that motion No. 25 is not acceptable. However, the hon. member, if he so wishes, may present his arguments in favour of the motion when it is called.


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-43, 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, be amended by adding immediately after line 4 at page 2 the following


&quot;AMENDMENT TO ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
6.	If, during the First session of the thirty-second Parliament, an Act entitled the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act is assented to, Schedule II to the Access to Information Act shall be amended by adding thereto, immediately after the reference to the Canada Pension Plan, a reference to the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act and a corresponding reference in respect of that Act to section 49.
7.	If, during the first session of the thirty-second Parliament, an Act entitled the Energy Monitoring Act is assented to. Schedule II to the Access to Information Act shall be amended by adding thereto, immediately after the reference to the Defence Supplies Act, a reference to the Energy Monitoring Act and a corresponding reference in respect of that Act to section 33.
8.	If, during the first session of the thirty-second Parliament, an Act entitled the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act is assented to. Schedule II to the Access to Information Act shall be amended by adding thereto, immediately after the reference to the Canada Labour Code, a reference to the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act and a corresponding reference in respect of that Act to subsection 27(1).
9.	If, during the first session of the thirty-second Parliament, an Act entitled the Petroleum Incentives Program Act is assented to, Schedule II to the Access to Information Act shall be amended by adding thereto, immediately after the reference to the Petroleum Corporations Monitoring Act, a reference to the Petroleum Incentives Program Act and a corresponding reference in respect of that Act to section 17."
and by renumbering Clause 6 as Clause 10.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the House will be asked to vote on an extremely important bill, perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation to appear on the Order Paper of the House during this session. It is important, Mr. Speaker, because it will make changes in our parliamentary institutions, changes which will have long-term consequences for our democracy.
Briefly, Bill C-43 meets three major objectives:
[Stage Direction]
First, it creates for every Canadian and permanent resident a right of access to the information held by more than 130 federal government institutions. It spells out the necessary limits of that right as well as the conditions under which it can be exercised. It makes this right of access meaningful by providing independent and external review over government
June 28, 1982
[Stage Direction]
decisions to refuse access to information. In short, it sets forth the basic rules for obtaining access to government information, where none existed before.
Second, it significantly extends the protection that is now accorded to personal information under Part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It establishes a comprehensive code of fair information practices governing the collection, the use, the disclosure and the retention of information concerning individuals. As well, it reinforces the right of Canadians to obtain information held by the government about themselves. It complements this right with a scheme of independent and external review.
Finally, it reforms the rules governing the privileges now vested in the Crown as regards evidence before the courts. Absolute privilege is retained only for cabinet confidences. All other matters which deserve to be protected on the grounds of a public interest are now reviewable by the courts and the courts will decide whether they ought to be produced or not.
As a result of this legislation, Canadians will be better informed of their government's decisions and actions. They will be better equipped to inquire into the reasons for a given course of government action. This bill-imperfect as some may find it-will make for better government in Canada.
The idea of enacting a statutory scheme of public access to government information has been with us for a long time. It is fair to say that it received its main impetus from members of this House of Commons. In the mid-sixties a member of the New Democratic Party, Barry Mather, sponsored a private member's bill on the subject. Later, Mr. Jed Baldwin of the Conservatives became a crusador for freedom of information, and although he is no longer a member of this House I know that he is still actively involved in promoting such legislation.
In 1977, at the initiative of the Hon. Ron Basford, then minister of Justice, Parliament adopted Part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the present framework for the protection of personal information. At the same time, my colleague, the present Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts), authored a green paper on legislating public access to government documents. That document became the focus for the deliberations of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. The imprint of the committee's recommendations was to be found in both the Conservatives' Bill C-15 and in this government's Bill C-432. I am referring to the uniquely Canadian approach of having a two-tier review of government decisions on access requests. In 1979, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) sponsored the Conservative government's freedom of information bill. Then this government introduced in July, 1980, its own composite bill on access to information, privacy and public interest immunity.
[Stage Direction]
In July 1980, not quite two years ago, I had the privilege of tabling Bill C-43 in the House. Since then, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has spent many hours considering this legislation. A host of associations came to
Access to Information
express their views on various aspects of the bill. These associations came from every sector of our society and included: ecologists, consumer associations, several media groups, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, historians, archivists, the Civil Liberties Union, a number of education groups and so forth. Although they were not all in agreement on every single clause, and although they wanted certain changes, they did agree that the legislation should be passed by Parliament as soon as possible. In response to their representations, the government has proposed a number of amendments to its bill.
[Stage Direction]
I would like to note in passing that if the standing committee had been allowed to deal with the bill with the usual dispatch, the access to information bill would be in force today; it would be reality today. We would not be debating it; we would actually be seeing it enforced across the country. That delay can be due to only one party in opposition, and that is the New Democratic Party.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to express my appreciation of the work done by the committee members who examined this legislation. The committee met 35 times, it heard some 27 experts and interest groups and received 57 written submissions. I should like to mention by name the committee members who worked so hard to bring this bill to its final stage. First of all, the chairman, the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois), and I also wish to stress the role played by my parliamentary secretary, the member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters) and the contribution made by the members for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), Levis (Mr. Gourde), Montreal-Mercier (Mrs Hervieux-Payette), Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin), Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), Jonquieres (Mr. Marceau), Willowdale (Mr. Peterson), Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr Robinson) and Bourassa (Mr. Rossi). I know the member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) was with us in spirit, since he sits on a number of House committees that are concerned with many other subjects.
I also wish to express my appreciation for the active participation of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), who brought a very positive attitude to the committee's proceedings. The first component of Bill C-43 constitutes what will be known as the Access to Information Act. As I said earlier, this legislation gives Canadians and permanent residents the right to have access to information held by more than 130 government institutions. This access will be regulated by flexible procedures that will facilitate the communication of government information. A written application is to be sent to the government institution concerned, specifying the document requested. To help citizens exercise their rights in this matter, the bill
[Stage Direction]
June 28, 1982
Access to Information
provides for annual publication of a compendium informing the public of the function and programs of every government institution. It will also include the various kinds of documents that may be found. The compendium will be updated twice a year and be available throughout Canada. In fact, its usefulness goes beyond the immediate purpose for which it is to be published.
I come now to the exemptions that may be invoked by the government to refuse access to information. The discussion in committee showed that there was unanimous agreement on the need for exemptions; a surprisingly wide consensus on the types of information requiring special protection was also seen. Differences that emerged had more to do with the approach chosen or the precise wording utilized. Our objective in devising the exemptions was to encompass only that information that had to be withheld from disclosure. I am referring to exemptions, not exclusions. Like its Conservative predecessor, Bill C-43 attempts to be precise and detailed. We did not think that adopting the U.S. approach of having very short but general exemptions was the best means of achieving the objectives of the legislation. The exemptions in Bill C-43 give a much better idea of what can be refused than the general and obscure wording used for the exemptions in the U.S. freedom of information act.
[Stage Direction]
I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the independent review system proposed in this bill. Without independent review, the individual has no recourse against government institutions and his right of access will be a right in name only. Bill C-43 provides for a two-tiered independent review process. First, as I said earlier, the Information Commissioner is responsible for receiving and hearing, free of charge, complaints dealing with various aspects of the processing of requests. At the second level, a person who is refused access to a document, even after examination of his complaint by the commissioner, has the right to apply to the Federal Court for review of this refusal. The Information commissioner is not a member of government and is, above all, an agent of Parliament. The legislation gives him extensive powers for examining complaints, and he has access to all information covered by the bill. He may demand that officials explain their reasons for making a given decision. He may recommend that the institution change a decision that has already been made, and in that case, his recommendations are communicated to the complainant.
The commissioner may initiate an investigation without necessarily having received a complaint. He is empowered to go directly to the courts to obtain a review of a refusal to release information. Finally, he reports directly to Parliament and not through a minister. In fact, the commissioner's powers are very extensive and his main role will be to ensure that government departments and agencies abide by both the letter
and the intent of the law. He will not act as a neutral ombudsman. I expect the Information Commissioner to take up the cause of persons seeking information and to defend their interests vis-a-vis ministers and officials. I feel that the Information Commissioner will be the linchpin of access to information.
[Stage Direction]
It may be that the commissioner will not be able to bring a government department to share his view that a document should be released. In that case, the applicant can ask the Federal Court to have the department's denial reviewed. The court will also have extensive powers for the exerrcise of its functions. It will differ from the commissioner mainly in its ability to order the department concerned to release documents if it is determined that these should not be denied.
The court will be deciding on the validity of refusals according to two different sets of rules, depending on the exemption on which a refusal is based. Where a document is refused because its disclosure would prejudice the highest interests of the state-defence, national security, international relations- the court will determine whether the minister had reasonable grounds to come to that conclusion.
The reasonable grounds test review is very similar to the type of review undertaken by the courts under the U.S. freedom of information act when matters of national defence and national security are at stake. In Canada, this kind of review attempts to reconcile the concept of judicial review with the principle of ministerial responsibility.
In all other instances of refusal, the court will be undertaking what is called a de novo review. There was a suggestion made during the consideration of the bill by the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee that the de novo review does not exist under Clause 50 of the access to information portion of the bill. I sought the counsel of the Department of Justice on the matter. Their advice is to the effect that the Federal Court, in hearing an application brought with respect to a refusal to disclose a record based on exemptions on other than those involving the highest state interests conducts the de novo hearing in the traditional sense of the term.
The court is empowered to conduct a new hearing to determine whether or not a document for which an exemption is claimed is in fact an exempt document. If the court disagrees with the decision of the minister, it will substitute its opinion for that of the minister and order the document disclosed.
The American freedom of information act specifically requires that the court hearing a freedom of information case determine the matter by de novo review. The American case law has established that de novo review under the American freedom of information act amounts to the same type of review which exists under Clause 50 of Bill C-43. That is, the court reviews a document for which an exemption is claimed to determine whether or not it qualifies as exempt. The court will not, however, interfere with the discretion of the department or
June 28, 1982
[Stage Direction]
agency involved in deciding whether, once a document has been determined to be exempt, the exemption should be claimed or waived. The American Supreme Court has made it quite clear that it considers judicial interference with such a decision to be inappropriate. I quote the case of E.P.A. v. Mink U.S. 73, at page 80, a court case going back to 1973.
To my knowledge, there has never been any suggestion that the type of review which exists under the U.S. act does not amount to de novo review. Nor can it be legitimately claimed that review under Clause 50 of this bill does not constitute de novo review.
The two-tier review system, which includes the act of participation of a powerful information commissioner and of an independent court, will ensure that no information that should be made available will be denied. It guarantees that the objectives of the legislation will be met, not in some vague and general way but in the day to day operation of the access to information act.
In concluding this description of access to information, I would like to mention two important features that were added in committee. The first has do to with the purpose clause. It will be made clear on the face of the act itself that this legislation is not meant to replace procedures now in place for providing access to government information. Nor is it meant to cut the flow of information currently available to the Canadian public. This clarification was made in response to the fears expressed in certain quarters, especially in the historical research community, that henceforth no access would be provided otherwise than by using the formal mechanism of the legislation.
The second important improvement relates to the requirement that a comprehensive review be undertaken of the access to information act with a view to determining whether it needs amendments. This review is to be conducted by the parliamentary committee that will be designated or set up to oversee on a permanent basis implementation of the legislation. This will ensure that the act we now have before us is but a first text, one that will be improved upon in the light of the experience gained over the years.
The second part of Bill C-43 will enact new privacy legislation. Under this portion of the bill Part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the existing legislation dealing with the protection of personal information held by the federal government, will be repealed and replaced by more comprehensive legislation protecting government-held personal information.
Before elaborating on the ways in which the rights recognized under Part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act will be extended, I would like to take a few moments to discuss the relationship between access to information and privacy legislation. Combining access to information and privacy legislation in one bill has permitted the complete integration of these two complimentary types of legislation.
Parallel rights of access to information held by the government and parallel rights of review of decisions to refuse access have been created. At the same time, however, the principle that the right to privacy takes precedence over the general right of access has been clearly recognized. This is a principle
Access to Information
with which I am sure all hon. members agree. Thus the term "personal information" has the same meaning in both the privacy and access to information legislation.
Also the disclosure of information under the access to information portion of the bill is determined by the principles regarding disclosure of personal information to third persons set out in the privacy portion. This approach will ensure complete consistency between the treatment of personal information under both statutes, thus avoiding the situation which has developed in some countries where competing rights to privacy and to access to government-held information have been created.
Returning to the ways in which the rights currently recognized under Part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act will be extended by the new privacy legislation, I would point out first, that a comprehensive code of fair information practices will be enacted. This will forbid the collection by government institutions of personal information which is not directly relevant to the operating programs or activities of the institution. It will also require that government institutions collect and retain only accurate, complete and up to date personal information about individuals.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a comprehensive code regulating the use and disclosure of all personal information by government institutions will be enacted. This code reflects the principle that the right to privacy involves the right to control the use and disclosure of information about oneself. This is a principle which is particularly important in today's age of rapidly developing computer technology.
One member of the opposition in particular criticized this code, suggesting that it is actually a mechanism to authorize unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of individuals, rather than a scheme designed to protect individual privacy. In doing so, I feel that the effect of the code has been misrepresented.
At present, there are two types of controls which exist with respect to the use of disclosure of personal information. The first are the controls of general application set out in Subsection 52(2) of Part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act. These controls apply only to the personal information which an individual himself provides to the government and only where the information is to be disclosed for use in a decision-making process relating to the individual. These controls are much more limited in their application than those that are now included in Bill C-43. The second type of controls are those specific prohibitions against disclosure which exist under certain statutory schemes. One can mention Section 241 of the Income Tax Act as an example.
The code in Bill C-43 regarding use and disclosure necessarily recognized that there are some circumstances in which the right to privacy may have to yield to greater public or private interests. However, the situations in which this is the case are both limited and specific. Moreover, it is essential to understand that no right of access by a third party is created
[Stage Direction]
June 28, 1982
Access to Information
under the code. The disclosure of personal information in the circumstances set out is always left to the discretion of the head of the institution. In exercising this discretion, he or she will be expected to weigh the interest in disclosing the information against the resulting invasion of privacy.
The disclosure of personal information by government institutions will be closely monitored by the privacy commissioner. And in instances where disclosure of personal information is most sensitive, such as a disclosure to the police, special controls have been included in the legislation to ensure that the privacy commissioner will scrutinize all disclosures carefully. The privacy commissioner can, of course, report to the head of the institution involved, and to Parliament, where he or she finds that a government institution has not complied with the code.
The second significant way in which the new privacy legislation expands the rights created under Part IV is the creation of a right of judicial review of refusals to provide access to personal information. This right is, of course, parallel to that granted in the access to information legislation and recognizes that the courts, and not the government, should be the final arbiter of disputes over access. In addition, the privacy commissioner has been given the specific responsibility to oversee the use of exempt banks. Where the commissioner finds that personal informatioan has been improperly included in an exempt bank, he or she can refer the issue to the Federal Court. The court, if it agrees, can order the information removed from the bank.
Finally, the number of government institutions to which the legislation applies has been considerably expanded. This paves the way for the next stage in the development of privacy legislation, extension of the principles respecting the protection of personal information to the federally regulated private sector.
[Stage Direction]
Finally, the third component of Bill C-43 consists of new rules that will govern the privileges now vested in the Crown as regards evidence before the courts and also what is known as public interest immunity. These new provisions will supersede Section 41 of the Federal Court Act, according to which the Crown enjoys absolute privilege when a minister certifies that the production of information before the courts would be injurious to international relations, national defence or security, federal-provincial relations, or that it would disclose a cabinet confidence. The new clauses of the Canada Evidence Act will restrict absolute privilege to confidences of the Privy Council. This decision is the result of long and careful consideration by the government. Judgments handed down recently by the highest courts of British Columbia and Alberta have stated that cabinet confidences could, in certain cases, be disclosed in court. Such judgments run counter to a long tradition of legal precedent in Canada. The point is therefore that the position of our common law is still not quite clear on the court's obligation to protect cabinet confidences.
In the circumstances, the government thought it wiser to maintain absolute privilege in this regard and to simply withdraw such documents from the scope of the legislation on access to information and privacy. However, the Crown's absolute privilege has been repealed with respect to all other records. When a minister objects to the disclosure of information in court, he will have to certify that his objection is made on the grounds of a specified public interest. A justice of a superior court may examine or hear the information and order its disclosure, if he considers that the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance the public interest grounds raised in the minister's objection. This new approach is therefore far more liberal than Section 41 of the Federal Court Act, and I am certain that it serves the interests of justice and the parties concerned.
[Stage Direction]
Quite apart from the factual contents of the bill, I think it is important for the House to be aware of its broader significance. In a sense, this legislation sets out bottom line rules. It will be more in the nature of an appeal mechanism available to Canadians for the event where their informal requests for information are turned down. It is more than likely that people will continue asking for government information as they always have: outside the scope of this act. This is how it should be. Indeed, I do not anticipate, for instance, that the press will be using the legislation on a regular basis.
The mere fact, however, that the legislation is on the books will lead government officials to be as forthcoming and as responsive as they would be if the requests had been filed under the act. This brings me to my second point. The Access to Information Act will bring about a very major change of thinking within government. Departments and agencies will be far more sensitive to inform the public of what they are doing. At any rate, the bill contains such a wide array of checks against abuse that government will have no choice but to apply the legislation in a reasonable and open fashion. These checks will be embodied in the powers of the information commissioner, in the process of judicial review, in the regular reporting to Parliament by each government institution and the information commissioner and, lastly, in the permanent review of the act's operation that will be carried out by a parliamentary committee.
Finally, this legislation is not cast in stone. It is but a beginning-an important beginning. As I mentioned earlier, a parliamentary committee will undertake a comprehensive review within three years to find out how the legislation can be improved. The committee will be able to question experts and interested parties in order to evaluate how the legislation affects government operations, and to obtain the views of the information and privacy commissioners. It is with the benefit of practical experience that it will be recommending whatever changes are necessary. Canadians will draw maximum benefit from legislation which guarantees its own revision.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 28, 1982


