1984-11-27

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the guidelines issued by the Prime Minister on November 23, 1984, with regard to the provision of information to the public, are inadequate and retrogressive and confirm the Government's mistrust of and cynicism toward Canadians.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I almost did not get to the House this morning because of the fog. The trip from Vancouver Quadra was a little longer than I had expected. Mind you, this fog has been descending over the capital ever since the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced his guidelines on Friday.
I rise today, Your Honour, on a very serious issue which goes right to the heart of this institution of Parliament and to the good workings of democracy itself; the right of every Canadian to complete information on the policies, plans and projects of the Government. Openness in government, Sir, is absolutely vital and fundamental to parliamentary democracy. It reinforces the confidence of Canadians in the way our system works and it promotes sound and intelligent debate among the citizenry of our country.
The Prime Minister, at his press conference on Friday, introduced guidelines for public servants as to how they must deal with members of the press, the news media and the public, indeed as to how they must deal with Hon. Members of this House. He indicated a willingness to table these guidelines in the House when I questioned him last week, but as yet I do not believe he has done so.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's guidelines are important because they affect the right of all Members to be informed about Government policy in order to serve their constituents, and also the right of Canadians to have this information. However, the guidelines will not give us the open and accessible government we were promised. Far from it!

The effect of these guidelines, Mr. Speaker, will be an even tighter control on information. The Prime Minister made a solemn pledge during the campaign which I recited during Question Period a week ago and which is found in Hansard of November 20, 1984, at page 404. These are his words:
Secrecy in government... is an addiction; the more the Government can have of it, the more it wants of it.
The Prime Minister also said: "The first benefit of the first day of a new government will be the knowledge that the public business will be once more in the hands of those who trust the people and seek their goodwill and trust in reform". Those were his words. Like the economic commitments the Prime Minister made to the Canadian people, this commitment for openness in government has already been broken. First, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) gagged all the Ministers. They could not talk. As I said on Leaders' day during the debate on the Throne Speech, they would be fired unless they "checked with Erik". The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) then gagged his Department, gagged Canada's ambassadors and gagged our trade representatives around the world. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was particularly concerned that someone might learn something at a cocktail party.

Senior officials were hesitant to go to conferences to discuss nuclear disarmament, because they were afraid their Minister would insist on controlling whatever they said. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) even refused to give us information regarding the effects of severe cutbacks on the employment situation.
So we asked the questions in the House of Commons. We pressed the issue and forced the Prime Minister to go before the national press gallery with the guidelines. The result was that he finally came up with some rules and regulations, but instead of being the road to open government we expected they are nothing more than a forced march down the dead-end street of government secrecy. Yes, the Prime Minister lifted the gag order all right, but he replaced it with a straight-jacket on all our public servants and the complete government apparatus in Canada.
Background briefings are no longer in order. We are told in the guidelines they will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances and must have prior ministerial approval. These guidelines raise more questions than they answer. We know

November 27, 1984
Supply
this Government puts a high priority on managing the news, but what constitutes an off-the-record, background briefing? If a member of the news media, for example, asks a public servant for information on a previous policy announcement which may not be consistent with current policy, will he have to check first with the Minister before giving out that information? Does it mean that every time a policy is changed all previous policy announcements must be deep-sixed? Is every statement in support of government policy a fact and every critical statement an off-the-record briefing?
The Prime Minister's letter accompanying the guidelines says that Ministers must, and I use his words, "ensure that communication with the public is managed effectively in accordance with the priorities of the Government". The key word in the statement is "managed". What about the public interest and the public right to know? Are public servants going to be punished for talking about subjects affecting the public interest which are not necessarily priorities of the Tory Government? If a member of the public wants to know why a particular policy option was chosen over another, does the public servant in question have to check with his Minister to give that information?
What is at issue here, Mr. Speaker, is that it is one thing to allow facts to be confirmed or revealed by public servants within an umbrella of government policy, but what is important for public debate and public scrutiny is that members of this House, the media and the people of Canada know the options in front of the Government. Why was one choice made rather than another? What were the reasons and facts and policies behind that choice? What were the choices that were disregarded and refused? In other words, by limiting, in the guidelines, public servants to the mere relevation of facts within a very tight stricture and under a very strictly controlled parameter, the Prime Minister is, in effect, controlling the ability of this country to debate options, choices and to understand the reasons why the Government made a decision. That is absolutely true.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


John Napier Turner: We have now seen the sophistication of managing the news taken to a new height in the history of our country. This is a cosmetic government, one that is operating in imperial, even presidential style, everything having to be channeled through the Prime Minister's office. I tell you, it is an awesome machine, Mr. Speaker, reinforced through the Prime Minister's office by the appointment of chiefs of staff, personally appointed in every department of government. I have called them political commissars; they are the eyes and ears of the Prime Minister in every department of state.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and our system that we are not, despite the Prime Minister's inclination, living under a presidential system. We are living under a parliamentary system and every day he and his Ministers will have to appear before this House. I warn him that the system he is trying to constrict and construct will not work because, while we may be short in
numbers at the moment, the House of Commons will insist that this veil of secrecy be torn aside and this shroud lifted.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in an editorial entitled "Mulroney Shuts Out Public" The Toronto Star makes the following point on the impact of these guidelines in restricting information to the public. I use The Toronto Star's words: "By reducing the opportunity for informed debate before the Government decides what it wants to do, this limits the public's ability to help shape that decision".

The Government has a very sizeable majority. Why is it so afraid that the press and the federal public service are going to gang up on it? Does the Government have so little confidence in its programs and policies that it has to resort to this kind of gross manipulation?
Why do they assume that public servants will not tell the truth? Or are they afraid that public servants will tell the truth?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: As a result of the pressure put on the Government by the Official Opposition, the Prime Minister has quietly shuffled the Deputy Prime Minister out of the sensitive role of communications overseer in the Cabinet. He has been replaced with three new Ministers; the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and the House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn). The question is, who is the spokesman? Is this the new communications troika? Will a dissenting report be published when they do not agree unanimously? How will they interlink with the political commissars to control the flow of information from the Government?
Instead of policy objectives which stand or fall on their own merit, we now have government by one-liners, government by 30-second clip, government by photo opportunity, in short, government by controlled access. If ever I saw one, this is a peek-a-boo government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Perhaps they want to manage the news because they are afraid they cannot manage the Government. The Prime Minister says that public servants are not to defend or criticize, only to explain. How can public servants explain when they are not allowed to say anything except to spout the Party line as dictated by Ministers and political commissars? The Government's attitude to the Public Service of this country is churlish and patronizing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 27, 1984


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister says that his Government is open. Well, the opposite is true. I suppose he feels that if he repeats it over and over everyone will eventually believe it. Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House do not buy it. I do not believe the media accepts it, and the people of Canada certainly do not accept it.
I have said on other occasions that it is a matter of trust that governments will do what they say they will do. The Prime Minister and his colleagues said that we were to receive open, accessible and available government. That is not happening here. What we are seeing is symptomatic of an attitude, a tone and a style of government. It is manipulative and operates on imagery. It is contrived. What is the Prime Minister afraid of? Is he afraid of the inexperience of the Ministry? He could be excused for that. Is he afraid of the incompetence of the Ministry? Is he afraid of an informed electorate? Is he afraid of the revelation of his failure to live up to his promises during the election campaign?
In putting this motion to the House I say to the Prime Minister, let the people judge. Take Canadians into your confidence. Come clean with the citizenry of our country. Disband these guidelines and open up the Government to the light and corridors of power and let us have some fresh air.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) for a very amusing speech. He will, of course, want to answer some questions. He has come forward with a new spirit of openness previously unknown to the Liberal Party.
With regard to manipulation, could the Leader of the Opposition explain why, before the last election, the Liberal Party increased the advertising budget of the Government of Canada by some 65 per cent over what it was in previous years? How can he justify standing before the House and making specious allegations with respect to the whole question of alleged secrecy when we are the most open government Canadians have ever had in the history of this country? How can he make this allegation when he is part of an administration which has increased manipulative advertising? How can he stand in his place and make these kinds of allegations with a serious face?
[DOT] (M20)


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has tried to regain some momentum here this morning. At least advertising of public programs is increasing the information flow to government, not stemming and choking it as the hon. gentleman and his colleagues would like to do.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) a question with respect to this new-found interest of the Liberal Party in openness in government. Is he prepared, unlike the former Prime Minister and his colleagues, to trust the courts in this
Supply
country with respect to the view of claimed exemptions under access to information legislation?
One of the glaring loopholes in the freedom of information legislation which was brought forward by his Party and unanimously condemned by all of the groups in this country who are concerned about openness in government was the Mack truck exemption clause in the Bill which meant that the Government did not trust the courts to review claimed exemptions with respect to the possibility of Cabinet documents. That flew in the face of the previous government's Bill. Although the new Government has been silent on that particular question so far, one can always hope that it might practice in government what it preached in opposition.
Is the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition prepared to change the position of secrecy and cover-up of the previous government and trust the courts of this country in order to allow full judicial review of any claimed exemptions under access to information?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would think that the legislation to which he refers was a great step forward in this country in opening up the avenues of public scrutiny of legislation and also of the inner workings of government.
With respect to whether the courts should review any particular claim for an exemption, this is a classic case of parliamentary review versus judicial review. I have an open mind about it. We might well respond in a constructive way if the new Government were to move along the lines that the Hon. Member suggests.


Mr. McDermid:: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the Right Hon. Member's speech. He made it sound as though there have never been guidelines produced by any government before. I remember when the government in July 1981 produced the document entitled "Communications Roles and Responsibilities". It states that Ministers:
-have the responsibility for establishing, with their Deputy Ministers, the framework of priorities, strategies and objectives for communications with the public, and the communications responsibilities which are appropriate for their personal staffs and department officials?
Is it not true that this document was produced before, that there have always been certain guidelines and that in fact one of the guidelines was that public servants were not to be quoted by name in the press?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, of course, I have not seen those particular guidelines. I suspect that they resemble those drawn up by the previous administration under the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In any event, what makes this particular debate so crucial is that we were led to believe by the Hon. Member's Party and his Leader, the Right Hon. Prime Minister, that whatever the history of openness in this country-we believe that we had an open government-he gave an explicit undertaking to the people of Canada in obvious reference to the past that his was going to be an open and accessible government that would tear

November 27, 1984
Supply
away what he believed were the traditions of secrecy in parliamentary life and conduct.
It is because of those undertakings which he has breached that this debate assumes the proportions it does, not only on the principle that open government is necessary for the proper workings of a free country but as a result of the fact that the Prime Minister once again is reneging on a commitment made to the Canadian people in a free and open election.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, first would the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) go to his House Leader and get a copy of that famous Liberal document passed by Order in Council entitled "Communications Roles and Responsibilities" of July, 1981? The Leader of the Opposition is so complaining on this matter. Is it his view that the Public Service should be politicized, that members of the Public Service should be out there arguing policy issues in a partisan sense, as the former Liberal government attempted to use public servants? Or is it his view that the Public Service should act in a responsible management fashion, answering proper questions, as our guidelines indicate, and not be politicized? Does the Leader of the Opposition want to politize the Public Service? Does he want the Public Service to be part of the political debating process? Is that his attitude?


John Napier Turner: No, of course not, Mr. Speaker. We do not want a politicized Public Service. We want a Public Service that is free to explain the policies of government as dictated and organized by their political masters, the Ministry of the day. That means they cannot be limited to merely factual explanations. They have to be free to explain within the mandate given to them by their Ministers the reasons for their choice and for policy decisions. They have to be able to do that.
The problem here is that by forcing each public servant to reveal his or her name at every interview, in effect a discreet silence will be imposed upon the Public Service of Canada because an individual public servant will not take the chance that what he has to say, even in a factual sense, does not meet the approval of his Minister. That is what is happening here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is very upset about this matter.


John Napier Turner: You are damn right.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: He is worried about public servants giving their names out. Surely to goodness, if somebody is going to make a statement of fact, he or she should be prepared to give his or her name. If these people are not prepared to give their names they should not be giving a statement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Why does he want to have it so that some un-named public servant said some un-named thing? Is that
the way to build confidence in government? Is that the way to build responsibility? Is that his attitude? Is that the kind of government he would have us run?


Mr. Foster:: You sound brainwashed, Don.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the tone and substance of the hon. gentleman's remarks indicate the innate suspicion he has of the Public Service of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette), for questions or comments.