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his kind references. I do so at the beginning of the debate. I want to say to him now that if there are any references which might be deemed to be unkind, I do not want him to accept them as personal references. I believe that when the minister made his statement way back in the spring of 1981, when the announcement of the government's bill was made at the Press building, the minister was speaking not just for the government but for himself, when he put forward and brought to the Order Paper for first reading the freedom of information bill-which was much better than the one we are dealing with today. I have to say that and I want to say it.
That does not in any way forgive the government for the position it has taken on some particular things. Nor do I want to say that I agree completely that Bill C-43 was the last word on freedom of information when it was presented. It was not, but I think it was a good beginning. At that time I thought it was a particularly good beginning for a Liberal government. In fact, it was surprisingly good for a Liberal government. I went home and said to my wife that I could hardly believe my eyes when I read the bill that evening. When I heard Mr. Ged Baldwin give it a B plus, I was prepared to agree with him, until we got into it. Then the mark fell somewhat, but still it was at least a B, in my judgment. However, unfortunately, certain things occurred during the course of the committee hearings which caused me great concern. I think it also caused Canadians great concern.
As the minister has said, this bill is very important, and it is the end of the beginning. That is what we are dealing with in this matter.
At the outset of my speech I want to pay tribute, if I might, to the people who came before our committee and contributed so greatly to the enhancement of the bill in many ways. I must, of course, pay tribute to a group known as Access, which has been a prime motivator behind the rush for freedom of information, joining with Mr. Ged Baldwin in the course of the matter. I think their leadership in the private area brought other people into it, people who had been interested in it for many years but required a focal point. Access provided that.
We heard from the Social Science Federation of Canada, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Library Association, the Canadian Teachers' Federation, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Centre for Investigative Journalism, La Federation professionnelle des journalistes du Quebec, the Writers Union of Canada and many, many others who were interested on all sides of the issue of freedom of information.
Each one of them should take some pride, and the members of those organizations should take some considerable pride in the fact that, squeezed as we are between last weekend and the momentous events of this evening at eight o'clock, we have
Access to Information
been granted, more or less on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, an opportunity to deal with report stage and third reading of a bill which turns a page in the legislative history of the country. For that small mercy, that half day which runs from 3.15 to 5.45, I want to express the grateful thanks of all Canadians who are interested in openness and freedom of information.
There is another tribute I wish to pay. I do not believe we would be dealing today with Bill C-43 or any bill on freedom of information if there had not been some leadership taken in another part of this House. I hope the House will understand and agree with me that when he was the Prime Minister of this country, the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), advanced the cause of freedom of information to a tremendous degree. As Prime Minister and as the head of a government, he took an initiative with respect to freedom of information and the process of openness. I was the minister piloting the bill at that time, and I can attest now- and my colleagues in the then ministry can attest now-to the primacy he gave to the proposition of openness in government and freedom of information.
It is no accident that the bill advanced in the fall of 1979 was called a bill respecting freedom of information rather than a bill respecting access to information. There is just a slight difference in emphasis. I wanted to say that because quite often the contributions public men and women make when in office are forgotten after they leave office. It was the Prime Minister of that day in 1979 who put his personal imprimatur on that piece of legislation and gave leadership within the government with respect to that bill.
What was the result of that? The result was a good one. In the throne speech which began the first session of the Thirty-second Parliament the government under the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made reference to the bringing in of a freedom of information bill. I do not think that would even have appeared in the throne speech but for the fact that there had been a momentum generated in 1979. As a result of that this government brought forward the bill. I remember when the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox), who was then also Secretary of State, introduced that bill at a press conference. I had the privilege of being there and speaking about the bill, after the press conference and from the back row of the theatre. I remember the minister patting himself on the back-justifiably, I think, given the traditions of his party-to the extent that he nearly broke his arm! Nonetheless, it was there, and we would not have had that day but for the fact that the government realized that there is in the Canadian public a feeling of suspicion, distrust and cynicism about government. There is a feeling that it is a closed shop and that the people who pay the bills do not have access to it. There is a feeling they do not have a way into it, and freedom of information would provide that way. I think there was a realization by the government. It obviously had done some polling, so we had the bill.
However, what happened in the course of the bill is epitomized in the amendments brought forward at the last moment.

June 28, 1982
Access to Information
Clause 68 deals with confidences of the Queen's Privy Council, whatever that means. That removed from the bill the idea of cabinet documents being judicially reviewed to see whether there is some reason-some good and valid reason from time to time-that they should not be brought forward. If we take the skin off and get down into the meat, I believe what happened was that suddenly the government was cornered. Having said that this new-found freedom of information devotion was the next best thing to sliced bread, the government moved along and developed a constituency and a momentum for freedom of information. It was finally caught between the hammer and the anvil it had devised. As a political answer it suddenly became a very real legislative possibility.
What did the government do? It said it must take Clause 21 out of the bill. Clause 21 was to provide for the protection of cabinet documents, but subject always to a legitimate review by the courts. The government said: "No, we cannot have that; all these confidences of the Queen's Privy Council must be kept secret and not even subject to the scrutiny of the courts". The government became so paranoid about this that it brought in that clause.
Among other things, the government has left open the opportunity for one of the first initiatives of the next Progressive Conservative government. The Leader of the Opposition has said that it will be one of the first priorities of a Progressive Conservative government after the next election-and I ask the House to note my words-to reopen the whole question of access to information and to go back, hopefully, to the provisions of Bill C-15 so that we can do a number of things. We want to remove Clause 68 and reinstate Clause 21, with appropriate amendments, to reflect the relevant section in Bill C-15. We want to look at each one of the exemptions to see where they can be narrowed to bring them back at least to the position of Bill C-15. We should bear in mind that under Bill C-43 perhaps there will be a short period to gain experience that we can draw on. That is a priority. The Leader of the Opposition said that during the course of the annual meeting in my riding and I was delighted that he did. In other places across the country he has said, as I have, that it will be a priority of this government when it returns to office. If the Minister of Communications is still with us then, he will have an opportunity to use the improved legislation. In some ways the legislation was better. It was different in the broadness of the exemptions.
Having said that Bill C-43 at report stage is not as good as it was when it went to committee, 1 must say that I think the bill, with all its deficiencies, ought to be supported by the House. We ought to begin a process of openness in the legislative sense. We have talked about it long enough. The bill is a beginning-though not the most perfect beginning. I could say of it as some wives say of their husbands-they are not the most perfect of husbands but they manage to live with them. 1 think we should say that about the bill.
We must bear two things in mind, however, Mr. Speaker. The first is the commitment I have made on behalf of my party, reiterating the commitment made by the leader of this
party with respect to change after a change of government; and, second, the important thing that was mentioned by the minister is the opportunity for parliamentary review. It is a unique thing for any legislation that by statute there will be a provision for review of the freedom of information and matters that relate to it.
The committee accepted an amendment which provides that the annual reports of committees will automatically be referred to a parliamentary committee and that is a good thing. That will allow Parliament to keep the process open.
I regret that I have to join in the statement made by the minister about the effect the delay in bringing the bills forward is going to have. The first meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs was held on March 3, 1981. Thirty-four meetings were held between that time and the time when the government bill was put on ice as a result of the government getting cold feet after consulting with other governments which also got cold feet. It was a complicated bill but there was nothing in it that could account for the delay except, perhaps, a wavering commitment with respect to freedom of information from time to time or a commitment that was not certain. We have taken the position that because of the provision for parliamentary review, the process in committee did not seem to be urgent as there would be the opportunity to deal with it later.
For some reason or other, however, the New Democratic Party decided to debate every point, cross every t and dot every i, to make things perfect. That took time. By itself it is not sinful, although it is regrettable. The by-product of delay was sinful, however. By that delay they allowed the Roy Roma-nows and the Roy McMurtrys of this world and other levels of government to conspire together to devise a scheme whereby the principle of freedom of information could be "unsold" to this government, which was only politically, and not intellectually, committed to freedom of information and openness in government. That is exactly what happened. They had time to muster their forces and they did. In that period of time, believe it or not, they attempted to say that it was appropriate that we deal with freedom of information in a universal bill and that all 11 governments in Canada would agree on freedom of information. I could not believe what 1 heard, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister used to say that they fought over the Constitution for 54 years for an amending process which came to nothing. As a matter of fact, the debate on the Constitution went on for 115 and more years and there was never any agreement. How could anyone possibly believe that the two levels of government could get together and agree on a universal bill? That idea fell apart.
I hope that when we review the bill again there will not be this delay. We cannot legislate perfection, especially when there is a danger of losing something that the people mentioned by the minister who have gone before us tried to bring about. We ought not to lose through delay. I do not say that to the New Democratic Party unkindly, but 1 think the record should be clear that that was the result of what happened. To
June 28, 1982

this day I cannot understand why it occurred, given the fact that the NDP knew, as I did, that there would be a parliamentary review of the matter some time later. That should be remembered, Mr. Speaker.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill means the beginning of a new era. It will challenge various parts of the Government of Canada, and first of all I should like to deal with the cabinet.
Heretofore, Conservative and Liberal cabinets have grown out of the British parliamentary system. There is no more secretive place than the Parliament at Westminster and its traditions, which we have adopted as our own. It is still that way. I gather that there will be impetus for change in the law in the United Kingdom as a result of what happens here. People from the United Kingdom have written to me and talked to me about the process of this bill and a consensus seems to be developing-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friends for allowing me time to finish my remarks.
There is a history of secretiveness and closeness in the British parliamentary system and we have adopted it. Ministers will have to realize that for the first time in a broad area of information which comes under their control, the public will be entitled to know the facts. I hope an attitude will develop like that which exists in Sweden which has had freedom of information for 200 years. Unless the answer to a request would harm the state, the information is available. It is important that that occur at the political level.
I suspect it is going to take some time, but it is important that it begin because the most important change is going to be in the day-to-day work of the Public Service of Canada. They have been operating under some doubt as to where or how far they can go, and I hope the working groups in each of the departments, and the government itself, are considering the kind of message which will go to the public service. Just as it will take ministers time to get used to it, so will it take the public service a great deal of time to get used to it.
I suspect that we are likely to see some rather startling cases arising out of refusals to give information. It is because of this fear and worry that there must be in the minds of public servants looking ahead to legislation that there is a part which will protect them in the event they give out information inadvertently in good faith. There must be an educational process because the penalties are going to be quite severe. There will be the possibility of being part of a court action. There is certainly going to be the possibility of being part of an examination by a special commissioner who is now an ombudsman. There will be the possibility of an annual report to Parliament by the commissioner.
Access to Information
As I said earlier, a legislative page will be turned when this bill finally receives royal assent and is proclaimed. I understand from the minister that will take place in approximately six months. We talked about this for years and it had to begin somewhere.
I would like today to have been in the position of the minister to be finishing a bill on third reading. I wish the bill was C-15 and this could be transported back a year and a half. I congratulate him on being the minister bringing it in. I know he feels badly that his colleagues were afraid to do the decent thing and allow him to have Section 21 and the matters that followed stay in the bill. I know it must be a matter of personal regret for a lawyer, as the minister is, to say that we trust the courts with our Constitution, with arbitrations, we trust them to deal with public matters of all kinds, yet we will not trust them to use their heads as to what should be released and what cannot be released. Under this bill we trust them with vital matters of defence and national security, and documents relating to external affairs, but we do not trust them with our cabinet documents. I am sure it must be a matter of regret for the minister to say that everyone is subject to judicial review except that group of 30 ministers. Even though the minister cannot say it-he looked embarrassed in committee when he had to give the reasons, and I sympathize with him because I would be embarrassed too-I am sure that in his heart of hearts one of the first priorities will be to open that legislation and get back to the position he himself put in Section 21 of the original Bill C-43, and he will silently say: "Hear, hear, good for this new Conservative government which is going to do this and I wish I could have joined them in 1982".
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is a new beginning, but just a beginning. All of us are going to have to adjust to it. I believe this bill is absolutely vital with respect to parliamentary reform. The fact that it comes so close to the day that the committee dealing with parliamentary reform was established heightens and accentuates the relationship of parliamentary reform to openness.
We in this House are going to have to find ways to handle the tremendous deluge of information which is going to come to us. There will have to be adjustments in government, the public service and in Parliament. So, Mr. Speaker, I want you and members of the House to know that, as much as we regret the form of the bill-and we have proposed some amendments at report stage to clean it up a little bit, which I hope will be acceptable to the government-in the end we want to see the bill go on as a beginning and we pledge to improve it at the first opportunity.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on what certainly must be considered an historical occasion, the third reading of Bill C-43, the long-overdue legislation respecting access to information and protection of privacy. The two previous speakers have given us something of the history of the legislation. As we know, the original impetus for this bill came from the U.S. freedom of information legislation passed in

June 28, 1982
Access to Information
1964. Following that a former member of the New Democratic Party, Barry Mather, the member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta, tabled a private member's bill which was followed in a very outstanding way by the work of Ged Baldwin who for many, many years with Mr. Mather prodded the government into finally bringing forward legislation respecting access to information. As well, the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments examined this question. Indeed, many organizations and individuals have urged the government to enact this legislation which is so important in a democratic society.
Other speakers have referred to a number of the organizations involved, and I want to single out just three of many. First, of course, Access, which has been the primary lobby group in this area, has done an outstanding job in ensuring that finally we do see legislation on the books in this important area. I want to single out particularly the work of Roland Gaudet of Access, who has singlehandedly been involved in extensive lobbying in this area for many years.
Also the Canadian Bar Association, and in particular Murray Rankin, the author of the definitive report on freedom of information in Canada, must in my view take a good deal of the credit for the legislation which was initially tabled in this House.
Finally, from the Civil Liberties Association, Mr. Ken Rubin, who in particular has focused on the privacy sections of the bill.
We know as well that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), as minister in the previous government, brought forward a bill which certainly in many instances paralleled Bill C-43 and must be recognized, I believe, to have provided an impetus to the Liberal government to move forward in this area.
Finally, I should note that at the time of the constitutional discussions I supported, as did members of the official opposition, an amendment to the Constitution of Canada which would have recognized the fundamental right in a democratic society of access to information as the basis of calling our governments to account.
We know, Mr. Speaker, there is still a great deal of work to be done in this area. The Official Secrets Act is still on the books and it must be significantly overhauled. This must be a priority in coming months. I would hope also that this government would look very seriously at the question of sunshine laws which would open up meetings at which fundamental and important decisions are being made.
Once again we have seen a situation where the U.S. is far ahead of us in bringing in legislation in a number of respects to open up all meetings at which important decisions are being made. Rather than just obtaining information after the fact, it is essential that these meetings should indeed be open to the public.
I note in passing that I believe at this time there is a discussion as to whether or not Members of Parliament can take part in the examination of budget documents. How ironic it is, as we discuss freedom of information and access to information today, that there is still a serious question as to whether or not Members of Parliament can have an opportunity to review this important material ahead of time.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs spent many, many hours on this legislation. Of course, sometimes it appeared that the bill was dead, but in the end, despite the fact that in my view there had been some very destructive and regressive amendments to the bill, we have it before us today at third reading.
The original bill which was presented to Parliament some two years ago now has been very significantly watered down as a result of the amendments which were brought forward by the government. I intend to touch upon them in a few moments. Also, it is important to recognize that we heard from many witnesses. We received scores of written briefs and, almost without exception, witnesses pointed out that the original legislation presented to the committee, Bill C-43, was a weak bill in many respects. While they supported the broad thrust of openness and accountability, they noted many flaws. In my view, the committee did the right thing in taking its responsibilities seriously and in seeking to improve this legislation. We examined the bill clause by clause in committee.
There has been some reference made both by the minister and by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton to delays and the responsibility for these delays has been placed at the feet of the New Democratic Party. I think the record should be set straight in this area because I do not believe the public should be unintentionally misled as to what actually took place in committee. In fact, members of the committee would be well aware that in late June I made a proposal to the committee, when there was still a good deal of time left to finish the bill before the summer, that we conclude our consideration of the bill in ten hours of debate, in a further ten hours of debate.
What was the response of the Conservative Party and of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton? He said, "No, no, we may need more time. I am not prepared to see any kind of limitation on the debate at this point". At that point as well-and the minister has conceded this-Liberal members of the committee lost interest in the bill and were not able to show up to form a quorum. Meeting after meeting of the justice committee was cancelled because Liberal members of the committee-and I regret to say Conservative members as well, with one or two exceptions-did not even bother showing up for committee meetings in late June and July. I believe the record should be set very clear here. In fact, I proposed on behalf of the New Democratic Party a limitation at that point which was rejected by members of the official opposition.
The second point in this area is that if one looks at the record of amendments to the legislation originally presented to the committee, it must be noted that two very significant
June 28, 1982

amendments which 1 proposed on behalf of the New Democratic Party were accepted at that late stage in June. I should like to make brief reference to them and to point out that these amendments in these two critical areas were sought by many witnesses. In fact, the amendment in the area of the length of transition period was deemed to be absolutely essential, indeed critical, to passage of the bill by Access, among other witnesses. Those two amendments were in the area of the results of product and environmental safety testing. The original bill was very weak in this area. I proposed an amendment which was accepted by the committee that would make public the results of all product and environmental tests in Canada. This, perhaps more than any other section of the bill, has a very significant impact upon the general public. I was very pleased that the government and the committee moved to accept this amendment which was proposed.
As well, the transition period, the period within which the bill was to come into effect, was very significantly shortened as a result of an amendment upon which I insisted at committee. The bill as originally worded would have meant information would not have been disclosed in some instances, in fact in many instances, until January 1, 1988; that is assuming the bill was proclaimed within six months as the minister indicated. The amendment which 1 proposed on behalf of the New Democratic Party means that in most instances information will be available as of January 1, 1985; in other words, three years earlier than the bill would have originally made information available. 1 proposed both of these critical amendments on behalf of the NDP and they were accepted by the committee.
There were other improvements made to the bill in the course of its clause by clause consideration-the power to extend access beyond Canadian citizens and landed immigrants, for example to foreign journalists on a reciprocal basis, and the fact that fees which were originally proposed to be charged for search and review were eliminated. I proposed an amendment to the committee which was accepted that would restrict the absence of disclosure in respect of police investigations to those investigations which were lawful. I proposed another amendment which was accepted by the committee that would basically implement a public interest disclosure test in the key areas of public health, safety and protection of the environment. The three-year review provision was added during the course of committee deliberations. Of course, this provision was sought by all members of the committee and pursued, particularly vigorously, by members of the official opposition and by members of the New Democratic Party. The amendment with respect to the referral of annual reports to the committee was one which I was pleased to be able to propose and was accepted by the committee.
Indeed, the bill was improved in a number of respects, but I think it should be noted-and this is the final point I will make-that with respect to the actual progress of the bill through committee, the record should be examined carefully by those who are interested in legislation respecting freedom of information and respecting the protection of privacy.
I have been gently criticized by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and the minister for perhaps taking some
Access to Information
time im the committee, but I would point out that many of the amendments in key areas which I proposed on behalf of the New Democratic Party where in fact accepted by the committee. I challenge those members of the Conservative Party and of the government to come forward to the public and indicate a single amendment to which the official opposition is able to point as having been achieved as a result of their work on the committee. I say gently that not one amendment of substance was proposed by the official opposition and accepted by the committee. When we look at the work which was done by the committee to improve the bill, I think the record speaks for itself.
As this point I want to turn to some of the weaknesses of the bill as I see it and as reported by the committee. I suggest that this bill, both in the access part of it and in the privacy section, has been so watered down and is so weak and ineffective that it must be opposed on third reading. I do not believe that government should be allowed to travel from coast to coast and give Canadians the illusion that it has an effective freedom of information bill. I do not believe that the government should be allowed to travel from coast to coast and suggest that it has strengthened the protection of the privacy of Canadians when in fact it has done precisely the opposite.
We know that the United States legislation on freedom of information, particularly as amended and strengthened in the post-Watergate period of 1974, is far stronger than the Canadian legislation in a number of respects. Canadians still have to travel to the United States to obtain a lot of information about Canada-for example, the salaries of top businessmen and other information. We are still in the ludicrous position of Canadians having to travel to the United States to obtain information which the RCMP has given to the CIA. As we have seen in recent weeks, they have a very co-operative working relationship. We in Canada will still have to travel south of the border to obtain that kind of information.
My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), has given me a number of examples of the areas in this bill in which the doors are still slammed shut and that are still far weaker than the legislation in the United States. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to document them. Indeed, as my colleague for Winnipeg North has said, passage of this bill may prove to be another of those hoaxes for which the Liberal Party is so famous.
The access part of the bill contains many flaws. I would like to focus upon three of those flaws. There are three critical areas of this bill which, in my view, are fundamentally defective. They are the sweeping exemptions provisions, the provisions, for judicial review which, in many instances, are a sham and, of course, the last minute amendment which effectively constitutes the Mack Truck clause of this bill. It is the amendment which allows the government to proclaim that any document is a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council and precludes any information in the form of judicial review. I predict that those who expect the floodgates to open to allow a

June 28, 1982
Access to Information
mass of previously confidential information to be made public will be sorely disappointed because that is not the case.
I would like to give an example of that. In September of 1980, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave instructions to all ministers to respond as if the Freedom of Information Act was in effect. They were to respond as if that act was in effect and to answer requests for information from journalists, Members of Parliament or other individuals. It has been two years now. Journalists would be able to attest to the fact that things have not changed very much. How much new information have we had access to in the last two years, supposedly when the government has been operating as if this bill were in effect? It has been a trickle and perhaps nothing at all.
We had one hope that perhaps the offensive Section 41 (2) of the Federal Court Act might not be invoked, but we have seen that even that section has been invoked on a number of occasions by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan).
I suggest that the exemptions in this bill are so broadly worded that they basically amount to a licence to conceal information whether under federal-provincial affairs, exemptions on subversive and hostile activities which was heavily criticized by the McDonald Commission, the exemption respecting law enforcement investigation which effectively denies any access to information about the activities of the RCMP security service or the new civilian security service, and even fundamental information such as the size of that service and its mandate. As well, there is the clause respecting economic interests and the sweeping provisions on third party information.
There are those provisions in the bill relating to government operations which means that we will, in effect, know nothing more than the government already wants us to know, except perhaps for some information of historical significance.
The judicial review provisions basically amount to a second class form of judicial review and not at all the de now review on the merits that the minister promised on second reading. The amendments to this legislation which watered down Clauses 50 and 51 that relate to judicial review by changing the word "entitlement" to "authorized" weaken those sections of the bill considerably.
Surely the most offensive amendment of all is the one that was inserted during the dying hours of committee deliberations. That is the amendment respecting Crown privilege. We now have a situation where the government or a minister simply has to stamp a document as being the confidence of the Queen's Privy Council and that is the end of the matter. There is no opportunity for judicial review and no opportunity for the courts to determine that, in fact, there has not been an abuse of this provision. This gaping hole in the bill effectively means that the government is asking us to trust that it will not abuse its right to conceal information.
In my view, the record of this government certainly leaves a great deal to be desired when it asks us to trust it. In my opinion, this amendment has dealt a body blow-a fatal blow-to a bill which was already weak in many areas. The
government has bowed to the advocates of secrecy, among them the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Pitfield, and the doors remain tightly shut.
I noted with interest that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton indicated that his party would be supporting this bill on third reading. I find that rather incongruous in view of the fact he is quoted as saying in the committee that this particular clause gutted judicial review, as indeed it did. He went on to say that judicial review is, in fact, the cornerstone of this bill. If the cornerstone of this bill has been removed, how can any party in the House that genuinely believes in freedom of information support the bill after such a weakening?
In the remaining minutes I have I would like to turn to the privacy act portion and the provisions of this legislation which allegedly protects the privacy of Canadians. In my view, this part of the bill is nothing less than a giant con job on Canadians. Far from protecting the privacy of Canadians, far from protecting intrusion into the private lives of Canadians, this part of the bill amounts to nothing less than an attack on their privacy. If anything, I suggest it should be called an attack on privacy act, instead of protection of privacy act.
This portion of the bill should have been separated, as was urged by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and other witnesses. Instead, we were asked to swallow the entire package. While I do not intend to go into the weaknesses of this privacy act in depth, I would note that there is no doubt whatsoever that this bill gives sweeping new powers to the heads of government institutions and to the RCMP and the new civilian security service in particular to intrude into the most confidential and personal aspects of the lives of Canadians.
The existing provisions that protect the privacy of Canadians which are contained in Part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act are being repealed. In their place we have a so-called privacy act which has been severely condemned by the McDonald Commission, which was prepared to concede a great deal in terms of powers to the government, under normal circumstances. The commission said this about Bill C-43:
The legislation does not provide a clear enough test of necessity for access to personal information for security intelligence purposes. It leaves the prior approval of all access, including access to details of a person's life far beyond what is needed for the purposes of identification, to Ministers, and it provides no role in approving requests for information to the Minister responsible for the security intelligence agency.
The McDonald Commission points out that at the present time the RCMP security service and the criminal investigation side of the force have been denied access to virtually all personal information possessed by other federal government institutions. Of course, I emphasize "denied legal access". We all know the record of abuse of power that has taken place and which was documented by the McDonald Commission. The present commissioner of the RCMP has said that he believes that the RCMP need the right to break the law.
I realize that my time is running out, but perhaps I might seek the indulgence of the House for another few minutes.
June 28, 1982


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: That could be granted with unanimous consent. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker. The present commissioner of the RCMP said that he could not understand why policemen should not have access to all information gathered by the government. He said that this was because both the government and the police have the best interests of the citizens at heart. Mr. Simmonds said he could not understand why it was wrong for policemen to get information from government computer banks. He said, "It makes absolutely no sense to me, especially when all these data banks are put together at taxpayers' expense". Well, the commissioner of the RCMP will be happy today with the passage of this so-called privacy act. He will have his way because this bill does nothing less than provide carte blanche access for members of the RCMP security service and the civilian security service, and all, of course, in the best interests of the nation.
As I have said, to suggest that since the bill was called a privacy bill it is protecting their privacy constitutes nothing less than a gigantic con and a hoax on the people of Canada.
There are other weaknesses in this legislation. For example, the provision which denies access to the salaries of many of the most senior appointees of the Government of Canada. If we want to know the salary of Mitchell Sharp, the northern pipeline commissioner, do you think, Mr. Speaker, we will have access to that information under the privacy legislation? Of course not. I proposed an amendment which would have made it public but it was defeated.
As well, we see that there is a sweeping provision which grants access for any purpose whatsoever when, in the opinion of the head of the government institution, disclosure in the public interest clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy which could result from the disclosure. That is a purely subjective test. In other words, whenever disclosure in the public interest, whatever that may be, in the opinion of the head of the government institution outweighs the invasion of privacy, that is the end of the matter. Confidential information, whether medical records, taxation records or personal financial records, will all be made available to members of the public or, indeed, to members of the security service.
There are a number of other weaknesses in the privacy section. For example, the increasingly important question of trans-border data flow has not been addressed. Once personal, very confidential, private information crosses the Canadian border, as it does frequently, and goes into data banks in the United States, there is absolutely no control over the use of that information.
As well, the issue of the abuse of social insurance numbers has been totally ignored by this bill. I am pleased to say that we will certainly be supporting amendments to this bill which would include reference to the social insurance number abuse.
Access to Information
In closing, I say again that this government should not be allowed to perpetrate this kind of hoax on Canadians at a time when, perhaps more than ever, Canadians should be granted access to information and should be given a genuine freedom of information bill. At a time when there should be strong and effective protection of the private lives of Canadians, a bill has been presented to Parliament which is an illusion. This government will no doubt be travelling coast to coast, waving copies of the legislation, proclaming that nirvana has arrived and that Canadians now have a strong and effective freedom of information bill, and that their privacy is being enhanced. We in this party do not intend to take part in that fraud. We do not intend to support a bill which does not enact genuine freedom of information legislation and genuine protection of privacy. I say in closing that that will only be the case when we form a government after the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Only then will we have genuine freedom of information legislation and legislation which will really protect the privacy of Canadians on the books. Not until that day will we see that legislation because we know, and it is very clear, that Bill C-43 was patterned after Bill C-15 and that many of the weaknesses in Bill C-15 were contained in Bill C-43. So naturally, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton has a certain proprietary interest in Bill C-43. We know as well that the privacy act was largely modelled after the bill of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), an hon. member for whom I have a great deal of respect but who was unfortunately taken in by the siren song of the RCMP security service. We certainly do not intend to emulate that bill.
I say again that, on a day which should have been a proud day for Canadians, we must only express our sadness and disappointment that the kind of effective legislation which should have been brought before Parliament is indeed not being voted on today.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I think one can see, from the words of the hon. member, why we almost did not have an access to information bill at all. His is typical of the approach which was taken throughout the committee hearings-that if we do not get it our way we will delay and delay; we will cross t's and dot i's and then, at the last minute, have the gall to come before the committee and say, "If you adopt our procedure, if you will do it all in ten hours, if you will deal with all our amendments, then we are prepared to let this bill go ahead."
I frankly do not blame the opposition for saying, at that particular stage, "We are sorry, but we will not play that particular game. We will debate this bill as it should have been debated, but we will not participate in the game-playing which is going on here". Hour after hour of the time of the committee was taken up with much discussion and many questions
18862

June 28, 1982
Access to Information
which really did not go to the meat of the bill but, rather, were calculated, I gather, to tire out members of the committee so that they would get to the stage where they were sick of saying, "Well, we will not sit here for another two and a half hours tonight; our constituents expect us to be doing a little more than that".
I say thank God for the political, moral and intellectual commitment of the minister to this particular bill, or it would not be seeing the light of day today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I was frankly surprised that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) made the suggestion that the minister was not intellectually committed to this particular bill.


Walter David Baker: I said that he was.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1 think, in fact, that the party, and particularly this minister, were intellectually committed to it. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, having been a minister, will know of the difficulty facing a minister dealing with a piece of legislation which is controversial, when he is endeavouring to get time in the House of Commons so that his particular bill can be debated, a bill as important as this one, only to find that hour after hour is spent at the committee stage. When the amendments of the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) were not allowed, we then heard the threat: "We will bring them all back in at the report stage and go through them again".
What kind of commitment could the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) bring to his House leader at that time? We have held a long, thorough debate. God knows, we have been here for a year or a year and a half. We have had lots of time. But the minister had no guarantee that the hon. member for Burnaby would not raise all the amendments that were considered by the committee and not accepted.
The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton had the role of a House leader, but what House leader in his right mind would say to the minister: "Go ahead, we will take our chances; we will use up all our time in the House on your bill while we listen to the hon. member for Burnaby come out with his pet theories as to how this particular bill should be passed"?
I say thank God not only for the minister but also for the media, because if there was a role played by the media on this issue, it was a positive one, and that was to highlight the fact that the bill might be dropped and that there might be difficulties in getting parliamentary time for the bill. They attacked the attorneys general for the provinces when they came up with what I believe has been called an omnibus bill by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, but who are suggesting almost an impossibility if we are ever to get an access to information bill through the House. The media highlighted the difficulties, the stupidity and the manner by which this could never be made to work.
There is another hurdle for the minister to overcome, because now we hear the opposition parties saying: "Forget the
provinces; act unilaterally". It is all right when they are in favour of the piece of legislation, but it was not so hot when we were dealing with the Constitution. But they wanted us to go ahead unilaterally. So the minister, to his credit, when back to the fight and said; "This bill is important; we are committed to it".
Many meetings were held with the Liberal caucus where we discussed some of the amendments. We quite candidly said that we would allow a few of the amendments, for which the hon. member for Burnaby is prepared to take credit, and maybe we could get on with the bill. They could just as easily have been moved by the minister or by someone picked from this caucus as they had already been thoroughly discussed and debated by the caucus. But rather than do that, we said let us give the hon. member some credit, let us give him some kudos, if that is what he wants; but for heaven's sake, let us get this bill passed.
I recently had the privilege of speaking with Ged Baldwin, whose name has been mentioned here, and he indicated that this bill is not perfect. Nobody suggests that it is perfect. The minister himself has said that it is not cast in stone. There are some changes which can be made, and there will be a review; but we need this bill and we are not just taking a timid, tender step at this particular stage. We have, in effect, two bills in one. We have the access to information section and we have the privacy section initiated, I believe, by the hon. member, who will probably be speaking next on that particular subject. So I say full marks to the minister and full marks to the government for bringing this particular bill forward.
I was a little surprised to hear the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton say, "we will form the government after the next election". First and foremost, he is making a big mistake. Once again, the Conservatives are underestimating the strength and resilience of the Liberal Party. So I do not think he should prejudge. I was also surprised that the hon. member for Burnaby had the gall to suggest that his party would form the government. They will be lucky if they have a rosy blue rump down here in the Tories if they ever get to be in power, because that is not the party which will win the election.
I heard the hon. member say: "My leader when in my riding said that when we come back we will have this judicial review". Well, that is a nice promise to make during the election, but let us judge it by the facts. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), the former Prime Minister, said the same sort of thing: "We will move the embassy, we will dismantle Petro-Canada, we will fire 20,000 civil servants".