Mr. Bissonnette:: Mr. Speaker, as far as the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) is concerned, senior officials may make all the statements they want. They are only being asked to identify themselves, which should be seen as a form of protection, should certain points be misunderstood or misinterpreted.
I think this is a very important point. During the last election campaign, we saw what poor communications could do to our hon. friends opposite. We would rather not have that experience.
Mr. Speaker, I interpret the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition as provocation. Why should anything be off the record? Why can we not identify ourselves when we have something to say?
I wish the Leader of the Official Opposition would answer that question. Why not identify oneself?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think that the upshot of all these guidelines, especially the emphasis on public servants being identified, is that public servants are de facto silenced.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The comment and question period on the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is now over. We shall now resume debate.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak today about secrecy in government. Not since the last war have Canadians had a government so obsessed with secrecy as they have today. Of course, the reason for government secrecy in the last war was to keep vital information from the enemy, but the reason for government secrecy today is to keep vital information from the Canadian people.
Secrecy and stonewalling have become a habit with the Government of Canada. We will never break the habit until we change the Government. I should like to say that I am
November 27, 1984

plagiarizing the words of the current Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he was the Leader of the Opposition and stated: "The differences between the present administration and a new Conservative government is simply this: the present government believes you only have limited rights to know; Conservatives believe you have every right to know". That was the statement of the Prime Minister last August when he was Leader of the Opposition.
The people of Canada should not accept such secretive behaviour. Secrecy, stealth and stonewalling have become trademarks of the present Government. What do they have to conceal from the people of Canada? What sort of parliamentary government is it when we have a system within which Cabinet can create a corporation by Orders in Council, staff it with patronage appointments at undisclosed salary, and then lock the door to keep out the Auditor General, to keep the watchdog of Parliament at bay? That was the position of the current Prime Minister with respect to the responsibilities of the Auditor General when he was in fact the Leader of the Opposition. However, when he in fact became the Leader of the current Government, he denied the access of the Auditor General to the very information which he had pledged as part of his open government and his open government policy prior to the election.
As my Leader has stated, it becomes an issue of trust, an issue of whether the statements made by the current Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition were in fact pre-election pap or whether he had every intention of developing the kind of open government which he promised when he was in Opposition.
It seems to me that when we look at the policy guidelines, the mumming effect of this Government on public servants across the country since the appointment of his political commissars and since his new move into media management, it is clear the Prime Minister had no intention of introducing the kind of open government which he pledged to Canadians.
I should like to bring to the attention of the House a very simple incident in which I happened to be involved as an invitee of the Edmonton Jaycees. A few weeks ago I agreed to participate in a conference on, of all subjects, women in politics and how we could get more women involved in politics. The Jaycees had invited representatives of all political parties to attend and to discuss a subject which I think the Prime Minister has stated is a policy and a priority of his Government.
Nonetheless, when I arrived at the conference I was advised that political commissar Elizabeth Willcocks in the office of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Murta) was ordered by the Prime Minister's office not to attend this conference for fear that in fact she would say something bad about the involvement of women in politics across the country. The political commissar in question had been invited to this conference as a result of her pursuit of the presidency of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. I find it incredible that this Government would attempt to muzzle a political commissar who had past experience and certainly past involve-
Supply
ment with Progressive Conservative policies relating to women. It is just another indication of a government that says one thing when it is in opposition with the full intention of not carrying out its political promises when it is elected.
Let us look at the very first initiative of the Government with respect to the economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). It has become clear from questioning in the House that the Minister of Finance had information which would tell Canadians that, as a direct result of his Government's policies, his Government's short-term financial intervention, there would be a loss of jobs. In fact, the Government refused to table that information in the House. It refused to make available to Canadians information which would have clearly shown that the economic statement tabled by the Minister of Finance would in fact reduce jobs. I cannot agree more with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) when he states that Canadians will not be fooled. It is my understanding that Canadian voters in the Province of Prince Edward Island were not fooled by this Government. I suppose I should congratulate the Finance Minister because he handed the Liberals of Prince Edward Island an election issue on a platter when he introduced an economic statement which wrought tremendous economic difficulties for the Atlantic provinces, in particular the ferry situation with respect to Prince Edward Island. I should congratulate him on his initiative. I should say that the Canadian people will not be fooled by secrecy or by the broken promises of the Government because they are recognizing that the trust factor which became an issue during the election campaign has not subsided.
When I read the statement of the Public Service Alliance of Canada-I think it puts the question very carefully to Canadians-to suggest that there need to be more restrictions placed upon public employees is to suggest that there need to be two classes of citizens in this country. The Alliance agrees that Public Service employees should provide information to the public and the media regarding government programs and policies and that in the past government employees have been needlessly prevented from doing so.
The issue here is a promise made by the current Prime Minister to run an open government and to tell Canadians upon what basis the current Government will make decisions with respect to economic policy. What we have instead is a government run by political commissars, a government run by "check it with Erik", a government where the Prime Minister has clearly violated the promises which he made to Canadians for an open system.
I suggest that if the Government is to begin to go back on the road of broken promises upon which it has already set itself, the first issue it should address is the issue of secrecy in government. Instead of issuing guidelines to muzzle public servants and instead of having Ministers such as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) memo departments on witch-hunts for former Liberal employees, et cetera, the Government should in fact tell Canadians that as of this day forward public servants will certainly have the right to speak

November 27, 1984
Supply
out on issues and to lay out policy options and let them know that the Government is not afraid of letting information out.
If I look at the department responsible for housing, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation organizations across the land know that CMCH is developing its priority list for housing projects. Yet I was advised earlier this week that in fact the housing priority list cannot be given out to interested groups and organizations because again the Government is attempting by media manipulation to manage the news and to prevent information which is of vital importance to interested parties in the housing industry from in fact being exposed.
I refer also to a simple peace conference which was held recently and an article indicating that the muzzle may affect that peace conference. There is no Hon. Member in the House who would disagree with the initiatives of the peace conference. The Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), notwithstanding his reticence about the media, would agree that information of the sort which would emerge from this peace conference will be very important. However, it was indicated in a recent newspaper article that organizers of a university seminar on nuclear disarmament said that they had been receiving telephone calls from worried public servants who were reluctant to attend meetings because journalists were also scheduled to attend. I know there are a number of former journalists on the government side of the House. I am sure they would agree that it is appropriate, when trying to give out information to allow policy decisions to be made, that all policy options be explored and that public servants have the authority from their Ministers to give out this kind of information.
This Government through its political commissars, media management and mass manipulation has denied that right, not only to the Canadian people but to Members of Parliament who of necessity have the need from time to time for off-the-record briefings with Ministers' staff and departmental officials.
If this Government is willing to repair its current image in the minds of Canadian voters-and I do not have to remind Government members of the massive mandate for change they were given in the last election-it will not refuse to open the doors of information, allow Canadians access to information and allow Members of Parliament the tools that we need to carry out our function as an effective, critical Official Opposition. If not, it will have broken the first of many promises it made to the Canadian people.
I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here currently to join in the debate. He stated last August that he believed in open government. He stated that Conservatives were not afraid of letting information out to the Canadian people. He said that a new government would result in a massive new direction, including access to information by the Auditor General. Having said all that, I am sure that he will stand in his place this afternoon and clarify to the Canadian people why his Government has changed course, why he has broken
his promises and why the open government which he pledged last August has become a government of secrecy, a government of manipulation, a government which is not prepared to let the Canadian people in on the economic situation of this country.
I expect the Leader of the Opposition, as he has done so ably in the last few weeks, to continue to press on this issue. It is a matter of liberty and rights, not only for Members of Parliament but for all Canadians. All Canadians have a right to know how many jobs were eliminated as a result of the financial statement. Canadians have a right to know what policy initiatives this Governmment will be studying with regard to universal accessibility.
Is this Government going to do away with the baby bonus, as has been suggested in the economic discursives of the Minister of Finance? Is this Government going to jack up the cost of unemployment insurance benefits and reduce them to the point that unemployment insurance will become the right of welfare recipients only?
Is this Government going to do away with the child tax credit in a move that has been described by some as the most anti-child and anti-young people initiative ever ventured upon by any government in this country? Is this Government going to carry out these initiatives or will it allow the Canadian people to be involved in a full and open discussion on the initiatives introduced in the economic statement tabled by the Minister of Finance?
Canadians want to know the answers to these questions. They want to know whether old age benefits are going to be reduced as a result of this Government's lack of commitment to universal access. Canadians want to know what the future of the child tax credit will be. They want to know whether it is government policy to eliminate summer jobs for young people. Canadians want to know what kind of two-step shuffle this Government was embarked upon when it made promises to the Canadian people last August that it refuses to deliver upon in November.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to add that Canadians have a right to know what kind of policies the Government is considering. Before being elected, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised all Canadians they would have open government, government that would give all Canadians access to information. We know what happened. As soon as he was elected, the Prime Minister forgot all his promises and now, we have a Government where secrecy and political commissars are the order of the day. As they say in Parliament, you always have to-

"Check it with Erik". That is the hallmark of this Government: "Check it with Erik". The Canadian people did not elect just one Member of Parliament. They elected Members of Parliament on all sides of the House, all of whom are charged with the responsibility of getting access to information and ensuring that the Canadian people have access to information
November 27, 1984

so that we can make informed policy decisions, and in the case of the Official Opposition offer constructive criticism. That is our role in Parliament.
[ Translation]
And I believe the Government made a number of promises in that regard during the election campaign. But after election day, all those promises went out the window, and they have been replaced by a Government that wants to run this country as though Members were political representatives appointed by the Prime Minister, by the leader of the Government.
It is clear that with all its promises, this Government never intended to give the Auditor General access to all Cabinet documents, nor did they ever intend to inform Canadians. Why? If we look at the economic statement made recently by the Minister of Finance, for instance, everybody knows that prior to the statement, discussions within his department had made it clear that there would be cuts in employment as a result of this Government's policies. Obviously, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) does not want to give Canadian information and does not want to give them the facts. He knows perfectly well that the Prime Minister promised that as soon as he was elected, the Conservative Government would create thousands of jobs. In fact, as soon as he was elected, he decided that jobs would be cut, to concentrate on reducing the deficit. That is a complete turnabout on the part of a Government that came to power promising Canadians jobs which, as we all know, never materialized because the Prime Minister and his Cabinet never intended to stimulate employment. Their intention has always been to reduce the deficit on the backs of Canadian workers, although they were not going to tell Canadians this before they were elected. As soon as they were elected, we saw this Government do an about-face.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus on a question that should be addressed by Canadians. It is a question of confidence. Canadians have given the Progressive Conservative Party an extraordinary mandate. Why has this Government, why have the Conservatives now decided that they are not going to keep their promises? Because they never intended to do that. They never intended to keep all the promises they made from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
In Prince Edward Island, in a recent election, it was very clear that although Canadians there also expected the Conservative Government to keep its promises, the Government never intended to do so, and I am thinking of the ferry service. This is being done on the backs of the Conservative Members from the Maritimes who are not very happy about the Government's policy in this respect, and also on the backs of people working in Prince Edward Island who need the service year round. Mr. Speaker-

The Canadian people have to look at this Government and examine its mandate. They must recognize, as has been recognized by the Official Opposition and in the press, that the
Supply
paranoia and media manipulation that has been the hallmark of the first few weeks of the mandate of this administration is totally unacceptable. It is an abrogation of this Government's promises to the people. It is a clear indication that the road of broken promises which has been embarked upon by this Government is only the precursor of what we can expect over the next few months.
I challenge the Prime Minister to stand in this Hosue this afternoon and clarify once and for all to the Canadian people the impressions that Canadians have about this Government, its trail of broken promises and media management. This Government has to lay all the facts on the table, including the economic information that led this Government to introduce an economic statement that was going to result in direct job reduction in this country. If the Government is going to put its political money where its mouth is, it can demonstrate to the Canadian people by tabling those documents in the House today that it is clearly prepared to let the Canadian people have all the facts. Where the Prime Minister's promise of tens of thousands of jobs is concerned, the Canadian people have a right to know why the Government chose to emphasize deficit reduction at the expense of jobs for Canadians, on the backs of the working people.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the born-again Liberal from Hamilton East. I listened with great interest to the comments of the Hon. Member with respect to the decision of the Government to refuse access to documents which were sought by the Auditor General regarding the Petro-Canada takeover of Petrofina. The Hon. Member waxed eloquently about the shortcomings of the Government in refusing to grant access to those documents. I share that concern. However, perhaps she could enlighten the House as to whether the previous government was not the first government which refused the request of the Auditor General for those documents, explain why it was that the Auditor General had to demand that the documents be released, and that when the previous Liberal government refused to release those documents the Auditor General went to court?
We have hypocrisy on the part of the Liberal Party. I appreciate that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) was not a Member at that time, but she might explain to the House if she supports the decision of the previous Government in stonewalling the Auditor General with respect to the documents, or if that Party has changed its position on this very important question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to explain to the Hon. Member that I was a Liberal before he was born.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: If not in spirit, then in my mother's womb.
I am not sure whether the Hon. Member had an opportunity to hear all the arguments which were put by myself and by my Leader. If he had, he would know that we are discussing an

November 27, 1984
Supply
issue of promises broken. It is an issue of promises broken by a government, not my government but a government which was elected with a massive mandate by the Canadian people on September 4. It was elected on the mandate of open government, which included the full exposure of documents to the Auditor General. I am not here as an apologist for the broken policies and promises of the Government. I would suggest that the Hon. Member should embrace his role as a constructive critic in opposition and deal with the issues in 1984 as they exist.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. She talked about this Government manipulating the ladies and gentlemen of the Press Gallery. Could she give us one example of how this Government has manipulated the Press Gallery?