Walter David Baker: Sixty thousand.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Sixty thousand, or 20,000 a year I am sorry. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton would like to think it is only 20,000, but I thank him for correcting me. It was 60,000 civil servants.
Then there was mortgage insurance protection. Mr. Leonard Shifrin has gone over the figures as to what that would have cost. It is now up to $6 billion on an annual cost basis.
June 28, 1982

These are all promises made during the election campaign. I suggest with respect that if the Conservatives were elected, and I do not think they will be because I think they are underestimating the opposition they would be facing, none of those four promises would be kept. Why should we think that this one about a judicial review will be kept so that it will be there to the advantage, as has been said, of the Minister of Communications?
I have dealt at some length, maybe too much length, with the time available aspect. However, it is rather ironic that if it had not been delayed in the committee, this bill might very well have seen the light of day in July. There might have been a judicial review today, the sort of thing that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton was talking about.
Because it had to go back, because compromises had to be made, because other ministers had to be convinced, because attorneys general have brought forward their opposition, because police forces in some instances have brought in objections, we have what the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton called a watered down bill. I say thank God for this bill and thank God for the fact that it can be reviewed in three years. We will be able to make changes at that time when we once again form the government.
If this is a hoax on the Canadian people, it is not something that at long last the NDP can say we are using our majority to force on the Canadian public. This bill is going to be supported by the vast majority of the members of the House of Commons, people very knowledgeable in this field. Some people initiated part of this legislation when they were the governing party. Therefore, there is no hoax here. It is all out there for the people to read, to use and take advantage of to see how well it works. Where there are flaws, the flaws can be picked up and corrected.


Walter David Baker: It is a good beginning.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It is not a good beginning, it is an excellent beginning. It is a beginning. It is an important piece of legislation.
With regard to the aspect of privacy, I was surprised at the hon. member for Burnaby cataloguing and heaping abuse on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In my opinion, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have one of the finest commissioners it has been my privilege to know in the time that I have been in the House of Commons. In attending committees and answering questions, never has there been any fuzzing of answers on the part of that individual. His answers have always been straightforward. If he believes that the police need a particular power, he is not only prepared to come forward but to explain why they need that particular power, what job they have to do and what sorts of things must be done. A general blanket condemnation of the RCMP is inappropriate at this time. Certainly there should be no attack on this commissioner who is doing an excellent job. He has a very difficult role at the present time.
Access to Information
The privacy bill will repeal and replace the existing privacy legislation, Part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This is something the Canadian public wants to know. It is not that there is no privacy legislation. The fact is it will create a comprehensive code of fair information practices with respect to personal information held by the federal government. This code will deal with the way in which personal information is collected, used, disclosed, retained and disposed of by institutions of the federal government.
It will extend and reinforce the right of access to information about oneself held in federal files. The right of access will now apply to all personal information held by the government. The exemptions to the right of access will be more specific and, in many cases, narrower than under Part IV. A right of judicial review of refusals to provide access will be created. That part of the bill is something that warrants commendation rather than criticism.
Much of the strength of the privacy bill lies in the greatly expanded role of the privacy commissioner. The commissioner will not only be empowered to investigate and make recommendations with respet to refusals to provide access, but she will also be responsible for overseeing the way in which government institutions collect, handle, use and disclose personal information to ensure they comply with the code of fair information practices.
I do not think I have to elaborate much more on the privacy legislation. It is good legislation. I am sure the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), who initiated a lot of what is the privacy legislation, will speak in much more glowing terms than I could ever hope to do because of his background and research on this part of the bill.
Rather than knocking, let us praise this bill. When we go across the country, let us talk about access to information. Let us also tell the Canadian public to try it out to see how it works. They can tell us where the flaws are and where we can improve it. We have the commitment that in three years those changes will be made.
I do not say we will go across the land screaming, yelling, jumping and praising this piece of legislation, but by God we should certainly get this information to the Canadian public so that they will know it is there and that they have access to it. If there are some roadblocks, they can be removed in three years.
I once again compliment the minister for having the intellectual integrity to press forward with this bill, unilaterally as it turns out, notwithstanding a lot of the criticism from the attorneys general from across the country.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, there is a timeliness about this bill. This evening the House of Commons will be entertained by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) as he introduces his second budget in less than a year. We understand from leaks that at that time the government will be announcing what it intends to do about job creation.

June 28, 1982
Access to Information
I suggest that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) has already done his part. He has brought with him some 16 officials to sit in the gallery and grace us with their presence. One wonders what they will be doing once the legislation is passed and how we will be able to function without their assistance in the gallery.
I must say that in a time of restraint the Minister of Communications has shown a far greater example of restraint than his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Ax worthy). The Minister of Communications brought only 16 officials with him. If we look at page 52E of the government telephone directory for May of this year, under Employment and Immigration it lists this Privacy and Access to Information Bill, C-43. There are some 27 names listed under this bill. It has already helped to create jobs in the country. If we have done something constructive here already in terms of putting Canadians to work, I am sure the minister will want to take his fair share of praise for that.
I listened with particular interest to the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) who was very flattering. He said that usually he has a very high regard for me. I must thank him for that. I must say that I usually have a very high regard for his remarks as well. However, this was perplexing. It was a surprise. I think every Member of Parliament was surprised by the hon. member's speech today because he is normally extremely sensible. The positions he takes are usually well-reasoned and sound. He often has a very significant contribution to make. However, I think each of us in the House of Commons was a little bit shocked to discover the reason the leader of the New Democratic Party on May 18 got up in the House of Commons to demand that the government bring this legislation back.
Let me read what the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the leader of the NDP, said as reported at page 17527 of Hansard. My colleague from Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) had called upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to agree to bring the bill back for an expeditious debate. The leader of the NDP said:
Madam Speaker, first of all, in response to the question raised by the Prime Minister I should like to say that we join completely with the Official Opposition in offering assurances that there would be most speedy debate on the freedom of information bill if the government would only bring it forward.


An hon. Member:: One day?


Mr. Broadbent;: There would be a one-day debate if the government would produce that bill.
I suppose members of the public who are interested in freedom of information and privacy could be forgiven if they thought that this commitment to a one-day debate, this pleading by the leader of the New Democratic Party to bring this bill back for speedy passage, was a sign that the NDP thought it was a good bill, that it was better to have privacy legislation and freedom of information legislation than not to. One would have thought they would have given their enthusiastic support. Now we know the reason for the pleading by the leader of the NDP on the floor of the House of Commons to bring the bill back. They wanted it brought back so that they could vote against it. That was their goal. They
wanted to be sure that when the history of freedom of information and privacy legislation is written, they will be recorded as saying they are opposed to the legislation.
The hon. member for Burnaby went on at some length heaping praise on himself and, as I say, often the praise that he would pour on to his own head would be merited. He went on at considerable length to say that he had on behalf of his party secured significant amendments which vastly improved the legislation, that it was much better than it otherwise would have been. He thought that this was very significant, that members of the House should be appreciative and that the Canadian people should be appreciative of this achievement which he had won on behalf of the NDP.
If these improvements were so significant, if the efforts of the NDP were so successful in committee, in terms of making improvements to the bill, in terms of winning a significant victory for Canadians, then why are they going out of their way this afternoon at 5.45 to vote against the bill? What is their purpose? Can he have been serious when he said that they made substantial improvements, that the bill is much better? By voting against the bill, the NDP will be recorded for all time as saying that they believe that the status quo is better than the legislation which is being brought in. They will be saying that they believe that having no freedom of information legislation is better than what will happen after this bill comes to a vote. They will be saying that they believe that Part IV of the Human Rights Act, which is seriously flawed, which has done nothing to protect the privacy of Canadians, is better than having the provisions in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, it may very well be that members of the NDP will be called away, that they will not be able to be in the House at 5.45 when the voice vote is taken. I want to indicate to my friend from Burnaby that members of our party, the Progressive Conservative Party, will be able and be very willing to assist in assuring that he can get his five members to have a recorded vote, to ensure that the NDP position on freedom of information and privacy is recorded as voting against the legislation, and as saying that they believe that the status quo is better than the improvements which a parliamentary committee and Parliament itself laboured itself to bring in on behalf of Canadians.
Let us have no confusion about it, Mr. Speaker. We believe, as my friend from Nepean-Carleton said, that there are flaws in the bill. We are disappointed that the minister chose to water down the bill, as related in particular to cabinet documents. We believe that the bill must be amended and improved. But we believe one other thing as well, and that is that this is a significant step forward. It is a step in the right direction. It does not go as far as we would like to see it go. It does not go as far as legislation will go when we have the opportunity to make amendments. But it is a vast improvement over what we have today.
How can anyone seriously say that having no freedom of
information legislation is better than what is before us today?
June 28, 1982

How can any Member of Parliament or any Canadian say that Part IV of the Human Rights Act is better than what we will have after the passage of this bill?
Surely what we should be doing as Members of Parliament is applauding the fact that through consistent pressure which started back with Mr. Barry Mather of the NDP and Mr. Ged Baldwin of this party, we have been able to put pressure on the government to move in the right direction and begin to open government up, begin to give Canadians some control over information about their now lives. Surely that is the step we should be taking at 5.45, rather than grandstanding and saying "Record me as against it; it does not meet my standards that I have set, so I am going to vote against it. I would rather have nothing; I would rather go back to the status quo." That is what they are saying, rather than have these improvements made.
Members of this side, Mr. Speaker, feel that improvements can be made. We feel that improvements should be made. We are committed to the intention that improvements will be made when we have the opportunity as a government to do that. But we believe that what is before the House today is better than nothing, and we believe it is significantly better than nothing.
What is significant here, Mr. Speaker, perhaps more than anything else, is that this bill may do something about the climate of secrecy in bureaucracy. What we are saying is that for the first time there is a change in the philosophy on information. As things stand today, if a citizen wants to know about how a decision was made which affects his life or how his tax dollars were spent, if he wants to have access to that information or if he wants to withhold from the government information about his personal life, today the government says that it has control over information, that it has the right to decide in all instances whether an individual should be entitled to see information which he asks to see. The government says that it has the right to compel, under pain of penalty, from Canadian citizens information which they might otherwise choose to withhold.
What this legislation does for the first time is to turn that onus around, to say that information is the property of the people of Canada and not of the government. It says that the burden of proof in most instances must be put upon the government. If the government wants to withhold information about its activities, the burden of proof has to be on the government to justify that withholding. Or if the government wants to compel the giving of personal information about individuals, the burden of proof has to be on the government to demonstrate that that information should be provided and that the individual should not have the right to withhold it or to change it. That is a significant change.
It is important that we may start finding more openness in government, that we may start finding more respect on the part of government for the rights of Canadian citizens. If that is all that is achieved, if we begin to move that climate of bureaucracy, that culture that exists within the public service, toward more openness, toward more respect for the rights of
Access to Information
Canadian citizens, then we can be reported as having taken a very significant step today. Then Parliament's time today and Parliament's time over the course of this debate will have been well spent.
The hon. member for Burnaby made reference to the fact that in large part the privacy portion of this bill is patterned after legislation that was drawn up when the Conservative administration was in office. That is completely correct. Senator Flynn and I jointly introduced private members' bills, one in the House and one in the Senate, which included the draft of the legislation which was prepared by the Conservative government when in office. If you compare that with what is before us today, it is substantially the same.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the most significant change that has been made between that draft bill and the bill that has been put before us by the Minister of Communications is that the Minister of Communications has simply ripped out the portion of the bill which deals with the abuse of social insurance numbers. You will remember that it was the intention of the Conservative government to act to roll back the use of social insurance numbers to a limited number of uses where an individual would be required to produce a social insurance number. In any other instance the onus would be on the government first of all to indicate to the individual whether or not any law of the land required that he supply his social insurance number; and if it was not mandated by law, and if he refused to supply it, the government would be stripped of its right to deny services to an individual who had not produced a social insurance number or to penalize him in any way.
We asked that the privacy commissioner conduct a study as to the use of the social insurance number in the private sector and in the provinces and to make recommendations as to what action could be taken there. We felt that we did not have the information at that time. We did not know how extensively social insurance numbers were being used. We did not have the information and we felt it would be prudent to regulate the federal government's use of it first and then to act to restrict their use in the private sector and at the provincial government level. My colleague from Perth (Mr. Jarvis), however, as minister of state for intergovernmental affairs, did write to each of the provincial governments to ask them to restrict the use of the social insurance number at the provincial level, and by and large that request was met with considerable enthusiasm at the provincial level.
When this government came into office, what they did was simply to rip out the rest of the provisions dealing with the social insurance number that would restrict it at the federal level and simply throw it in the lap of the privacy commissioner and say: "Make a report; we are not prepared to take a position." Ultimately the privacy commissioner reported. Frankly, it was a disappointing report. It did not address many of the issues which were of concern to people worried about the abuse of social insurance numbers. It went so far as to include in the back in a little pocket a brochure about how to apply for social insurance numbers. It was not very reassuring for