Sheila Maureen Copps: As a sometime former journalist myself, I know that part of the job of a journalist includes being involved in off-the-record briefings. Journalists should not be denied access to information about policy initiatives which may be embarked upon by government departments.
We could take, for example, the issue of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. As a Member I have been trying desperately, as have members of the media, to get information about the policy initiatives which are being explored with respect to cuts in CMHC. We have seen a part of the social housing budget decimated by 25 per cent cutbacks and we cannot find out what initiatives are being considered with respect to where those cut-backs will be applied.
If the Hon. Member had taken a look at the article which appeared in The Toronto Star last weekend, he would know that any member of the media who is attempting to write a think-piece, perspective-piece or an introspective piece on government's past and future records must have access to off-the-record briefings. The decision by the Government to abolish off-the-record briefings is a denial of information. It is an attempt to run government by photo opportunity, much in line with the kind of policies and politics which we have seen south of the border over the last number of years.
I am not surprised that the Prime Minister has jumped in bed with the President of the United States. He has taken a page from the book of the United States in that access to information is being extremely limited. The Prime Minister only wants pictures of himself having tea with the President in the Rose Garden.
1 asked the Prime Minister previously, when he visited the President of the United States, why he did not discuss the issue of steel quotas. He was too busy having a photo opportunity in the Rose Garden. The issues about which Canadians and journalists are concerned were never exposed for public discussion. That is the kind of off-the-record briefing which has been a hallmark of Parliament since Confederation and it is one which should be continued.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member made quite a thing about the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). She will be apprised now that the Minister of Finance will appear before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to answer questions on Wednesday evening at 8.00 p.m. I expect her there. However, before she goes to that meeting, would she take a look at the discussion paper which was filed with the financial papers in the economic statement? That discussion paper goes into a whole series of questions on policy options. Perhaps she and her Party would contribute to that discussion, instead of contributing to the crying, wailing and gnashing of teeth about political commissars that we have heard this morning.
I want to ask the Hon. Member, seriously, what is wrong with demanding that when people give interviews they give their names and set out the record for attribution? What is wrong with that kind of a rule?


Sheila Maureen Copps: I would like to throw a couple of questions back at the Hon. Member. I realize it is unparliamentary, so I will simply do it rhetorically. In his long experience as a Member of Parliament has he ever had an occasion to have an off-the-record discussion with a journalist? If he can state categorically that he has never had such an off-the-record discussion, that his Party has never had such an off-the-record discussion, or his departmental officials have never had such a discussion, I think the Hon. Member is clear in making that statement. However, I would suggest to him that in an attempt to gather information about a number of policy options-and I raised the issue of CMHC because it is a case in point-as a Member, I cannot obtain information about where the prospective cuts are being considered.
With respect to the question regarding the Minister of Finance and his appearance before a parliamentary committee, I am pleased. I know it is part of the parliamentary process for Ministers to appear from time to time before committees. I realize that some government political commissars may like to replace them in this regard, but since they are unable to do so I welcome the appearance of the Minister of Finance at this committee meeting.
The point which I made in my brief discourse, is that the Minister of Finance has a responsibility to Canadians to table the documents relating to the economic statement, and in particular, those documents which clearly demonstrated that the short-term results of his economic statement will be the reduction of jobs for Canadians. When the Minister of Finance tables those documents, including the number of jobs which will be lost and the sectors in which they will be lost- and it is predicted that the number will be in the thousands- then I will be very happy to stand in my place and say that the Government has returned from the road of broken promises back to an open government. However, I do not see that forthcoming.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary question. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East has quite properly criticized the Tory Government for its position in
November 27, 1984

refusing to expose documents to the Auditor General. Is it Liberal policy that those documents should have been disclosed?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will no doubt know that as the Liberal critic in the matters of labour and housing, I am not the Party spokesman on that particular issue. I am sure the relevant spokesman will be very happy to answer that question.
I am glad the Member gave me an introduction to an issue about which I have not had the opportunity to speak. As the housing spokesman I have spent the last month apprising myself of the national housing situation and the labour situation across Canada. I have not been involved in the discussions but I am sure the Hon. Leader of the Opposition would be very happy to enlighten the Hon. Member on that subject and I welcome his intervention.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for comments and questions is over. We shall now resume debate with the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, entering into a debate of this sort is a pleasure for me because I am anxious to respond to the very questionable proposition put forward by the Opposition. I waited for a reasonable period of time, Mr. Speaker, to see just who was the real opposition. Where is the other Opposition Party; where does it stand with respect to this matter; and what were those Hon. Members going to say? I was interested to find out whether the other opposition was going to sing from the same song sheet or whether it might take a more enlightened view with respect to the whole question of "seek and see" and communications from government.
1 would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) would have started off this debate by demonstrating that the path taken by the Liberal government in years past was a mistake, that it has accepted the error of its ways and is now prepared to disclose and reveal all of the information which it so candidly kept behind closed doors during the time of its administration of this country. I am referring to things we pointed out during our time as an opposition, the same things we are now bringing forward; for instance, improved accessibility and consultation in terms of going to the Canadian people and allowing them to have a real input into government policy.
What we are doing now is changing the shameful record of the Liberal Party and I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, as a simple gesture, that the Leader of the Opposition might have tabled at the outset the letter which he wrote to Mr. Trudeau with respect to the $84 million patronage deal which was made. If the Leader of the Opposition was really interested in disclosing information, certainly this kind of letter, a factual letter, a letter which probably has some interest and impact on the question of whether a government has the confidence of its people and is doing the right job in its appointments, should be
Supply
disclosed. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to do that.
I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition if moving forward with respect to the question of secrecy is a new idea. We have a story to tell. We have a policy to put forward. We have an openness which is unprecedented in the history of our country. We are going to demonstrate that to the Canadian people because we are proud of our record.
I will wait for the New Democratic Party to speak. I am sure the Leader of that Party will have something to say about this subject. Perhaps he can tell me, as someone who comes from Saskatchewan, why his Party in that province has a long record of resistance and opposition to any form of access to information legislation? It has for years refused to bring in any of that kind of legislation notwithstanding the requests made by many of us in that province.
I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that we would have heard from the Leader of the Opposition about the fact that we in this Government in a very short period of time have accomplished enormous gains in terms of an agenda for policy and planning for our country and a sense of direction which was lacking for so many years. But perhaps we will hear about this from other Hon. Members opposite.
I must say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we came in as a new government and those of us who are privileged to be members of the administration and of the Cabinet worked very hard because we had a lot of serious problems we had to face. We worked very hard in terms of Cabinet work, consultation across the country and dealing with our caucus colleagues in order to prepare a Speech from the Throne. We worked very hard at a variety of other demands on our time including, I might say, a visit by Her Majesty the Queen, the papal visit and a visit by the Prime Minister of France.


Mr. Broadbent:: Oh, it has been a burden!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There were a number of other demands upon our time but, notwithstanding that fact, Sir, we were accessible and open to any member of the press who wanted to come to our office, and we continue to be so at any time. In fact, I always invite Hon. Members of the Opposition Parties to present any queries or questions to us and we are prepared to give them the information which is available in order for them to do their job. We have set out a number of consultative initiatives which I believe the people of Canada appreciate.
Starting with the economic statement, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is preparing extensive discussion documents. He is preparing documents which will allow the people of Canada from all levels and pursuits, from all minorities, to participate fully in an examination of options which we have on the economic front. This kind of initiative is unprecedented. Consultation with the public has never taken place to the extent to which we are now prepared to do so. The people of Canada want it that way. That is why they elected us as their government, so that they could have full access to policy development, full input and full opportunity for exchange of views.

November 27, 1984
Supply
This is our attitude. This is the way in which we approach government. We trust the people of Canada. We do not believe, as the previous administration, that the word "management" is tantamount to and synonymous with "manipulation". I say that, Mr. Speaker, because that is the underlying drift of everything which has been said by the Leader of the Opposition. When he says something about management of communications, what he is talking about is the Liberal definition of that word, "manipulation". When we on this side talk about management, what we are talking about is the effective release of information and the effective delivery of information to Hon. Members of Parliament and to members of the Press Gallery. By the same token, the average member of the public in Canada should have the right to have this information to the same degree that it is available to any Hon. Member of Parliament or to any member of the Press Gallery.
There are a number of other initiatives in a parliamentary sense which we are taking. We are opening up the process. The motion which I have the privilege to move with respect to reform of the House of Commons is unprecedented in the extent and scope of the ability of Members of Parliament to have full input into the operation of this institution. This will be done in a spirit of openness and accountability. I challenge any Hon. Member of this House to come forward with any terms of reference which have been so broad and encompassing with respect to the operation of the House of Commons as is in this motion. At no time have Ministers of the Crown been so accountable. We have accountability in committee. We have the ability of Private Members of this House to operate within the democratic system. This is another initiative we have taken.
I simply point out that the Government said in the Speech from the Throne that we are now going to have a full-ranging and wide discussion of foreign policy undertaken in this country. It is not going to be a unilateral, behind-closed-doors investigation. It is going to be not only an all-Party investigation but an examination which is going to go out to the people of Canada so that they can say what they think we should be doing in terms of public policy with respect to international affairs. I would ask you to think back in the course of history, Mr. Speaker, and remember the last time we had that kind of openness demonstrated in terms of the policy of any government of our country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A lot has been said, Mr. Speaker, about the guidelines put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I was very interested in the responses we received with respect to these guidelines. You would think, Mr. Speaker, that we have brought forward some sort of new monster, some draconian set of rules which are unprecedented in terms of public policy. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe what we have now, Mr. Speaker, is a very responsible initiative taken by the Prime Minister.
These are not new guidelines. They are in effect the guidelines which were first initiated by the Right Hon. Member for
Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) when he was Prime Minister. Ultimately, after some public pressure, they were accepted by the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau, when he was Prime Minister, and his administration. These are the same guidelines, with one exception. I want to address myself to that exception because it has been the subject matter of some comment not only in Question Period but also in statements made by spokespersons for the Liberal Party.
I think we all recognize the basic premise as stated by the Prime Minister and enunciated in the guidelines. The Public Service has not only a right but an obligation to give full and factual information to the people of Canada. This is not the preserve of a few people in the Press Gallery or those few of us who have been privileged to be elected as members of the House of Commons. The people of Canada have a right to information and the preservation of that right is one that we in this Party and the Government regard as the most serious undertaking we have.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: You might call it a sacred trust.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) has this condition: Whenever he hears a statement of fact he twitches and shouts. I want to tell him that if he twitches and shouts much more I may have to ask for an extension of time, because he is interrupting a very important message.
What we are determined to do, Mr. Speaker, is ensure that information is obtainable from the Public Service to everyone in Canada. We want to establish the clear and understandable precedent that people in the Public Service have an obligation to give out this information. Indeed, we feel so strongly about that that we have no compunctions about this being done without any concern on the part of public servants about making their identity known when making information public and on the record. Now, what could be more helpful to the dissemination of information? Public servants know that when they give information out they cannot be subject to any disciplinary action because they are in fact quite free to say: "Yes, 1 am a public servant but I say these are the facts". This does not require any clearance from any Minister.
Unlike the Opposition, we in this Party have the highest regard for the Public Service of this country. We believe them to be intelligent people of great judgment. We do not say that they have to speak off the record. These people are enormously talented, they are working in the interests of Canada, and we have no compunctions about saying that if you are a member of the Public Service it is quite all right that you speak for attribution. You have responsibilities in your department and there is nothing wrong with that.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what do we want to have in this country? Do we want a situation where every story that is written refers to sources from certain departments who refuse
November 27, 1984