June 28, 1982
Access to Information
Canadians who felt that the social insurance number was being abused.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: What those of us who talked to constituents about social insurance numbers have found is that there is a profound concern among Canadians about the potential abuses which can be made of them. We found concern about the threat to privacy, about infringement upon religious freedom that results from excessive use of social insurance numbers. Just this past week, Mr. Speaker, I had a call from a constituent, an old age pensioner, who said that when her pension cheque comes through, the government has so programmed its computers that it writes her name and address on the cheque, and because there is a see-through portion of the envelope, you can see the individual's social insurance number. That is how they respect the privacy of information. That is how they deal with senior citizens' social insurance numbers. They are visible from outside of the envelope.
The social insurance number is increasingly being used as a means of filing. Increasingly, both in the private sector and in the public sector, organizations are using the social insurance number as a way of filing information about individuals. To abuse social insurance numbers in this way, to give out an individual's confidential information, his social insurance number, is tantamount to having a row of houses each of which has the same lock on the front door, each of which has the one master key to open the door. It does not mean that if you changed the locks, it would be impossible to break into the house. What it does mean is that they all have the same key, they all use the same key, and once you get your hand on that key it makes it that easier to get into all of the houses. That is precisely the great danger that there is in abuse of the social insurance numbers. What the government is doing is to ignore that problem.
That is why I have moved a series of motions which would attempt to restore that portion of the bill which would restrict the use of the social insurance number and respect people's rights to privacy.
There has been an ominus development which I think should be of concern to Canadians. The government has said that even if we were to abolish the social insurance number, that would not guarantee privacy. That is absolutely right. No one has ever made the claim that invasions of privacy would go away if we were to do away with the social insurance number entirely. However, the real issue is whether the government should be encouraging the proliferation of single identifying numbers and their use in both the private and public sectors, considering the consequences it has for personal privacy.
One issue which has not been dealt with in the House of Commons which seems to have escaped public attention was an announcement by the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) that he was spending $15,000 to commission a survey of the acceptability of wallet-sized citizenship papers for Canadians.
If anyone has attended a citizenship ceremony for new Canadians, he or she would be aware that each new Canadian citizen is given a wallet-sized Canadian citizenship paper to carry around. Most Canadians do not realize this, but these are also available to Canadian citizens born in this country. I believe the cost to get one at the present time is $8.
What information does it contain? First, it gives an individual's full name; second, it says he is a Canadian citizen; third, it includes a photograph of the individual; fourth, it gives any other names, if there are any others not included on the front; fifth, it gives the date of birth of the individual; sixth, it gives the individual's sex; and seventh, it gives the individual's height, weight and eye colour. According to the Secretary of State, each of these citizenship cards is individually numbered to make it discrete from others.
One's mind goes back to 1971 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was questioned in Saskatoon. According to The Globe and Mail of October 25, 1971, under the headline "Use of ID cards forecast by PM":
Saskatoon-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau yesterday indicated his personal belief that at some point in the future compulsory identity cards will be required by all Canadians.
"But I don't look forward to it, if for no other reason than the sheer mechanics involved in issuing and maintaining the cards. I hope we can retard the day as long as possible."
A system of compulsory personal identity cards would inevitably entail, he suggested, special powers for the police to permit them to stop people to check their identity. People would also inevitably be required to produce them whenever they checked into a hotel, applied for a job and so on.
For all these reasons, he said, he finds such an infringement of the personal rights of Canadians repulsive and would prefer to see individuals continue free to walk about unhampered by such a requirement.
The Prime Minister made his remarks on the eventual need for the cards at a student question-and-answer period on the campus of the University of Saskatchewan. A student had asked Mr. Trudeau for his personal views on the desirability and necessity of such a system.
The Prime Minister did not expand on why he felt ID cards would be required by Canadians in the future.
The government will respond by saying that these ID cards are voluntary, that there is nothing mandatory about them and that we need not produce them as identification if we are going to cash cheques, if we are going to check into hotels or if we are going to apply for some service. However, that is precisely the same argument we have heard time and time again about the use of the social insurance number. If a person wants simply to do without services, he can do without them. He could simply choose not to produce his card and drop out of society. If this government is allowed to go forward unhindered and if the government goes ahead encouraging Canadians to take out such numbered cards and encourages their proliferation, we will find ourselves-not by plan, not by design, but by default-backing into the sort of citizen identification papers the Prime Minister said he saw as inevitable in 1971.
I see, Mr. Speaker, you are about to indicate that my time is up. Let me simply conclude by saying that the government had the opportunity in this legislation to do something about invasions of privacy as they relate to the social insurance number. The government had the ability to act with this
June 28, 1982

legislation to prevent this sort of development from taking place. It chose not to act. The bill is mute. As a result, while the bill is a significant forward in a number of areas, I think there is a serious deficiency in it. I think Parliament should be called upon to improve the bill and to do away with the deficiency without further delay.


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to make a few comments on Bill C-43 at the third reading stage. I want first of all to congratulate all those who have been responsible for bringing this bill before the House with the intent of passing it during this session.
I particularly want to congratulate a person who is not in the House today and has not been for a couple of years. In the fall of 1967 I returned from Arizona to Edmonton with some interest in political matters. A political meeting was advertised to be held at the MacDonald Hotel in the latter part of September, 1967. It was stated that a fellow by the name of Ged Baldwin would be speaking at this meeting and that someone by the strange name of Dalton Camp would also be there. I decided to attend that meeting because I was interested particularly in what one of those people had to say, that person being a Member of Parliament from northern Alberta representing the region of Peace River. I went to that meeting and heard a very eloquent speech given by the Hon. Ged Baldwin on the need for open government and access to information in government.
Having worked for some time in the United States and having experienced the difficulty a person in the engineering world experiences in getting information from government, that speech impressed me very much and, indeed, helped me in my subsequent years in politics to a very great degree.
I should say that the other fellow who spoke at that meeting did not overly impress me with what he said because he did not say very much at that time. However, Mr. Baldwin impressed upon me the need for open government and access to information to such a degree that when I became minister of the environment in the province of Alberta, which was a whole new area, we declared as a policy that all environmental information was public information. We followed that policy implicitly for the four years I was minister. We brought information into the legislature by the wheelbarrow load. Everything was public, and that had several effects. The first was that suddenly the news media and the people trusted the government fully in that area. They knew we were not hiding anything and that we would table everything. Whether it was derogatory to a company or a government, we simply put it on the table. As a government, we became trusted in that area.
The second strange thing was the effect on the news media. Up until that time, if there was a rumour that a document was being held secret, that became the issue. The issue was that something was being held secret and away from the eyes of the public. An interesting development happened in environmental matters. When we started to table everything and bring everything forward, it was not "newsy" any more. It was news only when there was a suspicion that something was being held under the table or confidential, and the news media would play it up to the nth degree. Indeed, information was brought
Access to Information
forward without any difficulty. It served a very useful purpose. There was demand for this information from companies and from local levels of government, and it was provided without any difficulty whatsoever. It was a pity the same policy was not followed in other departments in the province of Alberta or that we did not bring forward a freedom of information act, because we should have, seeing it was an Albertan who worked so hard at the national level to get such a bill into the House of Commons. I might also say that I was very impressed with Mr. Baldwin's role.
Personally, I feel very strongly that the correspondence of ministers should also be made public, although I know that is a very sensitive issue. I spent seven years as a minister in the provincial government of Alberta and when I quit I gave all my correspondence to the archives of Alberta to be made public when they felt it was appropriate or when I gave permission to do so. I believe that cabinet documents and ministerial correspondence should be made public soon after a government is defeated or a minister leaves office. Such correspondence is pertinent to the political life and the growth of a nation.
I believe that this bill, although it is important and an excellent start, should go further. I fully support it. This is a good, sound initiative. In closing, again I wish to give credit to Mr. Ged Baldwin for all the work he did on this subject during the years.


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise in this House with a feeling of pride today. This has been a very busy Parliament and it has handled some very important pieces of legislation, but this is one of the most important. I am proud to have had some small part in it through my membership on the committee.
This work is rather new to me, Mr. Speaker, but I have enjoyed it. As a Canadian citizen I have always been interested in access to information and seeing that the rights of the individual are protected at the same time. As a former member of the media, I know how important it is that information be available and I applaud the government and all members of the House for their part in bringing forth this important piece of legislation.
The bill tries to put in place a mechanism that will ensure access to information which should be properly available to us. Obviously some information, for one reason or another, cannot be accessible. In this electronic age it is most important that privacy be assured as well. This bill incorporates accessibility to information and ensures the right of the individual to privacy without impeding law enforcement or jeopardizing the common good.
As a non-legal member of the committee, I was intrigued by the intricacies of the bill. Access to information and right to privacy are matters that have been discussed for a long time. I

June 28, 1982
Access to Information
think it is quite proper that it has taken so long for the bill to appear in its present form because the matter is complex. The federal and provincial jurisdictions were involved and this is a complicating factor.
Sometimes the right to privacy gets in the way of competition and this is a difficulty for the commercial sector where people must be free to do business without giving aid and comfort to their competition.
The whole process seems simple until you get into it. It has involved a great deal of consultation over the years. There have been other attempts to bring forward an access to information and right to privacy bill and we have benefited from earlier studies in the private and public sectors. As well, we have the advantage of seeing how such legislation has worked in some provinces and in other countries.
It would be a great thing if we could pass this bill unanimously this afternoon. Much has been said about the fact that it is not perfect, and there is no doubt that it has its limitations and could be improved. It is important to get it through so we can see it in operation, however. We will be able to see whether the judicial reviews work and whether the commissioner is doing a good job, whether information is as accessible as it should be and if privacy is being protected. The subject has been examined thoroughly by many sectors in the country over the years. Its strength lies in the fact that a parliamentary committee must review the bill in three years' time. By then we will have had a chance to see how it works.
This review is an absolute necessity, Mr. Speaker. It ensures that we will not just forget about the whole subject but will monitor and observe the process and make corrections where necessary. We have to start somewhere, Mr. Speaker, and I feel that we have made a grand beginning.
I am very proud to have had some small part in this process along with an excellent group of parliamentarians. I compliment the government for bringing to fruition something that has been desired by so many people for so long and for recognizing the very good work that preceded the work of the committee. I wish the bill could be approved this afternoon by unanimous consent.
So, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying that, while I know it will not go through by unanimous consent, unfortunately, I am proud that most of us at least have recognized the need for the bill and the fact that it is really a magnificent beginning.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on Bill C-43, particularly as it pertains to social insurance numbers. I want to relate to the House, the minister, and to his officials in the gallery, an incident where a citizen of Canada, a constituent of mine, was terribly abused because of misuse of his social insurance number by someone else. I think it would be worth while for the minister to listen to this and realize that sometimes these numbers and government documentation can work against the individual.
One Sunday morning, Mr. Speaker, a university student- studying, coincidentally, computer sciences-came to my door. My family and I were just on our way to church, but I stayed behind to talk to him because I perceived that he was in difficulty. In fact, sir, as I spoke to him I found that he was contemplating suicide. We sat down and spent the rest of the day together. My wife came back from church with the children and he had lunch and dinner with us.
What happened was that he had attended a circus and someone stole his wallet containing his social insurance number, driver's licence and birth certificate. The thief began to use this young man's identity and used it for a number of years. He took employment in this university student's name so that come income tax time my constituent had the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) telling him that he had not remitted all his taxes because he had worked for this company, that company and the other company. Of course, the young man said "I did not work there at all". "It does not matter, we have your T4 slips with your social insurance number, therefore you must pay." So he paid tax for four years on income that he did not earn.
In addition to that, the thief used this man's identity all across Canada. He bounced cheques in every province so that the RCMP had a file on him and were looking for him. This individual also went down to the United States, committed a crime in Texas, and the FBI had a file on him. The province of Ontario suspended the student's driver's licence because this individual had committed so many traffic offences that he had used up all his points.
The student came to me because he had graduated from university and had applied for a job where confidentiality was required. The prospective employer had made the usual check and found out that the applicant had a criminal record. This individual who was using the young man's identification had stolen a car, been caught and gone to jail in my constituent's name, using his social insurance number. How shocking for the young man to find out that he had just graduated from university and had a criminal record, was wanted by police for bouncing cheques, and could not drive a car, all because of this individual using his identification and social insurance number.
I wrote all this down in a statement, the young man swore to it, and we began our investigation. I went to the police in Hamilton and found that indeed he had reported his wallet stolen, so we began to look from there. I came back to Ottawa and said that we must give this man a new social insurance number so that we can separate him from the individual who is using his number fraudulently. I went to the central records of the department which produced the social insurance number, and what do you think they told me? They said: "We cannot issue another number to your constituent; the computer is not programmed that way". "Well, what are we supposed to do", I said. They said they would seek legal advice from the legal officers within the department. They then called me back and said the only way they can issue a new social insurance number
June 28, 1982

to my constituent is if he legally changed his name. Can you imagine anything more ridiculous than a citizen being asked to change his name so that the computer can issue him a new number? What a ludicrous situation! Can you imagine this young man at a family gathering where his mother says: "This is Bill Smith, Tom Smith, Joe Smith and Mary Smith, but this is Bobby Brown because he cannot get along with the computer program and they cannot issue two social insurance numbers"!
We had quite a little time with that, Mr. Speaker. I checked with the official several times, made notes on his comments, and finally, through a stroke of luck, we found that the chap who was fraudulently using my constituent's name was in jail in Woodstock. Why was he there? He had been working in a gas station and when a customer came in for gasoline, say $10 worth, if the customer paid by credit card this man would carefully tear off the customer's copy, leaving the carbon in place, then he would change the zero to a five so that it now read $15. He would then take $5 out of the till, the till would balance, and he would be $5 in pocket. Well, eventually the police caught up with him and threw him in jail. We found him by running his name through the RCMP computer and up came a set of fingerprints. We then ran those through the computer and up came a different name. That is how we found out who he was.
I then went up to the jail and interviewed this individual. He was fantastic as far as numbers were concerned; I never met a man like him. He repeated my constituent's social insurance number, which he was using, backward and forward. He did the same with his driver's licence number. He had an unbelievable memory for numbers. I asked him what he was going to do when he got out of jail. He said he was just going to go down to the post office and order another social number, go to the records department in Toronto and get another driver's licence, and go to the necessary department and get another birth certificate and start all over again. So he was going to continue to use this young man's identification.
I came back to Ottawa and spoke to the minister in charge. He said there was nothing he could do. I spoke to the Minister of National Revenue, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), and they said there was nothing they could do. Finally I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if a citizen had to comply with this computer program in order to get this matter sorted out, and he said of course not. It was only the pressure of editorial writers across the country that really got this thing out in the open. Every major newspaper in Canada ran an editorial on it and the pressure was really on. Jokingly I said to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) one day in the House, when we were awaiting a vote, that if he ever had trouble with his social insurance number, he should come to me and I would sort it out. He said that they had talked about it in cabinet and that instructions went out to get that matter settled.
Here is what happened. I had a meeting with the minister and his officials. They wanted me to attend the minister's office. I am a fledgling Member of Parliament, so I said that I
Access to Information
would not go to the minister's office because I would be standing in front of the minister and all his officials. I told them that if they wanted to settle this matter, they could come to my office. I wanted to sit behind the desk and have them stand out in front. The parliamentary secretary, who is now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), said that the minister would not come to my office. I said that he did not have to come, that his officials could appear. This is exactly what happened. They all appeared. They brought a secretary, their legal advisers and the deputy minister. I was sitting behind the desk and they were out in front.
I want to say that it was quite a difference because I was more or less sitting in the driver's seat, so to speak. First of all, the chap at central records denied outright that he had even told me that my constituent would have legally to change his name. But I had made various notations as to the date, the times, the questions I had asked and so forth. I folded them up, gave them to him and said, "Put them in your scrapbook; I realize that what you have to do now is to save your job, and that you will not admit anything". Finally the deputy minister said that the only way this could be solved would be to change the act. They expected that I would say that I did not want them to go to all that trouble, but I said, "That is the very least I will accept; you must change the act".
So it began, and 18 months later, with an election in between, I finally received a new social insurance number for this young man and gave it to him as a Christmas present. It was the beginning of a new year and a new life for him, but he had gone through hell for five years because of the intransigence of the bureaucracy of government. People were saying that this could not be done, and the ministers were saying that they did not want to become involved. No one would move, but thank God for the police, for the RCMP and others who helped me. We finally got the job done.
Let me conclude by saying that after we had agreed to all this, the minister's executive assistant wrote a letter to The Globe and Mail trying to take credit for it. Can you imagine that? We replied to it, and I think he was let go shortly after that because it was a shabby trick. He even said that the minister's officials had found this dastardly individual who was fraudulently using my constituent's social insurance number, name and identity, in jail in Woodstoock, when in fact they had not. I went so far as to check the visitors' record of the jail to be sure that I was right on that point. Certainly no one had been there from the government, from the RCMP or anyone else, until I had visited the individual and raised the matter on the floor of the House of Commons.
I thought this would be a worth-while contribution to Bill C-43. I know my colleagues on this side have laboured hard and long on the bill. It is not everything that we want, but it is a beginning. We will certainly support it, and we hope that at some later date we will have an opportunity to amend it and see that it is improved further. I wanted to put on the record what can go wrong when bureaucrats become insensitive to citizens and the difficulties they have with simple matters such as assigning a number to an individual. It is a tragedy. This

June 28, 1982
Access to Information
man suffered for five years out of his life. We finally got back his income tax; National Revenue gave him back the money. The province of Ontario gave him back the money they had taken for the fines and returned his driver's licence. Finally, we got his wallet back with his original documents from the FBI, believe it or not. He went back into the work force and now he is gainfully employed with a new social insurance number. He is a very happy young man today. I thought it would be worthwhile to put those few remarks on the record for the benefit of my colleauges who were not here at the time and for the benefit of the officials of the minister who are sitting in the gallery.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the parliamentary secretary expressed a wish that this bill would pass unanimously. I want to take just five minutes to indicate a few examples of what is wrong with the bill and to show why we cannot vote for it.
Members will know that under the provisions of the United States freedom of information act, FBI and CIA files from the 1950s and the 1960s have been made available to people and to organizations. In a recent autobiography which John Kenneth Galbraith published, it is obvious that he had access to the FBI files on his own records. We know from the McDonald Commission that the RCMP has 700,000 files on individuals. Also we know from experience that some Members of Parliament, many trade union leaders and many farm leaders are among the people in those files. On one occasion I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) privately whether after this bill was passed people could obtain access and see what was in the files about them. He told me that they could not. I am talking about after this bill is enacted.
Professor Jim Penton of the University of Lethbridge was writing a book about religion a couple of years ago. He wanted to report in the book about the Doukhobors and about the assassination of Peter Veregin, the then leader of the Freedo-mite Doukhobors. Peter Veregin was assassinated in the early 1920s, more than 60 years ago. Professor Penton went to the RCMP asked for and was refused access to their files. Professor David Bercuson of the University of Calgary, a well-known labour historian in this country, told me this morning that one of his M. A. students was working on the history of the communist party in Alberta in the 1920s. It is common knowledge that the RCMP at that time had infiltrated and was keeping a very close tab on radical organizations in those days, on the communist party, on trade unions and on farm organizations. I am not questioning what they did, but we are talking about a period more than 50 years ago. When this student asked the RCMP whether she could look at the files concerning what was done in the 1920s, she was given access to only 15 or 20 pages of material. Professor Bercuson said that what amazed him and his colleagues was that she obtained that much. We can compare that with the tens of thousands of pages of recent FBI and CIA files from the 1950's and 1960's which were made public; people who felt rightly or wrongly that they had been mistreated by government agencies were given access to the files. One of the reasons we considered this bill not to be a
good beginning was that it does not give Canadians these same rights.
We consider the bill to be largely a hoax. The Liberal government is doing as it so frequently does-it is giving the appearance of giving people what they want or giving people what there is a broad consensus on, when in fact it is doing nothing of the kind. We are not prepared to vote for a bill which we believe to a large extent to be a hoax. The Conservative Party opposed important provisions of this bill when it was in government and in opposition. We are surprised that members of that party will now vote for it.
I should like to refer for a moment or two to a committee report of this year wherein the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) referred to this bill. He said, "You have gutted judicial review and you should know that." He ended by saying, "You have poisoned it. It is a body blow to access of information." If I had more time I could go into greater detail about what the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton said. However, having said all that, and having shown how inadequate the bill is, the member for Nepean-Carleton, as well as other members of the official opposition, are prepared to vote for the bill.
We in our party are not prepared to vote for a bill which will not accomplish anything. It will only give the ministers of the government and the senior bureaucrats about as much power as they have always had to keep from the public whatever information they desire secret. We are not prepared to cooperate with the government or the official opposition to allow them to do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Erik Nielsen: hope as well that the vote next Wednesday could also be deferred until a week today, the latter in order to enable western members to be in their ridings by July 1. I understand that it is somewhat easier to do for Atlantic members but it is absolutely impossible for western members to be home if we vote at the usual time next Wednesday on the New Democratic Party amendments.
I make that proposal in the spirit of co-operation and in the hope that the government will find it acceptable and agree to it.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed in the attitude of the Progressive Conservative House Leader, because he has decided to negotiate publicly, in the House, instead of privately as is our custom. He knows perfectly well that we cannot agree with suggestions he made earlier, for the simple reason that when we decided to consider the Access to Information Bill today, there was a tacit agreement with his party critic to have this evening's votes dealt with quickly and sensibly.
Some moments earlier today, when the hon. member was absent from the House, I had an opportunity to talk to his party critic who is here in the House, the member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and with representatives of the New Democratic Party. We reached an agreement whereby the entire body of amendments and third reading would be disposed of very quickly in not more than three votes. And now, just because I did not agree right away-I was not in a position to do so-to have Wednesday's vote, the first no-confidence vote on the budget, deferred to next week-I told him I was not in a position to give him an answer at this time, perhaps this evening or tomorrow morning-now he is trying to use this kind of pressure to destroy the tacit agreement reached with his party critic and the New Democratic Party critic, to obstruct the proceedings of Parliament once more and deliberately delay this evening's budget speech. His attitude is: All the government has to do is to agree to have the votes on the Access to Information Bill deferred until Monday evening, which happens to suit the hon. member a bit better.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but this is no way to run Parliament, and I deplore the destructive attitude of the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who does not even have the decency to keep our discussions private. If we do reach an agreement, fine, that will be raised on the floor of the House in any case, but when we do not, in that case, we simply agree to deal with the motions before the House, as provided under the rules of Parliament. However, the major spokesmen for each party on this bill have made a tacit agreement. I would never have proceeded with this bill today if I had not obtained this tacit agreement from the assistant of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), who is the official critic of his party for this bill, last Friday when the hon. member was absent, and from the hon. member himself today. I hope that the hon.
Access to Information
member for Yukon will reconsider the questionable tactic he has used today.
Moreover, I hope that he will change his mind in the next few minutes and abide by the gentlemen's agreement made by the critics for his party and the New Democratic party so that we may dispose quickly of the Freedom of Information Act in the next few minutes. This will have no bearing on my decision concerning his other suggestion to dispose of the vote at another time next Wednesday. This is a totally separate question to which I shall be able to reply later today or tomorrow morning, as I have indicated. If the hon. member is determined to paralyse Parliament and to delay the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) which is scheduled for this evening at eight o'clock, if this is his tactic or his plan and if he is acting in good faith, the best way to put this good faith to the test, if he refuses to stand by the agreement made with the official critic for his party, he can simply as a last resort, so as not to delay the speech of the Minister, accept that the votes be deferred to a time which is considered appropriate by all House leaders.
This would be much more in agreement with our rules than setting the date in advance for next Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. However, I still find it repugnant to give my consent, but perhaps he will not leave me any choice if I am to see to it that the Minister of Finance can make his speech at eight o'clock. I may be forced very inappropriately to give my consent. I shall perhaps be forced to agree to defer these votes to a mutually acceptable date within a reasonable time, but I am not able to agree immediately to deferring the votes to Monday evening, and I would much prefer that he stand by the gentlemen's agreement made by the critics for his own party and the New Democratic party and by his own deputy House leader in his absence last Friday and confirmed today.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that the government House leader has taken that belligerent attitude to what I considered to be a very reasonable suggestion. I did so on the basis that we do not want to delay at all the statement of the minister at eight o'clock tonight. We are not going to do that. He does not appear to want to accept that reassurance, but I give it to him again. I based my suggestions to him also on the assurance given to me by our critic for this bill, the member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), that no agreement was made that there would be only three votes. That is what the government House leader said. I asked a direct question of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, our critic, and he said that was not an agreement whatsoever.
I make that appeal to the government House leader in all reason. The members of the New Democratic Party are prepared to go along with it. I cannot see any reason for its not being acceptable to him. We could defer all votes until Monday and also defer next Wednesday's vote to Monday, without any intention of putting any pressure on the government House

June 28, 1982
Access to Information
leader whatsoever. It is simply made to him in the best possible faith. If any member over there can find any motive for my making this reasonable suggestion, I would like to hear it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: I hear all sorts of laughter. However, no hon. member is courageous enough to stand in his place to make an accusation as to my motivation.
I make the offer in good faith and I make the suggestion in good faith. We can be out of here, vote on all the votes that are necessary to clear the matter up next Monday, and also defer next Wednesday's vote until next Monday. I put that to the government House leader in the best possible faith.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make clear where we on this side stand. I understand from speaking with my critic, and I understood half an hour ago, that some work had been done to narrow the number of votes down to a maximum of two. We are of course prepared to vote since the House already called for it. I am always interested in accommodating what common sense would dictate. Your Honour may, in fact, recall that last Monday evening at about two o'clock in the morning I was still begging for common sense. However, without choosing sides on this matter, we are ready to vote. But if it were to be decided to defer the votes, then that will not cause us any great pain.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton is in the House. A few minutes ago I spoke to him, along with the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) who is here in the House. Very clearly he told us that his party would not request any recorded division on any vote and that, in fact, he did not want any vote to be recorded at this time. He is here. That is what he told me and that is what he told the Minsiter of Communications. I ask him to confirm that, if he is an honest man.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, just so the air will be cleared, it was not our intention to call votes on the report stage amendments. That was the discussion. But in the intervening debate, the New Democratic Party critic indicated to me that his party intended to call one vote at report stage, and during the course of the debate, the party indicated it would vote against the bill. The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) clearly stated the position of our party in discussions with me, confirming what I had said in the course of our own speech that if a vote were called, we intended to suppport the bill. Therefore, it looks as though we are faced with two votes. That is the situation, as I understand the matter, which is well within the three votes which have been mentioned by the House leader for the official opposition. That is the position as it stands.
I have just one observation. There is a House order that calls for a vote at 5.45 p.m. It is now 5.50 p.m. and I presume that
we should get on with the voting. If there can be no arrangement to dispense, then we must get on with the voting. If an arrangement cannot be made to dispense, I will naturally have no difficulty in that respect, but that is the situation. We are bound by order.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton has acknowledged that what he has in mind, as he had in mind when we reached the understanding, is that there will be two to three votes as a maximum. He even mentioned two votes. That is fine. We should just put the questions as we are ready to vote now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being 5.45 p.m., pursuant to an order made Wednesday, June 23, 1982, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forth every question necessary to dispose of the bill now before the House.
Accordingly, the question is on Motion No. 1. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Fox) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on Motion No. 2. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Fox) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There seems to be an order that when the question is put on motion No. 3, it will dispose of Motions Nos. 4 and 5. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Therefore, the question is on Motion No. 3. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
June 28, 1982


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 6. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Fox) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on Motion No. 7, which also disposes of Motion No. 8. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will
please say nay.
Motions Nos. 7 and 8 (Mr. Fox) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on Motion No. 9. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 9 (Mr. Fox) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on Motion No. 10. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
Access to Information


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Walter David Baker: On division.
Motion No. 10 (Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton)) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on Motion No. 11. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 11 (Mr. Fox) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on Motion No. 12. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 12 (Mr. Fox) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on Motion No. 15, which will also dispose of Motions Nos. 13, 14, 16, 17 and 26. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motions Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 26 (Mr. Beatty) negatived.

June 28, 1982
Access to Information


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on Motion No. 18. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will
please say nay.
Motion No. 18 (Mr. Fox) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on Motion No. 19, which will also dispose of Motion No. 20. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motions Nos. 19 and 20 (Mr. Fox) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on Motion No. 21. All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 21 (Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton)) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on Motion No. 22. All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 22 (Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton)) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on Motion No. 23. All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will
please say nay.
Motion No. 23 (Mr. Fox) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on Motion No. 24. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 24 (Mr. Fox) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: For the record, when Motion No. 7 was put, the Chair did not mention that it would also dispose of motion No. 8. Shall we take it that the vote which was taken on Motion No. 7 will apply to motion No. 8?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried.
Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 (Mr. Fox) agreed to.


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Gerald Augustine Regan: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Madam Speaker:: It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Access to Information


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divised on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 226)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand	Daudlin	HopkinsAndre	De Bane	HowieAxworthy	de Corneille	HudeckiBachand	Desmarais	HuntingtonBaker	Dick	Irwin(Gander-Twillingate)	Dion	IsabelleBaker	Dionne	Jarvis(Nepean-Carleton)	(Chicoutimi)	JelinekBeatty	Domm	JohnstonBeauchamp-Niquet	Dubois	Joyal(Mrs.)	Duclos	KaplanBegin (Miss)	Dupont	KemplingBerger	Dupras	Killens (Mrs.)Blais	Duquet	KingBlaker	Ellis	KorchinskiBloomfield	Elzinga	KushnerBockstael	Erola (Mrs.)	LajoieBossy	Ethier	LalondeBradley	Evans	LamontagneBreau	Ferguson	LandersBurghardt	Fleming	LangBussieres	Flis	LanielCaccia	Forrestall	LapierreCampbell	Foster	Lapointe(Miss)	Fox	(Charlevoix)(South West Nova)	Francis	LapointeCampbell	Fraser	(Beauce)(LaSalle)	Fretz	LawrenceCampbell	Friesen	LeBlanc(Cardigan)	Gamble	LeducCardiff	Garant	LefebvreChenier	Gauthier	LewisClark	Gendron	Loiselle(Yellowhead)	Gilchrist	LumleyClarke	Gourd	MacBain(Vancouver Quadra)	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	MacDonaldCoates	Gourde	(Miss)Collenette	(Levis)	MacGuiganComtois	Gray	MackaseyCooper	Guilbault	MacLarenCorbett	Gurbin	MacLellanCosgrove	Gustafson	MalepartCote (Mrs.)	Halliday	MaloneCousineau	Hamilton	MarceauCrombie	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	MasseCrosby	Mountain)	Masters(Halifax West)	Hargrave	MazankowskiCullen	Henderson	McCainCyr	Herbert	McCauleyDantzer	Hervieux-Payette	McDermidDarling	(Mrs.)	McKinnon
June 28, 1982
The Budget-Mr. MacEachen
Messrs.
McKnight	Penner	ShieldsMcLean	Pepin	SmithMcRae	Peterson	SpeyerMitges	Pinard	StevensMunro	Portelance	Stewart(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Regan	TaylorMunro	Reid	Tessier(Hamilton East)	(St. Catharines)	ThackerMurta	Reid	ThomsonNeil	(Kenora-Rainy River)	TobinNicholson	Roberts	Tousignant(Miss)	Robinson	TowersNickerson	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)	TrudeauNielsen	Rompkey	TurnerOberle	Rooney	VankoughnetOlivier	Rossi	VeilletteOstiguy	Roy	WatsonOuellet	Schroder	WeatherheadPa proski	Scott	WhelanParent	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	WisePatterson	Scott	WrightPelletier	(Victoria-Haliburton)
NAYS Messrs.	Yanakis Yurko-193.Benjamin	Lewycky	RiisBlaikie	Miller	RobinsonBroadbent	Mitchell	(Burnaby)Deans	(Mrs.)	SargeantFulton	Murphy	SkellyHeap	Nystrom	WaddellJewett (Miss)	Orlikow	Young-21.KeeperParker


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.
[ Translation]
It being 6.30 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m. when the business before the House will be a ways and means motion in the name of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen).
At 6.32 p.m. the House took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance) moved:: That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government. INTRODUCTION
He said: Canadians want to know how we can get our economy growing again, how we can get industry to invest, expand and provide the jobs our people need. A million two hundred thousand among us are unemployed. Still more are struggling to make ends meet in the face of high inflation and
high interest rates. We are all suffering, one way or another, from the recession that is battering our economy. We are all searching for a way out of it.
It is no comfort to know that the United States is a victim of the same recession. So are all the industrial countries of Europe and, even more cruelly, the developing world. The recession is international. Some of our problems are of our own making, but a large part comes from abroad. That is why the speed of our move towards recovery cannot be determined by Canada alone.
My purpose tonight is to offer Canadians a way to end the recession, and to speed our progress towards recovery through immediate action.
First, I will ask Canadians to participate in a strategy to make Canada a tougher, more resilient society. The way out of the recession is to bring down inflation and increase productivity. We must all share the burden and responsibility.
The government will take a leading role in this strategy. It will limit pay increases in the federal public sector. It will act to lower inflation-related increases in other spheres of government responsibility.
If all of us-governments, business, labour and individual Canadians-rally to greater discipline in our income demands and other inflationary behaviour, prices will at long last go down, and so will interest rates. The economy will start growing again. Industry will be able to make a decent profit and to increase production. Laid-off workers will be recalled. New jobs will become available
Second, a dynamic, confident business sector is essential to our economic recovery. Confidence depends on real economic opportunity. It also depends on effective interaction between governments and the private sector.
I will table tax proposals that would reduce significantly interest rates for home buyers and small business, and create new incentives for investment in Canadian corporations. I will propose the resolution of outstanding taxation issues from the November 1981 budget. I will address issues of concern to international investors.
Third, many Canadians and specific sectors of the economy need additional support and assistance in this time of recession. I will announce this evening initiatives totalling $2.3 billion for that purpose. Major actions will be targetted to employment creation, housing, small business, farming and fishing.
Fourth, these actions will be taken within the very limited room for manoeuvre imposed by the deficit. Recession has resulted in a serious worsening of the government's financial position. Tax revenues have fallen, while expenditures have risen. This has imposed severe limits on new spending. The government cannot responsibly add to the deficit. It has to reallocate resources. The action plan will therefore be carried out within the framework of current monetary and fiscal policy.
June 28, 1982


THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL SITUATION
[Stage Direction]
The recession has been abrupt and severe. Unemployment has reached record levels. Business profits have fallen dramatically. Bankruptcies have increased. Demand for goods has shrunk, both at home and in our markets abroad.
The economic woes of the United States and all the industrialized countries of Europe have caused additional hardship for Canadians. Unemployment in all those nations has reached record levels. Their industries and their consumers are suffering from high interest rates and lower output, just as ours are. They cannot afford to buy as much of our natural resources and manufactured products as before. Their governments are unable or have not chosen to design their economic policies to help us get out of the recession.
The persistence of the U.S. recession and of high interest rates in that country are the foremost international obstacles to a resumption of growth in Canada and the rest of the world. There are signs that the recession in the United States may soon bottom out and that a modest recovery may begin shortly, but production for all of 1982 is still expected to be IV2 to 2 per cent below the 1981 level. Moreover, high real interest rates in the United States remain a barrier to strong recovery. They are also keeping interest rates higher than domestic circumstances require in other countries, including Canada. In recent months, money has flowed toward high U.S. interest rates in such magnitude that the U.S. dollar has risen strongly against every major currency. Its rise against the Canadian dollar has been less than against other major currencies.
Though our economy has been seriously affected by these international forces, its fundamental strengths remain. Canada's resource wealth is undiminished. Canadians are as trained and capable as ever. Our corporate sector has to cope with depressed markets, falling profits and serious cash problems, but it has the capacity to weather the storm. Our financial institutions are well managed and prudently regulated. Our small business and housing sectors are facing greater difficulties, but the actions I am announcing tonight will provide them with substantial assistance. The stabilizers built into our tax and public expenditure systems help sustain incomes in the face of the decline in economic activity.
However, there is a major risk that we will let our competitive position slip. We are now doing much worse on inflation than our key trading partners. Our productivity performance has also been very disappointing. That imposes costs on all of us right now. But the consequences for the future are even more menacing if our performance does not improve. We would be priced out of foreign markets. That would cost us dearly in jobs and growth.
We should all be concerned about our slow progress in bringing down inflation. The increase in the consumer price index was 11.8 per cent in May. If present trends continue, our rate of inflation will not fall much below 11 per cent for 1982 as a whole. This would be 4 to 5 percentage points higher than in the United States, and about 6 points higher than increases in Germany and Japan. Clearly this is not good enough. Wage settlements in Canada also increased by 12% per cent in the first quarter of this year. Our wage settlements are therefore
The Budget-Mr. MacEachen
running about 5 percentage points higher than the trend in the United States. How can we expect to compete if this persists?
The recession also has caused a serious worsening of the government's fiscal position. The sharp fall in federal revenues is the inevitable consequence of the decline in production, employment and income. I estimate the revenue loss attributable to the recession to be about $4.5 billion in 1982-83. Lower international oil prices, and the lowering of energy taxes recently announced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), have also reduced federal revenues by another $1.5 billion in the current fiscal year. I now expect total budgetary revenues of $58.6 billion in 1982-83, $6.4 billion less than my November forecast of $65 billion.
Federal spending has also been affected by the recession. Higher interest rates add to the costs of governments as well as firms and individuals. Public debt charges are expected to be $1.1 billion higher than originally forecast. The deferral of some energy expenditures to the current fiscal year have reduced our outlays by $1.1 billion in 1981-82 and raised them by a similar amount in 1982-83. Over and above that, the government has approved few additional expenditures, and most are also related to the recession. Earlier this year $400 million were allocated to direct employment support and the extension of variable entrance requirements under the unemployment insurance program. The higher payments to provinces to which I agreed during negotiations on the fiscal arrangements will add $200 million to our outlays this year. The net effect of these and other minor changes has been to raise total budgetary expenditures to $78.1 billion in 1982-83. This is $2.6 billion higher than my November forecast of $75.5 billion. In addition, the rise in unemployment insurance payments will add an estimated $2.0 billion to our financial requirements.
The result is that the projected budgetary deficit for the current fiscal year is very much higher than that forecast in the November budget: $19.6 billion, compared to the $10.5 billion initially projected and to the $12.9 billion estimate for 1981-82. Our financial requirements are now projected at $17.1 billion, instead of the November budget forecast of $6.6 billion.
These increases reflect mainly the automatic response of our tax and expenditure systems to the recession. These automatic stabilizers must be allowed to operate to avoid making the recession worse. This is not the time to do away with these stabilizers, not the time to cut unemployment insurance or slash expenditures that provide income to Canadians.
The last budget put in place a structure of revenues and expenditures that should, when recovery gets fully under way, gradually lower the deficit and avoid putting excessive pressures on capital markets as private borrowing picks up to finance investment. I am introducing new tax and expenditure initiatives to respond to pressing needs, but I am not adding further to the deficit already facing us in 1982-83. The cost of
[Stage Direction]
June 28, 1982
The Budget-Mr. MacEachen
new measures will be more than offset by reductions in planned expenditures and a modest tax increase.
The onslaught of recession has triggered demands for a fundamental reappraisal of our economic policies. The government has examined very carefully alternative policy options. The actions we have decided to take reflect the broad consensus emerging from suggestions made by various groups, individuals and Members of Parliament. In this regard, I am particularly grateful to the Member of Parliament for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) and her committee who have contributed so much to the elaboration of current policy. Any departure from our broad policy approach has been rejected.
[Stage Direction]
We have rejected massive fiscal stimulus and the abandonment of monetary restraint because this would only worsen inflation and aggravate unemployment. We have rejected broad mandatory controls of prices and incomes. Broad controls are opposed almost unanimously by business and labour. On no other issue have I received stronger representations from the private sector. Controls would merely postpone the basic shift in economic behaviour that is needed-a shift to discipline and restraint, self-willed and self-imposed. It is to that basic change, rather than to massive government intervention, that the government has decided to devote its energies.

[Stage Direction]
Moving toward recovery requires that we take immediate action to bring down inflation. The central difficulty in reducing inflation is to break expectations that inflation will remain high indefinitely. Such expectations tend to be self-fulfilling: incomes chase prices, which in turn chase incomes in a vicious spiral. No one wants to be the first to accept a lower increase in pay than the next person. Unions are busy catching up with the ones that just settled for 12 or 14 per cent a year. Businesses and firms are busy raising their prices to catch up with or anticipate cost increases. Governments are also busy raising their taxes to catch up with the inflation of their expenditures. So the spiral goes on.
It is critical that we break that vicious circle. And when I say "we", I mean all Canadians, not just wage-earners and not just unions. I stress that our efforts to bring down inflation are not directed against labour or any other group in society. We are all caught in the spiral and, more often than not, against our will or our better judgment.
It is within our power, through deliberate and concerted action, to bring down price inflation much more quickly. We can do this by accepting, for the time being, income increases that are lower than the current rate of inflation. A reduction of income demands will lower cost and price increases. In this way we can stop feeding the spiral of inflation.
This strategy will lead in the short run to a lowering of our real income. But it will soon slow the process that is eroding our pay cheques. It will stop the rise of unemployment. And it
will establish a firm basis for resumption of real income growth throughout the economy.
That is the first immediate action that I am proposing.
I am urging Canadians to lower their demands for income increases to 6 per cent during the 12 months ending in July 1983, and to 5 per cent in the following 12-month period. I am also urging businesses to lower price increases as costs go down and profit margins are restored over this two-year period. I am calling on everyone to help Canada make the difficult changeover from the 12 per cent world that has mired us in recession to the 6 per cent world that will bring recovery.
Solidarity and sharing built Canada. That sharing is what the unemployed, the many firms in trouble, and the thousands threatened by lay-offs now need. I count on the willingness of all Canadians to bear their share of the collective effort to bring down inflation. Commitment to restraint and discipline in our income demands is the price we must pay to get the economy growing again and to make it possible for all eventually to benefit from rising employment and real income.
The government will seek consultations with business and labour to determine the best ways of implementing this strategy. We will also examine with the provinces how the efforts of all might best be co-ordinated.

[Stage Direction]
The private sector and the provinces could not be expected to accept income restraint unless the Government of Canada showed leadership in the conduct of its own affairs. The government has therefore decided to lead the way by implementing the proposed strategy in the federal public sector for a period of two years.
First, legislation will be introduced this week in Parliament to cut pay increases for ministers of the Crown, Members of the House of Commons and Members of the Senate from 11 to 6 per cent for the rest of this year. The limit will be 6 per cent next year and 5 per cent the year after.
Second, increases in the rates of pay of all deputy ministers, heads of Crown corporations and senior executives of the public service will be limited to the same targets of 6 per cent and 5 per cent for the next two years. The advisory group on executive compensation in the Public Service recently recommended that the rates of pay of deputy ministers and senior executives be raised by 9'/2 per cent as of April 1 of this year. Instead, they will be limited to 6 per cent effective July 1.
Third, increases in the rates of pay of other employees in the federal public sector will be constrained to no more than 6 per cent in the first year of the application of the program to them and 5 per cent in the second year.
The coverage of the program will be broad. In addition to the ministry, Members of Parliament, the judiciary and the public service, the program will apply to the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Crown corporations.
June 28, 1982
[Stage Direction]
It will cover more than 500,000 federal employees. However, only ministers, MPs and Senators will be subject to actual cuts in pay.
The details of the public sector compensation restraint program will be announced shortly by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), who will be responsible for its administration.
In addition to the leadership it will provide in our collective effort to bring down inflation, the pay restraint program will lower federal expenditures by some $250 million this year, and $550 million next year, relative to the provision in our fiscal plan. This will provide financial resources for reallocation to the high priority needs for direct assistance to other Canadians.
I would like to emphasize that in the government's view federal public sector employees are no more responsible for inflation than any other group in the society. They too have been trying to catch up with rising prices, but their incomes have risen no more, and often rather less, than those of employees in other sectors. This is not a punitive program. If other sectors follow our leadership, federal employees will fare as well as others. The government believes that it is reasonable to impose a limited measure of pay restraint in the federal public sector at a time when others are bearing a severe burden arising from unemployment, pay cuts and business losses.
Pay restraint is also needed in the provincial and local public sectors. Several provinces have already announced measures to limit the pay increases of some categories of public sector employees under their jurisdiction. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will meet with the Premiers on Wednesday to urge that all provinces take similar actions.

[Stage Direction]
The actions I am now about to announce are being taken only after the most careful consideration. The government is deeply committed to lifting the burden of inflation from those least able to protect themselves. But it is calling upon all Canadians to share in a determined effort to bring inflation down. It is calling upon all to reduce their income demands well below the present rate of inflation. It would be inconsistent with the government's determination to see income demands reduced to 6 per cent and 5 per cent not to ask taxpayers and recipients of some transfer payments also to carry part of the burden.
With regard to the income tax system, the indexing factor applicable to personal exemptions and tax brackets will therefore be limited to 6 per cent for the 1983 taxation year and to 5 per cent for the 1984 taxation year.
The Budget-Mr. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Effective January 1, 1983, indexation of the pensions paid to former Members of Parliament and public servants will be limited to 6 per cent. The indexing factor will be lowered to 5 per cent as of January 1, 1984.
Effective the same dates, the indexing factor applicable to family allowances and old age security will also be limited to 6 per cent and 5 per cent. To ensure that the limitation of the indexing factor does not hurt families with modest incomes, the child tax credit will be increased by $50 for the 1982 taxation year and will continue to be fully indexed. The increase will raise the credit from $293 to $343 for each child.
Pensioners most in need must also be fully protected from the limitation on the indexing factor. The guaranteed income supplement for senior citizens with lower incomes will continue to be fully indexed. In addition, everyone receiving the GIS will get a supplement to the GIS payment offsetting fully the limitation on indexation of old age security payments.
Veterans' pensions will continue to be fully indexed.

[Stage Direction]
The government, while asking that a measure of protection against inflation be temporarily sacrificed by public servants, taxpayers and many recipients of transfer payments, is obligated to do all it can to ensure that prices established under federal jurisdiction are similarly restrained.
Accordingly, I am asking that federal agencies which regulate the prices for such vital goods and services as public transportation, public communications and foodstuffs, adhere to the objectives established tonight and depart from them only in exceptional circumstances.
The government will monitor the price decisions of the regulatory agencies within its jurisdiction and take appropriate actions where exceptional increases cannot be justified.
As well, the government will ask the provinces to take similar action in those areas of regulation within their jurisdiction.
Through these actions on earnings, on indexing, on administered prices, the government is providing leadership in a two-year national effort to break inflation. These are exceptional actions required by exceptional circumstances.

[Stage Direction]
I now move to the second thrust of the government's action plan, which is the shoring-up of investment and confidence. Idle capacity, falling profits, heavy interest costs and expanding debt have combined to make businesses reluctant to expand. Consumers also hesitate to commit themselves to major purchases, particularly for housing. The government is therefore taking action to reduce uncertainty and boost confidence.
[Stage Direction]
June 28, 1982
The Budget-Mr. MacEachen

[Stage Direction]
Tonight, I am tabling a consultative document containing proposals which, if implemented, would have the following major effects:
-Canadians investing funds in a new form of term deposit would not be taxed on that part of interest that only reflects the rate of inflation.
-Canadians investing funds in new plans for purchase of common shares of Canadian corporations would not be taxed on that part of the capital gain on such shares that only reflects inflation.
-Buyers of new homes would be able to secure mortgages at significantly reduced interest rates-3 to 6 percentage points lower than prevailing rates.
-Small businesses, farmers and fishermen would be able to secure loans for new capital investment at similarly reduced interest rates.
-Canadian corporations would have improved access to risk capital.
These proposals would introduce major innovations in our tax system as well as in financial markets. The government intends to implement them quickly once their feasibility has been confirmed.
I am creating immediately a committee of prominent Canadians from the financial, legal, accounting and economic communities to examine the proposals and advise me on their feasibility not later than September 30. I also invite interested Canadians to forward their comments to me directly. I want to make it clear that this consultative process reflects the more open process on major tax initiatives which I advocated in my green paper on the budget process. 1 regard this kind of major tax initiative with far-reaching consequences explored by a prominent group of Canadians from the financial, legal, accounting and economic communities.

[Stage Direction]
I am tabling today a comprehensive notice of Ways and Means motions relating to the November 1981 budget. The notice contains the income tax legislation in draft form to allow for a review of the draft amendments by those affected before the final tax bill is introduced.
The proposed legislation will go a long way to improve our tax system. The November measures have been far-reaching and controversial. Since November, I have attempted, after extensive consultations, to accommodate legitimate concerns that have been raised. I have already announced a number of changes to my original proposals. The notice I am tabling reflects these changes. I am also making further modifications, including the following:
[Stage Direction]
The 12'/2-per-cent corporate distributions tax applicable to small business will be postponed for one year to January 1, 1983.
-The proposals related to the deduction of interest expense will be reviewed, and their effective date will not be before 1983.
-The proposed automobile standby charge has been reduced from 2'/2 per cent to 2 per cent.
[Stage Direction]
The rules on the restriction of interest expense will not apply to commitments relating to employee share-purchase loans undertaken prior to November 12, 1981.
-Modifications have been made to the proposals relating to forward-averaging for artists and athletes.
-Other changes have been made relating to corporate reorganizations and loans to non-resident corporations.
The draft legislation does not contain provisions affecting life insurance or charitable foundations. The precise drafting of these income tax amendments has been delayed because of extensive and successful discussions with representatives of these groups. I have already announced a mutually satisfactory solution on the taxation of charitable foundations. I am also making public today a revised approach which preserves the objectives of the November measure relating to life insurance which is acceptable to the life insurance companies.
This disposes of tax issues arising from the November budget. With these uncertainties removed, it will be more evident that the taxation of business and investment income in Canada compares favourably with that of any other country in the world.

[Stage Direction]
Last November, I made public a budget paper in which the government outlined its approach to economic development. The directions set out in that paper continue to guide government policy. As was stated in the budget paper, the objective the government is pursuing through the Foreign Investment Review Act is to ensure that foreign-controlled corporations serve the Canadian interest by contributing fully to the development of an innovative and internationally competitive industrial structure. This is a reasonable goal to which the government remains fully committed.
At the same time, the Foreign Investment Review Act must be administered to adhere to the objectives established by Parliament. Its procedures must be timely and efficient. In particular, efforts must be made to avoid red tape and extended delays.
With this in mind, the government has decided the following:
First, the threshold for review under the small business procedures will be raised from $2 million and 100 employees to $5 million and 200 employees for new investment or direct acquisitions in Canada.
June 28, 1982
[Stage Direction]
Second, where a foreign-controlled Canadian company is acquired in the course of the acquisition of its parent or another foreign-controlled company, the small business procedures threshold will be $15 million and 600 employees.
Third, small business investments will not be subject to the full review procedure except in exceptional circumstances, where the investment appears to raise important policy issues.
For applications which are subject to a full review, other administrative measures will be introduced to provide greater clarity about the interpretation of the Act and to simplify the internal decision-making procedures. The agency will confine its examination of undertakings to the key elements of an investment proposal.
On a related subject, the government is aware that international investors are concerned about the capacity of the Canadian balance of payments to absorb the pace of Canadi-anization in the energy sector under the National Energy Program. I would like to note, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did in his recent NEP update, that we are ahead of our Canadianization goals. The 50 per cent target for 1990 remains, but we do not need, and do not intend, to press the pace of Canadianization of foreign energy holdings in the years immediately ahead.
I also wish to announce our intention to extend for three years the exemption from the non-resident withholding tax on interest paid abroad. This removes an element of uncertainty that might have impeded capital inflows.