to be identified and are quoted as saying this or that because under previous guidelines there was great confusion as to whether or not they had the right to speak to the press or to anyone else? Are we going to continue this kind of regime or are we going to offer an up-front, straightforward set of guidelines that everyone understands? We say that they have an obligation to deal with certain areas concerning public policy. They are entitled to give the facts and do not have to worry about whispering it over the phone or whether it is attributed to them or not.
I do not have a suspicious mind, Mr. Speaker. Unlike some members of the Opposition who see everything in very grey areas, we believe the members of the Public Service of this country are worthy of the trust we have demonstrated in them through these guidelines. 1 simply say that we intend to make sure the system works efficiently, not because of any interest we have in putting ourselves in the best possible light, but because we think the public, and particularly the media, must have full access to government information. We want the Public Service to have a very clear understanding of their role in communications. We do not want them to feel they are somehow going to be our advocates on a political position we have taken. We want them to speak out and give the facts, notwithstanding that we have taken a political position. We want to ensure that deputy ministers and senior public servants realize that this Government takes seriously its communications with the public. We want them to understand the basic premise that we must be prepared to deliver information to the public. We want to ensure that each department has people to whom there can be access, either by the media or the average citizen. We want to make sure they get answers on specific issues and do not get that run-around which everyone who has tried to get information from government knows exists within our system. We want to make sure there is a clear understanding of the responsibility of the Public Service to give out the maximum amount of information.
We have not tampered with any policy on communication first enunciated by the Clark Government and subsequently by the Trudeau Government. We want to ensure that there is a clear understanding of what we are doing in the interests of freedom of information and freedom of access to the Public Service. We view this most strongly.
We have taken some initiatives which I think even the Opposition will applaud. What we are going to do in two or three areas will be a clear indication that we are not going to try to manipulate the news or use taxpayers' funds for the purpose of putting across our point of view and political philosophy, as the last government did during the Constitution debate and the energy debate. Hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money were used for crass political purposes. We are going to stop that regime and do it on a sensible and fair basis. We are going to do it through a substantial reduction in the advertising bill of this Government with respect to what transpired in the past.
We are going to take some other initiatives, as we already have by doing away with the propaganda arm of the previous
Supply
government; the Canadian Unity Information Office has been terminated. No longer will we have a situation where a government has had-and I say this for the benefit of Liberals who do not understand the difference between the proper meaning of "management" and the word "manipulation"-an arm whose sole function was to manipulate the news, manipulate opinion poll sampling, and manipulate everything that went on in government for the political well-being of the Liberal Party.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada understand fairness and the idea that there is a message which has to be delivered concerning government services. There are many services we deliver. But we are going to move away from the crass political way in which the previous government attempted to politicize the Public Service of this country. From now on the tradition of an independent Public Service is one which we are going to defend and bring to people across Canada, and it will be seen to be a fair policy and a fair initiative on our part.
I see you are indicating that I am near the end of my time, Mr. Speaker, so I simply want to say in conclusion that we in our Party have a history of consultation. We had the Revenue Canada task force, and task force on VIA Rail. We have gone out to see the people. We are not embarrassed or ashamed to take the people of Canada into our confidence. That has been demonstrated by us as a historical tradition, and it is a policy we will continue within this Government.
One has to ask the question: Why has the Liberal Party brought this issue before the House? Where do they stand on the important issues with respect to the economy? What policies do they have to bring forward with respect to unemployment? What is their attitude concerning economic thrust? Who speaks for the Liberal Party? What does that Party stand for on the issues the people of Canada want to hear about? I simply say that we have the opportunity to deal with important issues. I make the commitment to you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Party that we are a Party of openness and we will continue to operate in the best interests of accessibility. We have the most consultative government in the history of our country. We intend to carry on with our mandate by consulting with the Canadian people and we will see the results of the policies we are initiating after full consultation in a spirit of openness.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn). He has just said that he and his Government are not embarrassed or ashamed to take the people of Canada into their confidence. If this is an accurate statement, why has the Government steadfastly refused to table in the House the studies carried out for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in the preparation of his economic statement? He admits that the studies show there will be a loss of jobs as a result of his policies. He says he does not want to table the statement because the impact on jobs is statistically insignificant.

November 27, 1984
Supply
If my hon. friend and his Government are not embarrassed or ashamed to take the people of Canada into their confidence, why does he not show his Government's confidence in the people of Canada and table those projections right now?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, like a broken record, the Hon. Member repeats questions which have been answered very effectively by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. Not too long ago the Hon. Member was a member of a federal Cabinet. He of all people will understand that in terms of Cabinet documents and advice which one receives from public officials, there is a question of confidentiality which must be examined with regard to the parameters within which we operate in the country.
I was pleased to bring forward a motion dealing with review of the Access to Information Act which includes the question of Cabinet confidences. That matter will be examined by a committee. I made that offer to show my determination to have a full examination of the access to information legislation by a special committee. That was not acceptable to the Opposition. My second preference would have been to refer it to the Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments Committee, but that was not acceptable to the other Opposition Party. It has now been referred to the busy Justice and Legal Affairs Committee.
We believe that parliamentarians should be involved in defining the rules. This shows our determination to carry out our commitment made before, during and after the election. That area should receive the fullest attention of all Parties through the process of a parliamentary committee.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn). Walter Baker, who spoke on behalf of the Conservative Party in opposition, promised the people of Canada that one of the first initiatives of the next Progressive Conservative Government would in fact be to restore the power of the courts to review all claims for exemption, including claims for exemption on the basis of Cabinet confidentiality. As I well recall, the Hon. Member supported that position while he was in opposition.
How can the Governmet House Leader possibly defend the position which he is now taking, which is not to bring forward legislation to amend access to information legislation? That commitment has suddenly been shelved and rather than amending the legislation the Government is going to ask a committee to study it. That is not the commitment which was made by that Party when it was in opposition. The commitment was in fact that the Government would change the Bill. How can the Government House Leader possibly defend this significant step backward from the commitment which was made to openness in government when he was in opposition?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question because I think it is a fair question. The statement by our very revered colleague, Mr. Baker, who is no longer with us, is an indication of a serious proposal which was put forward. Legislative initiatives will be taken under consideration in our
deliberations in Cabinet. I am concerned about the rights of all Members of Parliament to participate in this process. We now have a review which takes place within three years of the operation of that Act. This was brought about primarily by the initiative of Mr. Baker. The Leader of the Opposition said today that the jury is out with respect to that matter. I have a problem in terms of acting unilaterally because I respect the ability of Members of Parliament to come to grips with the matter and work on consensus to attain the best possible solution.
The are two options. The first is to move ahead without consultation. The second is to allow the process to proceed, to have a full examination and hopefully reach a consensus with respect to the matter which will give us the best possible result.
I am not moving away at all from the statements I have made in the past. I have a belief in this institution. I believe that Members of Parliament can operate in the best interests of the people of Canada. I am hoping that this committee will deal with these issues and reach a consensus upon which we can operate.


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. House Leader has attempted to wax eloquent and convince us that the Government will be more open than any we have ever seen. He has the face of a robber's horse to make that kind of speech in the face of the editorial comment, discussion and publicly articulate comments we have heard from people who are concerned with civil liberties. That he would make that kind of statement is unbelievable.
The Hon. Member talks about consultation. He says that the Government is going to consult and then move. It is going to be decisive. How does he square that commitment to consultation with the fact that in Atlantic Canada alone 24 major cut-backs, reductions and freezes were put in place as announced in the economic statement of the Minister of Finance, the mini-budget? Who was consulted about the cutbacks in ferry rates? Who was consulted about the $16 million reduction in the fisheries programs? Who was consulted about the cancellation of the federal forestry centre in Newfoundland? Who was consulted about the cancellation of the Summer Youth Program? Who was consulted about the dramatic reduction in the RRAP Program? Who was consulted about any of the 24 measures? The new buzz word, Mr. Speaker, is freeze. The new buzz word is going to become a reality. A lot of people in Atlantic Canada are going to freeze this winter. Who consulted them, their representatives or spokesmen before these measures were put in place?
How can the House Leader, on the one hand, with the face of a robber's horse, talk about openness and consultation, and on the other hand gloss over and ignore a $4.2 billion so-called media management economic statement that in fact was a mini-budget and dramatically affects people where they live in the small towns and communities of Atlantic Canada? Where was the consultation? Can the Member show us the action papers which were prepared that singled out these 24 programs for cuts?
November 27, 1984


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Government House Leader to be brief in his answer.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, from one pretty face to another, I would like to respond to the Hon. Member's question. The Hon. Member has a pretty face and I accept all the descriptions of my own inadequacies.
I think the Hon. Member must have been sleeping and, mysteriously to all of us on this side, he woke up and was re-elected. I do not think anything could have been clearer during the election campaign than the fact that our Party indicated that responsibility and management of the affairs of this country was a very key part of our policy.
I will tell you with whom we consulted, Mr. Speaker. We consulted with the people of Canada. As a Liberal, the Hon. Member would not understand this concept.


Brian Vincent Tobin: What you promised was not what you delivered.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In terms of these policies and programs, we have attempted to be even-handed. We have an even-handed approach to bringing control of government spending within our ability to manage the affairs of this country. The result will be a new prosperity and a new economic beginning for this country for which we in the Progressive Conservative Party will work morning, noon and night to accomplish.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care and the usual attention I give to the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) when he speaks. I will deal with his very interesting comments in just a few moments.
First, in speaking about this very important subject, I want to make a few observations about the Party to my right that moved the motion. I listened with care to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). She raised concerns about not being able, as a Member of Parliament, to get information about housing programs. When her Party was in government we tried to get information about housing, agriculture, the fishery and the automotive industry but received no information at all. If she thinks that the situation is bad with the new Government, she should have been here last spring.
Perhaps it is understandable that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition who moved the motion did not have much to say about the preceding Liberal government with respect to the important question of the public's right to have access to information. However, what disturbs me is that if one goes beyond the rhetoric of what he had to say about the right of the public to know, the importance of open government and his opposition to a manipulative approach to the news, we did not get a specific criteria laid down by him about what a Liberal government would do if it was in office. He did not make one specific suggestion. All that we heard was the usual rhetoric
Supply
and general condemnation of the Government in power that comes from the Opposition Party. There was no specific commitment to make a policy change that is different from the new Government if the Liberals were back in office.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton East said that what the Conservative Government was doing amounted to so much pap. With respect, I say that what I heard from the opposition members today amounted to so much mush. I believe the people of Canada are tired of both. They do not want pap and they do not want mush. They want the freedom to know what the Government of Canada and public servants are producing. They want information.
Before I leave the Liberals and deal with what the Government is doing, there should be no illusion about the fact that the last debate we had in the House on the access to information legislation that was passed in 1982 was followed up in committee with an amendment moved by the Liberal government of the day that took the substance out of the legislation. The Liberals moved what has been appropriately called the "Mack truck" amendment in which the Cabinet gave itself the right to decide upon matters that were to remain confidential. If there was anything designed to vitiate the substance of a measure, it was that amendment moved by the Liberals to their own legislation. The Liberal Party of Canada is the last Party in this country that has anything relevant or credible to say about the right of the people of Canada to have access to information.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I notice that the Conservatives are clapping. Let us see what they have to say in a few minutes.
Throughout the campaign I listened to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had to say about a number of interesting subjects. On August 12, he told the people of Canada: "The past few years have seen a veil of secrecy fall over vast areas of government activity". Then he lowered his voice and we all listened, took it in, and paid careful attention to what he had to say, as I am sure Hon. Members in the Cabinet do daily. Of course, he was right. He was right about the government of the day and the same is true for the Conservative Government of today.
I say with complete candour that in his criticism of the Liberals he was following the good tradition of his predecessor, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), when he was in office. I believe that when that former Conservative Prime Minister was in power for that short period he did move in a commendable way in terms of providing the people of Canada with greater access to information. I believe he used his power correctly to provide greater access.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You threw him out.


John Edward Broadbent: That was the one good thing the Conservatives did. They were in office all of seven months and they might have tried to accomplish more.

November 27, 1984
Supply
The people of Canada had some reason to have positive expectations about a new government moving in a systematic and democratic way to provide more access to information. The present Prime Minister made statements and indeed the former Conservative Prime Minister had taken action when he was Prime Minister that gave us reason to be plausibly optimistic.
What happened after September 4? First, there was the reaction of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) whose approach to what the Cabinet and the new Government was doing clearly did amount to an attempt to manipulate the news. What we say from the former Prime Minister, the current Secretary of State for External Affairs, can only politely be described as a slight case of paranoia with regard to the media. A most extraordinary set of statements came out of the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs about some powerful elite in the country, which is actually rather a scruffy group, given the three names that were used. They would be the last people whom I would describe as an elite. However, personalities aside, for a new government that preaches openness and concern for democratic rights, the response of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs was totally reprehensible. In a matter of days they began to reverse what the Conservatives had promised during the summer campaign. The Conservatives no more believe in freedom of information than they believe in a number of other promises that they made during the election campaign.
Let me deal specifically with the substance of the issue at stake here, as I see it. Within the Cabinet system of government what limitations, if any, ought to be imposed on the public who, in an ultimate democratic sense, have a much deeper and profound right even than Members of Parliament to have access to information? I noticed that the Government House Leader did not spell this out in his speech. Certainly the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition did not lower himself to suggest a specific criterion that the Liberals would believe acceptable.
I want to suggest a criterion that is consistent with the principles of democratic government, particularly a parliamentary democracy, and ought to be applied by the Government of Canada. I would like to hear some Government members respond to the view of my Party.
In terms of documentation prepared by public servants, whether of a factual or analytic nature, concerning present policy, or factual and analytic nature in terms of an assessment of future impact of present policies, if such studies do not contain material that would impinge negatively on the security of the state, if they do not contain material that would be clearly libellous, if they do not contain material that is pertinent to on-going negotiations of an intergovernmental nature, if, in short, they do not cover one of these three bases, all such factual analytic material ought to be made available to the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: That is the important point and that is precisely the point being denied by the new Government of Canada which claims it is going to be more open than its predecessor.
I want to take a minute, Mr. Speaker, to explain clearly why I think the Government of Canada is not practising what it is preaching. The Prime Minister gave it all away yesterday in Question Period. I and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), were asking questions about the new guidelines. At one point in the Question Period concerning these guidelines I asked the Prime Minister if it were his interpretation that if members of the public, the media, and Members of Parliament requested factual, analytic information with reference to the future, that it was part of the task or the obligation of a public servant to provide information consistent, I believe, with the second guideline that, factual matters of public policy ought to be made available by a public servant. The answer from the Prime Minister, when asked in that form, came in a lowering of the voice. In a sincere tone he said: "Of course. Yes, it should be provided". But when I got more specific and asked if that therefore included studies that might have been done about the impact of multi-million dollar cut-backs in employment programs, multi-million cut-backs in the CBC's operations, multi-million dollar cut-backs in a whole variety of programs, he gave what I can only describe as an incredible answer. He said: "No, not at all". He said that information should not be given. He went on to suggest that if it were, this "would effectively paralyse the Public Service". He described as an impropriety the revelation of such factual studies, such analytic material. He said impropriety would be the way he would describe it in the context of parliamentary democracy; that somehow it would be wrong for a public servant working for the Government of Canada to provide such information.
My response to the Prime Minister's answers yesterday, and I repeat here today, is that he was talking complete and utter nonsense when he said that would be inconsistent with the requirements of parliamentary democracy. What he did and what has been systematically done by this Government in the last week is to equate any kind of factual documentation or analytic study as an item of concern with the right of a civil servant to make private advice and recommendation to his Minister. I see the Government House Leader says that is right.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No.


John Edward Broadbent: On the one hand he said it was right and now he shakes his head. He has changed his mind in three seconds.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No, you are confusing yourself.


John Edward Broadbent: I ask him to check the record and the guidelines, specifically guidelines two and three produced by the Prime Minister last Friday. What the Prime Minister said
November 27, 1984

yesterday is that such information, analytic studies, impact studies, should not be made available. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because it would be inconsistent with the right of the public servant to make confidential recommendations to a Minister of the Crown.
In my view, we are at the heart of the matter in a discussion of this particular matter. It is one thing for a public servant to have his traditional right respected, namely, judgment that he offers-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is right.


John Edward Broadbent: -or proposals that he offers to his Minister-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Absolutely.


John Edward Broadbent: -are to remain confidential.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are against that?


John Edward Broadbent: No. The Minister says I am against that. Quite the contrary. I am in favour of maintaining the traditional right of a public servant to advise a Minister of the Crown and to have his personal advice kept a matter of confidence.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We do not disagree.


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister says "We do not disagree". I tell him to read his own Government's guidelines. He should read Hansard with care in terms of the Prime Minister's answer in the House.
While my Party accepts that, what we do not do is equate any kind of study, any assessment of government policy that may be prepared in a department, with private advice being given by a public servant to a Minister of the Crown. There is a world of difference between the two. A public servant may indeed offer advice, as I suspect was the case with the Minister of Finance, when he was talking to his deputy minister, and was given some advice on the impact of his mini-budget. It is one thing to say there is some advice forthcoming that can be given to the public, but it is quite another, I repeat, to say all such advice, of a personal or confidential nature traditionally, which we are not demanding, ought to be made public. It is one thing to say that the tradition of confidentiality ought to be respected. It is quite another thing to assert that all studies, any assessments, that that senior civil servant might have had prepared of a technical nature by his officials ought to be kept confidential as well. There is a world of difference between the two points.
That is precisely what the Opposition in this House have been trying to get at ever since Parliament came back, and more precisely since the Minister of Finance brought down his mini-budget. The Minister seems to be shaking his head in a way to suggest that he still does not understand the point.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You do not understand.
Supply


John Edward Broadbent: Maybe he will understand it if I put it this way. When he was on this side of the House, he used to castigate the Liberals, with the rest of us, for keeping so many matters confidential. He nods his head in agreement. During that period of time when he was in opposition and before I became Leader of this Party and had a specific area of critic's responsibility, for example, the automotive industry in Canada, I used to go at least once a year to Washington. Why did I go once a year to Washington, Mr. Speaker? I knew that I could go into any three branches of the government in Washington, walk into a civil service office and get statistical information about the operation of the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement, not only current information but assessments of future trends. They would provide it so quickly that when I first had the experience I was flabbergasted.
Then I would come back to Canada, participate as a member of the Opposition in Question Period, demand equivalent sorts of information be made available to Canadians and to me as a Member of Parliament, and it was systematically denied. It was denied under the same rubric as the Prime Minister used in his reply yesterday in the House and that the Minister of State (Government House Leader) is now using today, namely that any such documentation and analysis prepared by civil servants, financed by the people of Canada, ought to be kept privy, ought to be kept a Cabinet secret, because it all ought to be within the framework of confidential advice to the government of the day.
I repeat that that is the essence of the question. The clear view of the New Democratic Party is that Cabinet has a right to confidential advice and that the public servant giving personal advice has a right to remain confident that it will be kept private. However, we also say that all studies and all analytical material prepared by public servants of Canada which do not impinge on national security, which do not involve libellous material and which do not have a bearing upon current financial negotiations, ought to be made available to the people of Canada. That is what we are demanding. If the Minister does not understand that, he does not understand very much.
We are not talking of something about which only we in the House are concerned. Just the matter of an hour or so ago I was given a wire service story out of Winnipeg. It indicated that a briefing book was left by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his hotel room in the City of Winnipeg. If the Minister thinks that we are talking about some abstract matter of news manipulation and if he suggests, as his back-benchers said earlier, that we are a little off base in terms of our concern, then I advise him to read his colleague's briefing book. There are stories now going across the country about what was in that briefing book. Part of what was in it is very disturbing to me as a Member of Parliament, as I think it would be disturbing to all Canadians. What was suggested in there was nothing less-

November 27, 1984
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but I have to ask the Hon. Member to conclude his speech shortly.


John Edward Broadbent: If I have the permission of the House, I will conclude my comments very quickly. I should like to give one quotation from the news story:"The notes warn Wilson not to deliver too harsh a message to Manitoba right now in light of the controversy the federal cuts have already created here". In short, it was advice to the Minister upon which he was clearly acting to keep back information not only from the people of Canada, which we have seen in the House of Commons for some weeks, but also from another government in Canada which was concerned about the employment prospects of citizens within its own borders. This kind of manipulation or keeping secret data from another government which wants to act is what we regard as being totally unpalatable in a democratic system.
I conclude by saying that we have a government of secrecy. Perhaps for the first time in the history of our country we have a government which does not say that people have the right to know. We have a government which says that people have a right not to know or that people do not have the right to know certain things which we believe they ought to know.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On questions and comments, the Government House Leader.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments of the Leader of the New Democratic Party. In fairness to him, I think he raised a question which is the subject of legitimate debate. I am very interested in the fact that he wants to pursue the question of what kind of information should be regarded as having Cabinet confidentiality.
I preface my remarks by reminding him that had it not been for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the Party which started the freedom of information legislation and pursued it with vigour, we would not have access to freedom of information legislation. It was our Party which gave leadership in that role. Our legislation was the basis upon which the Liberal government was finally forced to move during the course of the last Parliament.
On the basis of his analysis, is the Leader of the NDP suggesting that advice given to the Government, a Minister or Cabinet should be dissected by someone and that those parts of the information, such as certain charts or statistics used in the course of that advice with approbation and approval to Cabinet or to a Minister, should be hived off and made public? Or does he not believe that in the course of giving advice-and he will understand that Ministers obtain advice which is backed up by a variety of statistics and information-information should be kept in its proper context and that the Minister should be allowed to receive the advice of public servants and not be concerned about its being the subject of partisan and acrimonious debate on the floor of the House of Commons or in the press across the country because it was taken out of context? In the context of advice to a Minister, does he not agree that statistics form part of the advice, or does he want to
hang public servants out to dry so that anything they say can be hived off and the Deputy Minister to the Minister of Finance, or to the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) or whomever, will not have any opportunity to put it back into the context within which it was given to the Minister? Is that what he is proposing, or does he have some other way in which he would propose providing this factual, so-called analytical material?
I am simply saying to the Leader of the New Democratic Party that it is very easy and very facile for him to make these observations and suggestions, but when we have statistics and information forming part of the advice being given to Ministers, how does he propose to deal with it?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister asks a reasonable question to which there is a reasonable answer. I wish he would act upon it. Clearly, as I indicated in my comments, judgments about the wisdom or lack thereof in terms of the pursuit of certain policies of a judgmental nature that are submitted in writing to the Minister for consideration in reaching a decision should be kept confidential. Of course, from time to time in such documentation or such argumentation some statistical reference would be made.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Quite often.


John Edward Broadbent: We all know that in presenting arguments-I hope this is the case with the present Government- some facts will be relevant to the argument and therefore some data will be submitted. However, if I agree with the Minister on that point, he must surely understand that, in addition to the argument, advice or proposal which might be offered, there are other supporting documents or supporting analytical information, for example, the assessment of cut-back proposals running through the economic model of the Department of Finance. This is technical information which is fed into a computer. Data are submitted and results come out which are analysed by economists who are trained to do that job.
All such analyses or documentation which do not come with the judgment as to whether or not one should act upon them and which are strictly speaking, an analysis of the consequences, whether it is in finance, agriculture or industry, have been available in the United States to ordinary citizens for years. They have been denied year in and year out in this country by Liberals. They are now being denied by the Conservatives, and we say that they should be made available.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
November 27, 1984


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, in a recent interview with George Radwansky, the Editor in Chief of The Toronto Star, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), when asked if money saved by a review of social security would be used for deficit reduction purposes, replied 'No, absolutely not-absolutely not*. At the same time, however, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was saying that any money saved in such a review could be used to reduce the deficit. I take this opportunity to urge the Prime Minister, in concert with his Finance Minister, to clarify for the Canadian people whether the real purpose of this review exercise is income redistribution as he would have us believe, or deficit reduction as the Finance Minister would like.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the people of the provincial riding of Fourth Kings on Prince Edward Island registered their scores on the performance of the federal and provincial Parties on P.E.I. The final score: NDP, 161; the Conservatives, 1,061; the Liberals, 1,428.
Islanders have said no to higher energy costs, no to higher gasoline prices, no to higher ferry rates, no to increases in national park fees, no to cuts in agricultural programs, no to increases in berthage fees for fishermen, no to reductions in housing programs and, most important, no to the provincial Conservatives who have said that the Mulroney Government understands Prince Edward Island's problems and needs. Islanders have said: "Where are the jobs, jobs, jobs?'' The federal Government has given each and every Islander a job- a snow job. Perhaps now Premier Lee will see that being a yes man to Mulroney's Government is not enough. Perhaps now the federal and provincial Tories will sit up and listen.



ELECTION ACT


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the new redistribution of electoral boundaries.
Basically, my comments will concern three points.
First, costs. We are now in the midst of a period of budgetary restraint, and adding new electoral districts will bring about an increase in direct and indirect costs which would be difficult to justify, considering the state of the deficit.
Second, regional boundaries. New electoral boundaries are always a problem because they may cut across natural regional boundaries. The sense of community remains a very strong concept, and any changes will have a social and economic impact on our constituents, in addition to the fact of having to adjust to a new administrative and political milieu which is complex enough as it is.
Third, the solutions proposed. These almost always require shifting populations from one constituency to another. However, since there is an increasing movement towards the urban centres, why not consider a more practical and permanent solution based both on the number of people and the geoeconomic milieu?
Mr. Speaker, we hope that these items will be taken into account when the Election Act is discussed.



CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION CNCP APPLICATION TO ENTER LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE BUSINESS

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, over the past 50 years Canadians in all parts of Canada have benefited from telephone systems which are almost universal, systems that provide them with good, efficient telephone service at a moderate price.
At the present time the CRTC is considering an application from CNCP Telecommunications to enter the long distance telephone business, which would change the whole system of telephone usage in Canada. That application is being opposed by a variety of groups. It has been opposed by the three prairie Governments. I quote from a letter from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Conservative Government of Saskatchewan:
It is the Saskatchewan Government's position that CNCP's entry into long distance service would benefit only a few select customers in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.
If the CRTC were to approve that application, it would change our whole system. The application raises a policy question which should be dealt with at the federal-provincial level. We urgently call on the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) to convene a federal-provincial conference on telecommunication policy and to instruct the CRTC to hold its decision until a national policy is established by the elected representatives of the people.
638

November 27, 1984
[ Translation]



TRANSPORT


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, i would like to point out that one of the important issues during my election campaign was the abolition of tolls on the Champlain Bridge, a personal commitment that was never mentioned during the campaign, and that I had the blessing of my leader and my Party. 1 want to give the House and my constituents in La Prairie the assurance that 1 will continue to meet the commitments 1 made, especially concerning the Champlain Bridge tolls, an issue that my Opposition colleagues never bothered about when they were in power. I also want to say that 1 have every confidence in the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Cabinet, because of their open attitude to dialogue and consultation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am not going to let my Opposition colleagues tell me what to do, and that 1 have no intention of resigning, even if I am the only Member to have been elected twice during the same election.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my statement is to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the urgent problem facing the livestock and poultry industry in the Maritime provinces.
Livestock and poultry production in the Maritimes was worth $375 million in 1983. That industry has a labour force in excess of 6,500 people and the economic activities related to the industry inject $1 billion into our economy every year. However, the survival and future growth of the industry rest on the possibility of equalizing feed grain prices between the Maritime provinces and the rest of Canada.
[English)
In 1966 the Livestock Feed Assistance Act was passed. One of its stated objectives was "the fair equalization of feed grain prices in eastern Canada''. In 1984 this assistance covered only 20 per cent of the transportation costs, creating a $30 a tonne difference in costs between the Maritimes and central Canada.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the solution would be that the Maritime provinces become self-sufficient in the production of feed grain. Self-sufficiency would make for a secure and stable industry and contribute to better agricultural land use. The Maritime provinces have enough land to achieve self-sufficiency within 15 years, but immediate action must be taken.