[Stage Direction]
The third thrust of this budget is action to reduce unemployment and to provide support to sectors hard hit by the recession and by high interest rates. Unemployment is imposing high costs in human, social, and economic terms. Sectors such as small business, housing, farming and fishing are deeply affected by weak demand and by the high cost of borrowing. The government is responding to these needs.

[Stage Direction]
The government will use direct employment and economic programs to provide jobs this year and next.
-I am announcing a $200 million allocation to direct employment programs.
-I am announcing $150 million, which was allocated earlier, for increased spending on localized, employmentintensive projects under existing government construction and other programs.
Together with more than $100 million available from existing Employment and Immigration allocations, this will provide more than $450 million for direct job creation.
The Budget-Mr. MacEachen
-I am also announcing the allocation of a further $300 million to economic development programs that create permanent private sector jobs through levered investment incentives.
This expenditure of more than $750 million will ensure that additional jobs are created quickly, and targetted especially to areas which have been particularly hard hit by the recession or by longer-run adjustment problems.

[Stage Direction]
I am announcing a five-point package of new and expanded housing programs. These programs will stimulate residential construction and job creation.
First, the government will provide grants of $3,000 to all purchasers of new houses on which construction starts before December 31, 1982, and to first-time buyers who purchase an existing house before that date. It is estimated that 100,000 purchasers will be eligible for this grant. The total cost of this new program is $300 million.
Second, the initial $30 million allocation to the home renovation plan will be doubled to $60 million.
Third, I announce that the annual allocation for non-profit and co-operative housing will be increased from 25,000 units to 27,500 units in 1982. This is in recognition of the fact that the housing needs of low-income Canadians deserve special attention.
These initiatives are expected to generate some 65,000 jobs over the next two years.
Fourth, 54,000 additional jobs are expected to result from the Canada Rental Support Plan for the construction of new rental units in tight markets. This program was introduced last November and doubled in size to 30,000 units in March. It has been suggested that the $7,500 interest-free loans offered under this program may not be high enough in some markets. The government is prepared to show some flexibility on this matter. Project commitments under this program will soon be announced.
Finally, I announce that the Canada Mortgage Renewal Plan introduced last November will be extended to December 31, 1983. All home owners having to spend more than 30 per cent of their gross income as a result of renewals taking place after tonight will be eligible for a grant of up to $3,000. It will no longer be necessary to defer interest before becoming eligible for a grant.
The Minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will shortly provide the details of these housing initiatives.

[Stage Direction]
I am announcing an important new program to reduce interest costs for small businesses undertaking new investment. $400 million are being allocated to this program.
[Stage Direction]
June 28, 1982
The Budget-Mr. MacEachen
The expansion of many small businesses has been halted by high interest rates. Grants will therefore be made to cover 4 percentage points of interest charges, over a period of two years, on loans extended by financial institutions to both incorporated and unincorporated small businesses. The eligibility rules will be similar to those for the Small Business Development Bond.
The Small Business Development Bond program that expired at the end of last year exempted financial institutions from tax on interest on loans for new investment or financial difficulty. In order to target available tax benefits to those small businesses most in need of assistance, the November 1981 budget confined the tax exemption to loans made to small businesses in financial difficulty. Eligibility was also extended to farmers, fishermen and other unincorporated businesses.
This small business bond tax provision continues. The program now being introduced is a new direct expenditure program. It will supplement the financing available under the small business bond program to firms in financial difficulty. It will not be constrained by the tax position of financial institutions. Farmers and fishermen, whether incorporated or not, will be eligible for the new small business investment grants.
In addition, the government is providing $100 million more for assistance to farmers in financial difficulty. This allocation from the government will permit the Farm Credit Corporation to make loans totalling $200 million over and above those provided for in the November budget. The loans will carry the regular rate of interest of the FCC, but a rebate amounting to 4 percentage points will be extended for a period of two years.
The details of these programs will be announced shortly by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Lapointe), and the Minister of Agriculture, (Mr. Whelan).

[Stage Direction]
As I indicated at the outset, I was determined to find ways of creating jobs and sustaining economic activity without adding to the deficit. This goal has been achieved. The actions I just announced will be costly, but they will be more than fully covered by reallocations of expenditures and tax changes.
[Stage Direction]
Let me sum up by listing the items on both sides of the balance, We are providing:
-an additional $200 million for direct job creation programs,
-an additional $300 million for job creation through economic development programs,
-$400 million for housing stimulus and mortgage assistance,
-$500 million for interest assistance to small businesses, farmers, and fishermen.
In addition:
-the increase in the Child Tax Credit will reduce revenues by $250 million,
-the adjustments to the November budget will reduce revenues by some $325 million,
-$350 million should be allowed for the first-year revenue reduction from the proposals on taxation of investment income.
These additional expenditure initiatives and revenue reductions total $2.3 billion over this year and next.
Offsetting these costs are:
-the $800 million savings from the public sector compensation restraint program,
-the $360 million savings from limiting indexing on expenditure programs,
-the $580 million in savings from other expenditure reductions and deferrals, and
-the $1.3 billion from limiting indexation of the personal income tax system.
[Stage Direction]
Together, these savings and revenue measures provide $3 billion. In 1982-83, the costs of new initiatives and the funds made available are both about $800 million. In 1983-84, funds made available exceed the costs of new initiatives by almost $800 million. These savings will be taken into account when we reassess the economic and fiscal situation next fall.
This method of financing the government's actions is a concrete application of the principles of solidarity and sharing. Some Canadians are being asked to give up certain benefits to help the unemployed and troubled sectors of the economy.
I would like now to table the comprehensive notice of Ways and Means motion related to the November, 1981 budget as well as a notice of ways and means motion related to the measures announced this evening. I would ask for the consent of the House to table the budget papers and paper for consultation entitled "Inflation and the Taxation of Personal Investment Income". I also ask for the consent of the House to include in Hansard the standard table which provides the projections of the government's fiscal position.
Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous consent to the tabling of the documents mentioned by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 28, 1982

			The Budget-Mr. MacEachen		
	GOVERNMENT OF CANADA				
	Summary Statement of Transactions*11				
		November 1981		June 1982	
		Budget		Budget	
	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1981-82'21	1982-83
			(millions of dollars)		
Budgetary transactions					
Revenues	45,398	54,310	64,960	53,765	58,550Expenditures	-58,066	-67,650	-75,450	-66,700	-78,100Surplus or deficit (-)	-12,668	-13,340	-10,490	-12,935	-19,550Non-budgetary transactions	Loans, investments and advances	-523	-650	-850	-1,335	-700Specified purpose accounts	2,781	3,720	3,550	3,285	1,065Other transactions	293	495	1,205	2,645	2,085Net source or requirements (-)	2,551	3,565	3,905	4,595	2,450Financial requirements (excluding foreign exchange	transactions)	-10,117	-9,775	-6,585	-8,340	-17,100Total outlays'31	58.589	68,300	76,300	68,035	78,800Percentage growth	13.0	16.6	11.7	16.1	15.8Percentage of GNP	20.1	20.6	20.2	20.5	22.0Program outlays(4)	47,902	53,605	59,535	52,965	60,900Percentage growth	10.6	11.9	11.1	10.6	15.0Percentage of GNP	16.4	16.2	15.7	16.0	17.0Budgetary revenue	Percentage growth	16.6	19.6	19.6	18.4	8.9Percentage of GNP	15.6	16.4	17.2	16.2	16.3Budgetary deficit	Percentage of GNP	-4.3	^*.o	-2.8	-3.9	-5.4Financial requirements (excluding foreign exchange	transactions) as percentage of GNP	-3.5	-3.0	-1.7	-2.5	-4.8GNP (billions of dollars)	291.9	330.8	378.5	331.3	358.9
'*'For comparability, budgetary revenues and expenditures for 1980-81 and 1981-82 are adjusted to treat Canada Post revenues and expenditures as if the corporation were under Crown corporation status throughout the period. The budgetary deficit and financial requirements are unaffected as a result of these adjustments.
<J) Estimates.
'''Budgetary expenditures plus loans, investments and advances.
<4)Total outlays excluding public debt charges.


THE ROAD TO RECOVERY
Allan Joseph MacEachen: To break inflation, to boost confidence, to create jobs, to hold the line on the deficit: these are the goals of the action plan the government is proposing to Canadians.
The recession compels us to face reality. Too many of us, one way or another, have been taking too much out of the economic system for too long. This is hurting all of us. Now we must take less so that the economy may grow again.
Even in the best of circumstances, recovery will take time. And the government alone cannot do the job.
Some say the government should print more money. Others say it should let the deficit rip.
But that would fail miserably. Inflation and unemployment would get worse. Interest rates would rise even more. Canada would price itself out of world markets. Recovery would be postponed.
Still others say the government should order every detail of everyone's economic life, fix every price and set every wage bargain.
But is that what Canadians want?
The choice is ours. On the one hand, the road to recovery; on the other, a further slide into recession or a controlled economy.
The government has pointed the way to recovery, but it alone cannot get Canada on the move. We must tackle this task together.
That is why the Prime Minister has proposed to meet with the Premiers later this week to seek their support and participation in the action plan 1 have announced tonight.
That is why the government will seek consultations with business and labour on implementation of the strategy to break inflation and get the economy growing again.

June 28, 1982
The Budget-Mr. Wilson
That is why ministers and Members of Parliament will be enlisting the support and participation of all Canadians in moving from the 12 per cent world of recession to the 6 per cent world of recovery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, this is not a budget. It is another update of a budget which failed last November, and this one is going to fail again. We have a patchwork quilt of certain changes in the November budget plus a few other things the minister has brought in to try to address the very serious problems of the economy, but the solution is just not there. There is a crisis of confidence in this country, and this is not an action plan, as the minister has said. It does not address the crisis of confidence which is so serious in this country today.
Let me address some of the changes in the budget. The minister has brought in this budget eight or ten more changes in the November budget. I believe that totals somewhere between 35 and 40 changes the minister has brought in since the November budget. He has acknowledged the fact that that budget was a mistake and a failure, but he has not withdrawn the balance of the budget. That balance should have been withdrawn in total.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: This budget does not address the most important problem facing the country today. The minister has shown no understanding of the very serious nature of our economic problems. The budget deficit is $20 billion, and the minister says this budget is brought in to address the problem of the size of the budget deficit. That means no more to Canadians than the fact that the minister has said that the November budget was a budget of restraint, and then went on to increase public spending by 22 per cent.
There were major mistakes in the 1980 budget and in the 1981 budget, and there are still mistakes in the 1982 budget. The problems have not been solved, but the damage which has been done to the economy by the changes brought in in the National Energy Program in 1980 and in 1981 by tax reform has been absolutely immense, but still the minister does not have the courage to say to Canadians: "I made a mistake-the last time around, and there are things in that budget I have had to change". Canadians were looking for that. They were looking for an opportunity to feel some sense of kinship with the minister. People do make mistakes, but the minister has not acknowledged that he has understood where he went wrong in that last budget, so he has robbed Canadians today of the hope they were looking for that there will be some turn around and some recongition by the government that there are policies which will bring us to the recovery the minister says is possible. Unfortunately, that recovery is a long way away.
The size of the budget deficit in itself will have a great impact on the confidence of people in the Canadian economy. The $17 billion of cash requirements means that there will be $17 billion worth of competition by the federal government for the very limited sources of capital available for small businessmen, home owners, fishermen, farmers and so forth. That is an immense problem. It will lead to higher interest rates. There is
no doubt about that. There is also no doubt, as even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will acknowledge, that high levels of government spending and large government deficits lead to inflation.
Let us look at the saddest element of this budget, and that is the heartless impact it has on the average Canadian. Canadians are being asked to pay for the mistakes of this government in a very major way. There will be a personal tax increase next year of $1.3 billion. There will be a 6 per cent personal tax increase through the loss of half of the indexation Canadians would have expected next year. In addition to that, through the change in the indexation factor in government spending, those who are on spouses' allowances and those who have disability pensions are being asked to pay for the mistakes of this government. That is a shocking answer the minister has given to Canadians. Less than two years ago the minister said to me, in answer to a question in this House: "I will not fight my battles against inflation on the backs of those who cannot afford it and on the backs of those who cannot fend for themselves". That is the type of minister that we have today. The minister has put forward a few job-creation programs, a number of which are a rehash of programs already announced. The fundamental message is that these are short-term programs, although there are not too many details so it is difficult to tell whether they will be effective. They have no relationship to training or to research and development in the ways that we know from work that has been done which show that they will provide lasting answers to job creation in this country. We need long-term job-creation programs directed at the longterm problems of the economy, but they were not in the budget.
Much damage has been done by the delays that this minister has allowed to take place since his 1981 budget. For instance, 224,000 people have lost their jobs. In the six months since the last budget about 6,000 businesses have gone bankrupt and about 11,500 people have gone into personal bankruptcy. Behind those statistics are people who, in effect, have been excommunicated from our system because there is no new employment in the country. That is the cost of the delay and lack of understanding by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) of the basic problems of the country today.
Let me comment now on some of the positive elements of the minister's speech, Madam Speaker. Since last November we have been asking the minister to bring in these positive measures. The Small Business Development Bond comes back in a new form. The mortgage tax credit program, which would have cost Canadians $125 less per month on their mortgage payments, was defeated in the last election but now it is proposed to bring it back in an amended form. It will have basically the same impact. A proposal that was defeated in the 1979 budget would have helped Canadian companies broaden their ownership base in this country without having to go to
June 28, 1982

foreign markets for their investment money. That appears again.
Many of the tax reforms proposed in this budget which are changes from the 1981 budget, appear basically because of pressure from the Conservative opposition, day in and day out, over the last seven months. The proposal to withdraw the small business dividend of 12'/2 per cent, for instance, is one. Interest deductibility is now in limbo because the minister knows it is not workable, although he has tried ways to make it work. He has tried to find ways of doing it but he knows that it will just not work. The standby charge on automobiles, the employee share purchase plan and the forward-averaging program as well as five or six other changes in the budget that we have been pressing for now appear. We knew they would not work but much damage has been done by the hiatus that resulted from the inactivity when instead, jobs could have been created in the country. Many parts of that budget still stand. We say that the previous budget should have been withdrawn in total when the minister made his statement tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Canadians have lost faith in their government. Because of the government's policies the economic situation in Canada has deteriorated to such a degree that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has had to put forward a new budget. We said that the November budget was wrong; it was disastrous for the economy because the approach and the policies were wrong. We were right because tonight, just eight months later the Minister of Finance is presenting a new budget. In fact, the Minister went to great length to embellish the horrors in his November budget.
Now, this budget does not solve all our problems. The deficit will reach $20 billion, and with personal income tax indexing, next year taxes will go up 6 per cent. There is no program for economic growth. In fact, this budget is long in words and short on ideas. The government must resign and give Canadians an opportunity to make their wills known through the electoral process.
The Budget-Mr. Wilson

In closing may I just comment on the fact that in 1980 the government began to move this country in a different direction, toward more regulation, more intervention and more involvement in the lives of Canadians and individual Canadian companies. That direction still stands in this budget. In fact, certain parts of this budget move us toward more and more involvement of the government in the lives of Canadians. That must be reversed, Madam Speaker. The only way the Minister of Finance can expect to regain the confidence of individual Canadians and businessmen in the policies of the government will be if he puts more reliance, more understanding and creates more confidence in individual Canadians through their own initiative and desire to create a better life for themselves. If the minister cannot understand that and continues to bring in budgets which ask individual Canadians to pay for the mistakes he is making, then he must resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There is only one answer, Madam Speaker. The minister laughs. The fact that he is asking Canadians to pay six per cent more in taxes, is asking people on spouses' allowance and those who are disabled to pay more through the loss of indexation, and is asking Canadians who cannot afford it to pay for his mistakes-that is why the minister must resign.
Madam Speaker could I move;
That the debate be now adjourned.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, under the Standing Orders I move:
That this House do now adjourn.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
On motion of Mr. Pinard, the House adjourned at 9.19 p.m.


END OF VOLUME XVI