In summary, we have a feed cost disparity problem which is creating an emergency situation for our pork industry and a heavy burden on other livestock sectors. Left unattended, we stand to lose 4,000 to 5,000 jobs. Properly addressed, we could add 4,000 to 5,000 new jobs.



RETIREMENT OF GUY LAFLEUR, HOCKEY PLAYER EXTRAORDINAIRE

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in most of the world "flower power" may have come and gone with the 1960s, but in Montreal it started in 1971 and lasted until yesterday when Guy Lafleur finally said:

"Enough is enough".
This is the end of a great era. Yesterday, after playing 14 years in the National Hockey League, Guy Lafleur announced that he was hanging up his skates permanently. With a career total of 518 goals, he was the second best goal scorer in the history of the Montreal Canadiens, just behind Maurice Richard. He is one of a very select group of nine NHL players with a career total of more than 500 goals. Between 1974 and 1979, he had six consecutive 50-goal seasons.
During 14 years, Guy Lafleur was truly a great star, an idol of the 1970s. He is the last in a line of superstars which included Jean Beliveau and Maurice Richard.
I am sure the House and all Canadians wish him the best of luck in his future endeavours-

-and thanks for the memories.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, this brief statement is naturally addressed to all the Members of this House, but it is particularly intended for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens).
Hon. Members as you are probably aware, the total value of shipyard production decreased by 18.3 per cent during the first three quarters of 1984 as compared to the same period in 1983.
November 27, 1984

In view of the fact that my constituency is particularly affected by this situation, I would like the Ministers concerned to only consider granting financial assistance under the Petroleum Incentive Program to companies which are being supplied in Canada or which maximize the Canadian content.
We know that this program is now being reviewed and will perhaps be cancelled, only to come back in a new form. In any case, the basic problem being the lack of protection for the industry, I hope that the Ministers concerned will take my proposal into account and will add it to the existing or completely revised program.
As I have already mentioned, this proposal is certainly not unreasonable in view of the fact that Section 19 of the GATT allows a country to take protectionist measures when a national industry is threatened. I will want to come back to that because the shipbuilding industry was clearly forgotten by the Liberals for more than 30 years.
To improve the situation of the entire shipbuilding industry-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.



HIBERNIA OILFIELD-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY

Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and the Premier of Newfoundland have engaged in a conspiracy of silence regarding the report of Mobil Oil, the operator of the Hibernia oil field, its environmental assessment impact study. This study outlines the mode of production, the timetable for production, and the environmental damage, if any, which would occur as a result of moving that development forward. It is a critical document which was scheduled to be given to both Governments on November 15.
Last week the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, (Miss Carney) at a press conference with the provincial Minister, agreed to delay the release of that document for six months, despite the fact that both last Wednesday in this House and again yesterday the Prime Minister of Canada admitted, because he does not have his homework done-the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing-that the federal Government had received a copy of this very sensitive report.
What is being covered up? It is known that the Government of Newfoundland is on record as insisting that the mode of production for Hibernia oil be floating concrete platforms to be constructed in Newfoundland. It is equally known that Mobil has determined that the mode of production should be semi-submersible rigs, eliminating 45,000 jobs from the Province of Newfoundland.
The Government has the report in its possession. The Prime Minister promised to table it a week ago. The report has not been tabled. It is time now-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, as the member for the constituency of Lac-Saint-Jean, I should like to point out to the House that in the past, several reports and reviews have been delivered to the government by various organizations in outlying areas such as the Lac-Saint-Jean region.
One of those reports was the study submitted in 1981 by the Regional Association of Economic Councils to the Canadian Transport Commission about the transportation problems facing our area. Mr. Speaker, in view of the efforts and consultations devoted to those studies, we expect that they will be considered by the departments concerned and will remain a priority of this government, so that remote areas such as Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean may finally hope to play a more substantial role in the Canadian economy.



VISIBLE MINORITIES


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I was quite amazed at the comments made by the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) on the report "Democracy Betrayed" issued by the National Association of Japanese Canadians.
The Minister's reaction is just another example of those loud promises that are put off indefinitely. As a matter of fact, on the very day he was sworn in, on September 17, 1984, the Minister stated that Japanese Canadians would receive national apologies and compensation of a form to be later specified. That was two months ago, and the Minister has yet to start on the process that thousands of Canadian men and women of Japanese descent whose rights have been seriously encroached upon during World War II are looking forward to.
Since the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) is dragging his feet on this issue by setting up a committee to better postpone any decision as long as possible, the Prime Minister

November 27, 1984
Oral Questions
should assume responsibility. Because, as reported in the Globe and Mail of May 16:

Conservative Leader Brian Mulroney says he is in favour of compensation for Japanese-Canadians who were unfairly interned during the Second World War.

Why set up a committee, when the Prime Minister has already stated that he has agreed on the principle of a compensation?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Of course he is aware that a debate is currently being held in the Chamber regarding open and accessible government. My question concerns the $1.3 billion memo which was left behind in Winnipeg by the Minister of Finance, that being the estimated cost of raising equalization payments for Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba.
The question concerns the integrity of the Prime Minister's Government and the commitment which he made to open and honest government. A CP story from Winnipeg today states that the documents left behind by the Minister of Finance indicate that the Minister has been less than forthright with the Government and people of Manitoba, and indeed, the people of Canada.
The Minister of Finance told the Government of Manitoba that he would consider its request to extend equalization payments. At the same time the Deputy Minister of Finance is quoted in the documents as telling the Minister that he should not build hopes in Manitoba for a review of the equalization payments, and that "no compelling arguments have been advanced thus far which suggest you", meaning the Minister of Finance, "should encourage Manitoba to believe that such assistance is a possibility".
Did the Prime Minister tell the Premiers at their recent meeting that the cost of honouring commitments to Manitoba, Quebec, and Nova Scotia in terms of equalization would be $1.3 billion? I assume that the Prime Minister spoke to the Minister of Finance about that $1.3 billion this morning. After that conversation, did the Minister of Finance tell the Government of Manitoba that he already had advice from the most important public servant of the Government of Canada, the Deputy Minister of Finance, which contradicted that Government's arguments? Why did the Minister of Finance not tell
the news media and the people of Canada of this conflicting advice?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think my right hon. friend has inadvertently committed an egregious error. He has quoted one line from the advice which was tendered by the Deputy Minister of Finance. In the sentence which follows immediately thereafter, the Deputy Minister is apparently advising the Minister that perhaps the Minister of Finance from the Government of Manitoba might have arguments which would persuade the Minister in a different way.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition should not be too quick to believe the negative side. In fact the Minister of Finance went to Winnipeg and conducted himself very honourably, as he always does.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COST OF INCREASING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance was in Manitoba he said that he did not know what the cost of reviewing and raising those equalization payments would be. Yet he had in his possession a memorandum from the Deputy Minister of Finance saying the cost would be $1.3 billion.
Did the Minister say that he knew the cost on the basis of the memorandum, and yet not tell the people of Manitoba that he had the cost in his hands? Did he mislead the people of Manitoba by telling them that he could not estimate the cost?
In order that the House may see the entire document, because I believe that I have quoted from it accurately, will the Prime Minister table these documents in the House so that we will all have an opportunity to see them?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea of what document the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is referring to.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Minister of Finance went out to Manitoba. He had in his possession, I am informed, advice from his senior departmental officers. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will not be a stranger to that kind of information. The Minister dealt with the Manitoba Minister of Finance in a proper and above-board manner. The Hon. Minister is a man of unimpeachable integrity. I know that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would not allude to anything to the contrary.
The best information I have is that the meetings went well, and we hope there will be others which will be mutually advantageous to Manitoba and to Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 27, 1984


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he does not know about a memo from which he has just quoted.


Martin Brian Mulroney: You quoted.


John Napier Turner: You indicated I quoted from a single line, and that you had information which indicates that that was not a substantive report of what the memo said.


REQUEST THAT DOCUMENTS BE TABLED
John Napier Turner: ask the Prime Minister to table the documents, Mr. Speaker, so that we can compare what the Minister of Finance said in Manitoba with the advice he received prior to that meeting.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was selectively quoting from a memorandum and I was merely attempting to correct it for his benefit and to bring forward the evidence.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I indicated to my right hon. friend as I had been informed. The documents in question were apparently removed from an area that the Minister had been attending. I am not informed of what was in his confidential file, but I will be happy to meet with the Minister as soon as he comes back, to review it with him-


Mr. Deans:: It does not sound good!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and to deal with it in a fair and open manner here in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. I should say that we do have some admiration for the ingenious way in which the Minister of Finance has gone about getting around the guidelines tabled by the Prime Minister last Friday. Hotel lobbies, 1 guess, are the new repository of information.
The Prime Minister has promised open consultation with the provinces. It is clear that the Minister of Finance had in his possession information relating to a very important economic issue with respect to the Province of Manitoba which he did not share with the Manitoba Minister of Finance. Is it to be standard procedure that, when this Government consults with the provinces, it will not give the provinces full, honest and forthright information on matters affecting that region? And will the Prime Minister instruct the Minister of Finance to consult from now on in a more honest and open way?
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend is not suggesting that when he was a member of the Ministry and negotiated with the Government of the Province of Quebec, he opened his files and said "Here is the federal position". I hope that is not the suggestion, because that was never the case.
The Minister of Finance is a representative of the Government of Canada. He went out to deal with his provincial colleague. The Minister of Finance had information, I assume prepared by his senior ministerial officers, which put the federal case. His vis-a-vis on the provincial side, I am sure, was equally well briefed from the provincial perspective. That is the way in which consultations and negotiations take place. Background information and advice to Ministers have always been-to protect the Public Service and the integrity of the process-have alway been privileged. I know my hon. friend would agree with that. I know he would not read anything into that beyond a complete statement of truth by the Minister of Finance.


REVIEWS OF EQUALIZATION PAYMENT MADE TO MANITOBA
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that he wants to continue this process of consultation. Is he aware that there was a commitment made by the previous Government to undertake a review of that equalization payment and to share the information with the Province of Manitoba? If so, would the Minister tell us if that review has been completed, and will the Government share that information with the Province of Manitoba? Will the Government table those documents in the House? And will the Prime Minister, in terms of his own letter that was revealed in those hotel caper documents, indicate why he is contradicting his own Ministers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


Lloyd Axworthy: -when he said you must continue-


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


Lloyd Axworthy: -negotiating, when the Prime Minister-in fact says he cannot?


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


Lloyd Axworthy: That is an important issue to my province.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not up to the Speaker to decide the quality of the issues. It is up to the Speaker, when an Hon. Member tries to put three questions in a supplementary question, to stop it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, clearly, the funds to which the people of Manitoba are entitled were impacted negatively by decisions taken by a Government of which my hon. friend was a member. The provincial Government of Manitoba has raised concerns about

November 27, 1984
Oral Questions
this attitudinal problem which developed under the previous Government. These concerns have been conveyed to us. The Minister of Finance, together with my Manitoba colleagues, is trying to work out a formula which might perhaps be more equitable. The intention of the Government is to repair some of the damage done in the past by the Liberal Government.


CONTENT OF ADVICE GIVEN TO MINISTER OF FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister on the same subject. The Prime Minister has talked about the need for open government on the one hand, and about the need for open consultation with provincial Governments on the other hand. Considering that in the brief which was left behind was advice to the Minister that he ought not to "leave too harsh a message to Manitoba right now" would the Prime Minister tell the House-because we are talking about facts here-what the "harsh message" was in terms of facts which the federal Minister had and which he refused to share with his provincial counterpart?


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: You are not even a good fisherman.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I suspect my hon. friend would agree with me that if a Minister of Finance for the Government of Canada is sent off to negotiate with provincial Governments, he is entitled, as a representative of the duly elected Government of Canada, to seek and obtain private information from his Deputy Minister which bears upon the manner in which these negotiations might be conducted, consistent with the desire of the Government of Canada to be fair and open. I believe that when the Minister of Finance went to Manitoba-as he went elsewhere-his officers tried to brief him as best they could, and I believe that information should not be considered as isolated variables. It is a package of advice which is given to a Minister of the Government of Canada who is negotiating with a provincial Government in the interests of Canada and that province. Surely there is nothing wrong with that.


ECONOMIC STATEMENT-EFFECT OF BUDGETARY CUT-BACKS ON MANITOBA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the "harsh message" about the facts. If the Government is going to preach open negotiation and frank consultation, it ought to practise what it preaches. Considering that the factual dispute between the Manitoba Government and the Government of Canada, as reported in newscasts, concerns the number of jobs which would be lost in Manitoba as a result of the cut-back policy announced by the Government, does the Prime Minister not think that it is entirely appropriate for the Government of Canada, through its Minister of Finance, to give to the Manitoba Minister of Finance, and to the people of Manitoba, its own factual analysis of the economic consequences of its own program?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am far from certain that that is the document which may or may not be available. However, I point out to my hon. friend-


John Edward Broadbent: Well, what is?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I do not know. I did not pilfer the document, so I do not know.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I do not know. However, I point out to my hon. friend that consultation, indeed, is indispensable. Here is an observation from the Winnipeg Free Press:
The provincial Treasury Board of Manitoba has asked Cabinet Ministers to scrutinize department expenditures and submit programs and services that could be cut back or eliminated, a senior Cabinet Minister has confirmed.
They are cutting back in Manitoba, but they did not consult with us. I respect the fact that they are entitled to act within their sphere of competence entirely, and that is what we are trying to do.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is a curious world when a Cabinet Minister is so sloppy and careless to leave behind a document that the Prime Minister accuses someone else of pilfering. It is a strange Government we have.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT PROVIDE INFORMATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has acknowledged that there are going to be jobs lost as a result of the cut-backs announced in this House a couple of weeks ago. Many of those will affect the people of Manitoba. That Government, as well as other provincial Governments, have the right to know the consequences of the federal Government's policy. Will the Prime Minister not live up to what he promised the people of Canada and the Provinces, and provide such necessary information?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have been trying to do. That is the basis of the ongoing consultation with the First Ministers. That is the kind of information that will be exchanged prior to the First Ministers' Conference on the economy. I can tell my hon. friend, because I know he would be pleased, that all provincial Premiers have expressed delight at the improved climate of federal-provincial relations.


QUOTATION FROM ALLEGED LETTER TO MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just told us that all provincial Premiers have expressed delight with the spirit of consultation. If that is the case, why is it that the material in yesterday's hotel caper revealed a letter the Prime Minister wrote to his Minister of
November 27, 1984

Science and Technology on November 20, 1984, which reads, and I quote in part: "I wish to remain-"


Lloyd Axworthy: "consistent".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: "-consistent about our determination to achieve economic renewal which may have to override specific concerns of various groups about the hard decisions we have reached in making expenditure reductions"?
Does this letter not make a sham of everything the Prime Minister said about consultation? He is singing one song in public-


Mr. Speaker:: The Member had asked a question, I believe.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -and singing another song in private.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the record will show that my hon. friend choked on the word "consistent", and I can understand why.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: He seemed to be dismayed at the fact that all of the Premiers were delighted. I meant all of the Premiers except the Liberal ones.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


LETTER QUERY
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister worries about the revelation of the text of his letter, but is he denying that he sent such a letter to his colleague, the Minister of Science and Technology, saying that the strategy of his Government is to override specific concerns of groups in the community about budget cuts and their impact on jobs? Is he denying that in the House?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, flatly.


REQUEST THAT EQUALIZATION FORMULA BE RENEGOTIATED WITH PROVINCES
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister and relates to the memo which was either lost or pilfered, and to the consistency that the Prime Minister is talking about. Will he be consistent and keep the promise he made during the election campaign, and renegotiate an equalization formula which affects so many provinces? That is the real question. Will he renegotiate those equalization payments which are so necessary?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I agree with my hon. friend; that is indeed the question. The provinces are confronted with new situations as a result of unilateral decisions taken by the previous Government. That is the genesis of
Oral Questions
the problem. The Minister of Finance is in the process of meeting with his provincial colleagues to see the extent to which we might be able to satisfy the points raised by my friend.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Rodney Edward Murphy: I repeat the question. Are you going to renegotiate the-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: -equalization formula? Are you doing that? That is not what this memo says. The memo says the exact opposite. Are you going to negotiate?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, clearly the agreements have a term and they all must be renegotiated. We will renegotiate agreements at an appropriate time in the interests of Canada and the provinces affected.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of the Environment how she proposes to rationalize the cut-backs in her Department with a report not yet released but quoted in the Ottawa Citizen this morning as saying that Lake Ontario, as a source of drinking water for 4.5 million Canadians, faces destruction unless more is done to stop the flow of toxic chemicals into the Niagara River?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems to be referring to a report drafted by two department officials who comment on certain parts of the report I intend to table this afternoon, namely the report of the joint commission on toxic chemicals in the Niagara River.
The interesting aspect of this report by two department officials is that it has been made public a few hours before the tabling of the 600-page joint commission report and that it was drafted in June 1984. One might wonder about the advisability of releasing that report to the media. It has now been made public and I quite agree that it should be examined. My department will make an appropriate response within a few days. In answer to my colleague, I would add that we are still concerned about toxic chemicals in the Niagara River.

November 27, 1984

Oral Questions


PROPOSED WEATHER SERVICE INFORMATION CHARGE
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans but, as he is not here, I will direct it to the Minister of the Environment. The Minister announced that her Department would be charging Canadians for telephone information on weather services. This will not increase revenues as the Minister claims, but it will alienate people from calling the weather office, people like fishermen who should be calling for weather updates. How is the Minister going to impose this ridiculous charge on the Canadian public?
[ Translation]


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, we are still considering the possibility of imposing user fees for the public at large on certain calls to the weather services because, in any case, that kind of information is always available on a continuing basis in the media.
I repeat what I have already told other media, including certain newspapers and radio broadcasters: fishermen and special clients will not be affected by service cuts.


Mr. Crosbie:: Try some more spurious indignation, George.


George Baker: I have a great teacher.


METHOD OF IMPLEMENTATION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister not agree that, if she is going to exclude certain occupational groups, it will be impossible to police and control via the telephone, and the interpretation process will actually cost the taxpayers money and no money will be raised?
[ Translation]


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: I think I have already answered the question, Mr. Speaker, and it stands to reason that we will not implement a measure which might lead to administrative chaos.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS GOVERNMENT MEASURES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. What precisely were the harsh measures that the Minister of Finance was not to reveal to the people of Manitoba?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I do not
know, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as I have not read the document. I know my hon. friend would want that any document
be read in its entirety and that we should not be isolating phrases therefrom.
It is clear that all provincial Governments have had to cut back on their public expenditures. The Government of Canada, in the interest of restoring a degree of economic sanity to the finances of the nation, has done the same thing. There have been impacts in Manitoba, which we regret, but we hope that the renewed economy will mean more jobs for Manitobans.


IMPACT OF MEASURES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister believe that it is an appropriate action of the Government to refuse to tell the people of a province the impact of the federal Government's measures?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I hope my hon. friend would agree with me that there is nothing improper in a Minister of the Crown for Canada visiting with a provincial counterpart and having in his possession briefing documents received from his superior officers in the interests of the Canadian position on all matters. It seems to me this is an entirely logical and consistent position to take. His provincial counterpart would have similar documentation. That is the necessary dynamic of negotiation. That is what we are trying to do in Manitoba and elsewhere.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Lise Bourgault: My question is directed to the Hon. Minister of the Environment. I would like to know whether there has been a report on the effects of acid rain, and more particularly on the effects on maple stands in Quebec.


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague is referring to a study being conducted by Quebec. The Province is concerned about the possible effects of acid rain on maple trees in Quebec and the fast deteriorating condition of these trees in the Province. The study follows a joint study prepared by my Department and Quebec in 1983. We receive all the data on these studies because we have a federal-provincial committee on long-range pollution. We are working together with Quebec and exchanging expertise to keep a close watch on this problem.
November 27, 1984


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister has just announced his forthcoming visit to Japan, and he is of course aware that in the spring of 1985, which is quite soon, restrictions on Japanese car imports will be lifted. I know the Minister will be meeting with his Japanese counterpart, and I would therefore like to know what position the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be taking on these restrictions, namely, whether they will be continued or lifted.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is aware, any decision on this policy will be announced here in Canada, in the House of Commons, before being announced elsewhere.
Oral Questions


ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA-STATEMENT BY OFFICIAL
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, if I had wanted that answer I would have asked that question. I will, however, repeat my question. Does the Right Hon. Prime Minister agree with the chairperson of the Economic Council of Canada when he says that tax breaks to corporations are too numerous, greatly overused, expensive, inequitable, and, worst of all, create very few jobs?


John Edward Broadbent: Yes or no?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an opinion that deserves some consideration.
 * *



ACCESS TO INFORMATION


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what he thinks about what Mr. William Brock, his American counterpart, said, and I quote:

"I would think that there would be no alternative but to fall in line with the American decision". What is the reaction of the Secretary of State to that?


Charles Joseph Clark: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that Canada's policy is determined by Canada and not by U.S. spokesmen. Second, I am not in a position to indicate today when an announcement will be made with respect to the points raised by the Hon. Member.



FINANCE


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, does the Right Hon. Prime Minister agree with the chairperson of the Economic Council of Canada when he says that tax expenditures, usually in the form of tax breaks to corporations, are too numerous, greatly overused, expensive, inequitable, and, worst of all, create very few jobs?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Considering this Government's obsession with secrecy and the fact that we have no way of obtaining any information on the studies being conducted by the Deputy Prime Minister on 1,000 programs, $92 billion and 170,000 person-years that are under review, could the Prime Minister inform the House whether guidelines will be published for lay-offs resulting from the Government's review of federal programs?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should explain to the Hon. Member that the idea for the task force chaired by my hon. friend was born as a result of a statement by the Leader of the Opposition who said during the television debate on the French network that billions and billions of dollars were being wasted in Ottawa. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister is now trying to find those billions of dollars.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, once again, 1 did not get an answer to my question.
Have public servants been consulted on the guidelines that will apply in the case of lay-offs subsequent to the studies being conducted by the Deputy Prime Minister, and can he, and this is my supplementary, give us the assurance that the merit principle will be strictly applied in the guidelines issued by this Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I agree with the spokesperson of the Economic Council of Canada who said today that the deficit has helped erode business and investor confidence and slowed the growth of jobs in the private sector, and it could be an even more serious problem in the future unless government takes steps to control it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is jumping to conclusions. We have not reached that point yet. This task force, which, we hope, is a faithful reflexion of Canadian society, has only one objective, and it is not any different from the objective being pursued by my hon. friends opposite, and that is the proper utilization of taxpayers' money. That, and nothing more. We want to spend the taxpayers' money as

November 27, 1984
Oral Questions
effectively as possible, and that is the purpose of my hon. friend's task force.




Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. Canadian businesses need more equity investment, not just to create jobs but to help improve their balance sheets and reduce the excessive burden of debt. In the United States about one in four adults invests in common stocks-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, at this point a question is appropriate.


Bill Attewell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister please comment on what measures are being taken to encourage Canadians to invest more in common stocks, and specifically the whole subject of capital gains tax?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to answer the Hon. Member's question. The Government agrees, as I certainly do, that the country does need more risk capital and investment which creates jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: With regard to the specific taxation policy the Member is addressing, I can only say that we are reviewing all aspects of taxation policy with a view to fairness and equity. We are, of course, concerned that more Canadians take risks in the private sector to create the jobs we need.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications and concerns the budgetary cutbacks affecting the CBC.
Can the Minister explain how he can possibly consult with the cultural community, the unions and Parliament within the prescribed time frame?
Is the Minister aware that any lay-offs, and there will probably be some, must be announced before next December
7?
If such is the case, how about the promised consultations, when and with whom will they occur?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is well aware that it is up to the CBC to present a program to the Minister of Communications and that this should be done within a few days.



NATURE OF CONSULTATIONS

Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister flesh out his answer and the answer given by the Prime Minister last Friday to a similar question about CBC cut-backs? The consultations referred to so far only refer to internal CBC consultations. Is this what the Government meant by consultations when it was understood that they would be with the cultural community, not just internal consultations? How can these take place? The Prime Minister referred to informing Parliament of the answer-


Mr. Speaker:: The Member has put a supplementary question. Perhaps the Minister should be allowed to answer.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the CBC is now reviewing how to use its budget for next year. The Minister will receive the program of the CBC around the beginning of December, and we shall look into the matter at that time.



PETRO-CANADA RESIGNATION FORMS PRESENTED TO DIRECTORS

Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The Chief of Staff of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has confirmed that blank resignation forms have been presented to the members of the board of directors of Petro-Canada. Will he tell us what members of the board have been asked to resign, and what criteria have been used in asking for resignations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the same criteria that applied for their appointments.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is saying, then, that resignation is asked for purely on the basis of politics.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
November 27, 1984



FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my subject is slightly more serious. I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Last month 600 Black and Decker workers in Barrie, some of whose representatives are here today, were told that their plant was going to be shut down even though Black and Decker had promised FIRA this past spring to keep its operations open as long as it was profitable. All evidence shows that the operation is profitable.
Will the Minister require FIRA to review Black and Decker's figures and plans, which the union feels were not accurately put to FIRA, and direct FIRA to tell Black and Decker to keep the plant open as promised?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that a representative from my office met with the union officials today. We heard their representations and I will be taking up the representations with the officials of FIRA later in the day. I can assure the Hon. Member that we will not allow their representations to go without getting to the facts of what did occur.



CONSULTATION WITH COMMUNITY

Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister also consult with the community involved, which is particularly hit because of the possible changes in UIC as well, and then urge his Cabinet colleagues to move on this matter?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I can assure him that that has already been done. That community has excellent representation at the federal Government level in the Hon. Member for Simcoe South.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immmigration. As the Minister knows, the Minister of Finance stated in his economic statement that "social policy is about people", and "this Government is committed to the principle that people come first". Would the Minister explain why she has allowed the Minister of Finance to treat pension income and severance pay as income for the purposes of defining unemployment insurance benefits for older Canadians?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I replied to these issues yesterday,
Oral Questions
in response to a question by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, that we would take his points of view into consideration. However, I want to say to the Hon. Member that indeed we do look upon the economic statement as having social values. That is the whole purpose of the economic statement. It is to create jobs. It is to tackle the deficit. It is to attract investment-


Mr. Speaker:: With due respect, I hate to interrupt any Minister but I think it is important for me to indicate that bootlegging is not popular with the Speaker.



CALCULATION OF BENEFITS

David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in view of the rhetoric of the Minister and the Government about their commitment to social policy, will she give an undertaking to the House that pension income and severance pay will not be included for the purposes of calculating unemployment insurance benefits, so that thousands of older Canadians will be rid of the fear which the Government has struck in them?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that I am not a bootlegger, although I have heard the term before.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I want to tell the Hon. Member that these benefits will be calculated in a way that is equitable and fair and which treats every Canadian the same as far as unemployment insurance benefits are concerned.



HIBERNIA OILFIELD-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY

Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has had a chance to reflect for 24 hours. I ask him again if he will clarify whether or not his Government has received a copy of the environmental assessment impact study on the Hibernia development, prepared by Mobil Oil? The Prime Minister said last Wednesday, and again yesterday, that it had.
His Minister announced in the press last week that in fact the study would not be released and not formally received for six months. Could he please clear the air?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I hoped that the Minister would be back in the House today. She has been detained in Toronto. She will provide my hon. friend with an answer as soon as she returns.

November 27, 1984
Oral Questions RECEIPT OF REPORT


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister indicate to the House on what basis he answered a question last week, and again yesterday, confirming that such a report had been received by his administration?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of accuracy.



SPONSORSHIP OF AMATEUR SPORTING EVENTS BY TOBACCO COMPANIES

Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. There is much concern about the financing of amateur sport in Canada, especially when the present Government believes that every area of Canadian life must suffer the consequences of its misguided economic policy of cut-back and trim.
Sports bodies are being encouraged to seek corporate support. Would he confirm reports in the press-another was published in yesterday's Citizen-that he supports tobacco company sponsorship of sporting events?
Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur
Sport)): No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that. I said that the Government is studying the situation in Cabinet at the present time. We are meeting with officials from the Sport Medicine Council, the sports associations and, in fairness, from the tobacco companies.
I have said that my personal view is that we should not cut back tobacco sponsorship immediately until we come up with a fair and equitable solution. That solution will be forthcoming in the very near future.



REQUEST FOR BAN ON TOBACCO ADVERTISING

Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister take under advisement the call which came at a conference on preventative medicine over the weekend for a total ban on tobacco advertising, and to discourage sports bodies from spotlighting tobacco companies in their activities?
Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur
Sport)): Mr. Speaker, I think I answered the Hon. Member's question in my response to his first question. I can assure him that 1 do not support the promotion of the smoking of cigarettes or any of the other stuff that the NDP is so used to.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Jelinek:: I can only repeat that I, along with the Minister of National Health and Welfare and other Cabinet
colleagues, am studying the situation and we will resolve it in the very near future.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take this opportunity to outline the Government's intention with respect to the calling of House business for tomorrow and Thursday.
As a courtesy with respect to the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a clarification of last Thursday's initial statement on House business. I want to advise the House that the business for tomorrow, in light of the progress we have made for which we are very grateful and appreciative, will be the consideration at second reading of Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority. If the House completes second reading of Bill C-ll, we will move on to the consideration in Committee of the Whole and third reading of Bills C-7 and C-9, in that order.
In the event, Mr. Speaker, that we complete that business, and if there is a spirit of co-operation in this House, which has been the case since the beginning of this session, we propose consideration of Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act.
On Thursday morning I propose, depending upon the progress being made, to proceed again with the same order as I have outlined for Wednesday. However, following Question Period and Routine Proceedings on Thursday, it would be my intention to call the motion establishing the parliamentary task force on the reform of the House of Commons. That motion now stands as item No. 3 under the heading of Government Business on the Order Paper. If the House concludes its consideration of this motion prior to the commencement of Private Members' hour on Thursday, we will return to the business that was before the House prior to the midday break.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State (Government House Leader) (Mr. Hnatyshyn) was both giving information and seeking information and I want to help him in planning the next two days. Unless there are changes to the Borrowing Authority Act, it will not go through tomorrow.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we will have the benefit of the point of view of the Hon. Member and any of his colleagues for whom he speaks.


Ian Deans: I was just trying to be helpful.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: First we listen and then we act.
November 27, 1984



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the other day in the House of Commons the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) asked if I would lay upon the Table copies of a message delivered by the Governments of Canada and Manitoba with respect to the Garrison Project. I am pleased to make available those documents in French and in English.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 46(2), I am pleased to table in both official languages the summary and recommendations of the report of the Niagara River Toxics Committee. The full report of 600 pages is being translated and will be available in the next few days.
The review was jointly conducted by the Canadian Department of Environment, the Ontario Department of Environment and the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States as well as the Department of Environmental Conservation in New York State.


QUESTION ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: 27.


DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS LAWYERS
Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: There are 14 lawyers assigned to the Department from the Department of Justice.
Supply


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all other questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The question indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):
That, in the opinion of this House, the guidelines issued by the Prime Minister, on November 23, 1984, with regard to the provision of information to the public, are inadequate and retrogressive and confirm the Government's mistrust of and cynicism toward Canadians.
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the motion before this House.
I think it useful that I remind Hon. Members of what the motion says in light of the extraordinary Question Period we have just witnessed. The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the guidelines issued by the Prime Minister, on November 23, 1984, with regard to the provision of information to the public, are inadequate and retrogressive and confirm the Government's mistrust of and cynicism toward Canadians.
I want to underline two words from the motion, "mistrust of' and "cynicims" toward Canadians.
We have just had the spectacle of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) desperately reaching way back to his St. F.X. debating days, to his Laval debating days when he was for two years in a row, we are told in his official biography, the student club debating champion, to try and find some way to gloss over what was very apparent in this House-an attempt by his Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to be, on the one hand, presenting as government policy and the official position of the Government facts a, b, and c, while in his back pocket the real position of the Government of Canada, the real facts with respect to the transfer of payments as they affect the Province of Manitoba, were disguised. They were available to him but deliberately withheld from the representatives of the people of Manitoba and indeed Manitobans themselves.
My real concern, having witnessed that spectacle of the Prime Minister flippantly defending that action by his Minister, is that somehow the Prime Minister, who comes here every day with 210 cheerleaders and 210 who clap their hands, misunderstands the mood of the country. He misunderstands the very serious state at which his Government after only a few

November 27, 1984
Supply
months in office has arrived. Each day, no matter what the issue or how flippant and cynical the Prime Minister's answer, he hears 210 pairs of clapping hands in this House. He has taken to listening to the applause. He goes out of this House believing that he has won the day because he has heard the most applause, believing that the fundamental issue of a government's relationship to the people, and the fundamental issue of openness and honesty between jurisdictions, has gone by the wayside.
I have a piece of advice for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. If he wants to understand how deeply the concern is by Canadians today about the approach of this Government and its dealings with the public, with Members of this House and with provincial governments, he should bring a pair of earplugs into this House and stick them in his ears so that he can weigh questions and the flippant answers he has provided more objectively. For days I have been asking the Government, which claims that it wants to consult, to be open and honest, to clarify what has happened to a report known as the environmental assessment impact study by Mobil, the operator of the Hibernia development. Last Wednesday and again yesterday and today, the Prime Minister told us in the House that his Government had the report. In the November 23, 1984 edition of The Globe and Mail, an article concerning the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) headlined "Carney awaits Hibernia decision" read in part as follows:
I delayed Mobil's acceptance . . . pending clarification of how the resource should be developed-
She has not accepted the report. The Premier of Newfoundland has risen in the Newfoundland House of Assembly almost daily for the last two weeks to deny that he has seen the report. The Prime Minister fell into a trap, the trap of truth. He answered a question truthfully. He said: "We have the documentation, we have the information", but he forgot to find out what his Minister of Energy was saying in Newfoundland to a reporter from The Globe and Mail. I wonder how he will square that one when the Minister of Energy returns.
What is in that report? What does that report address? How will Hibernia be developed? That is a very complex question with dramatic economic impact for Newfoundland, be it floating concrete platforms or semi-submersible rigs. It is the difference between 1,500 and 50,000 jobs. The answer is contained in the report which has been mugged and gagged by order of both governments for six months. How fast will production take place? What will be the rate of development? That is addressed in the report. How will the federal-provincial management agency function? Who is the great Solomon who will be the neutral chairman proposed by both agencies? That question and how that should be undertaken and accomplished is addressed in the report.
How will the so-called 25 per cent back-in provided to Petro-Canada, a portion of which is to be shared with the provincial government, be handled when the federal Government committed itself to getting rid of the 25 per cent
back-in? Indeed, the Government of Newfoundland-and the Government of Nova Scotia already has an agreement-has as part of the agreement a share of the 25 per cent back-in provision.
These are not esoteric questions. These are questions which will impact directly on how Newfoundland can expect to share in the benefits of a resource adjacent to its shores. We have seen nothing but a conspiracy of silence from this Government.
Earlier this morning the Government House Leader stood and told the House that this was the most open government in the land, that this Government in all matters affecting Canadians, regardless of where they live, would consult them, ask for their opinions and ensure that they understood the impact of government policy. He even assured us that he would try to understand the impact of government policy.
In the economic statement of November 16, 1984, presented by the Minister of Finance, we see either cancellations or dramatic cuts in Atlantic Canada alone affecting 24 programs. They will impact negatively upon the people who live in the poorest provinces of Canada. They involve 24 programs and there has been no consultation. A Liberal member of the House of Assembly in Prince Edward Island was elected yesterday. The member who vacated that seat to run federally sits across from me now. The fine gentleman that he is, he knows why they lost that seat. It was because without any consultation in an island province a rate increase was applied to ferry transport. It is not a scenic route by the sea or a pleasant way to spend a day; it is a mode of transportation to move goods and services. Ferry transport was attacked by the Government and a rate increase of 15 per cent was applied with no consultation with the people of P.E.I. There was no discussion. There was no regard to the reality that 99 per cent of the goods consumed by the people of P.E.I. is moved by ferry traffic. It is not flown in. It is not trucked in. It is not driven in. It is not flung in. It is moved across the water. The same is true for Newfoundland. Therefore the people of Prince Edward Island returned a Liberal member to the Hon. Member's vacated seat because they were not consulted. They did it because they did not hear the voice of Conservative members from P.E.I. in this Chamber demanding redress for the arbitrary and unilateral action of the federal Government.
Where was the consultation when RRAP was scrapped? Where was the consultation when COSP was scrapped? Where was the consultation when CHIP was scrapped? Where was the consultation when the Prime Minister of Canada broke his solemn word in cancelling the federal forestry centre for Corner Brook, Newfoundland?
I should like to relate a little history. For two years I fought inside and outside the House, publicly and privately, with Ministers, including members of my own Party, to have the forestry centre moved from St. John's, Newfoundland to Corner Brook. It was a S16 million project approved by Cabinet. The funding was provided by Treasury Board under the adminsitration of the former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. During the election campaign it became an issue. I suggested to my constituents that this
November 27, 1984

Government, taking its orders from the hon. joker from St. John's West, would cancel that centre if it were elected. The local candidate in my riding was so aggrieved that he announced that unless the matter was clarified he would cease to be a candidate. He sent a telegram to the Prime Minister saying: "Will you confirm that if our Party is elected this forestry centre will proceed?" The Prime Minister sent a telegram to the candidate in question. He also sent one to the mayor of Corner Brook, George Hutchings, in which he said:
The allegations by the Liberal MP for your area to the effect that I or my party is opposed to the proposed federal forestry centre being located in Corner Brook are completely without substance. I assure you as I have assured our PC candidate, Mike Monaghan, that I fully support the establishment of the federal forestry centre in Corner Brook.
Those were the Prime Minister's own words over his signature. What did the Minister of Finance announce on that fateful Thursday when he brought down his financial statement? One of the cut-backs he announced or one of the programs cancelled was the federal forestry centre move from St. John's to Corner Brook, Newfoundland.
I do not know what kind of definition the Prime Minister of Canada applies to truth. The people I represent face an unemployment rate of 27 per cent, according to the latest statistics of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). These people have seen 750 industrial jobs lost in a pulp and paper mill a year ago April. They have just been advised that another 160 jobs will be lost in the next six months. They have seen a very serious decline in the fishing industry. They live in a geographic area of 550 miles wherein 60 per cent of them live in communities with populations under 500.
The people I represent believe that a man's word is worth something. It is not having the Prime Minister on paper that was important. That did not really matter. It was a piece of correspondence to a mayor. What was important was that they had his word. All 90,000 souls, most of whom live in small isolated communities, saw him on CBC, the only television network they receive. They heard him on CFCB and on CBC radio. They heard his words-"I am not opposed to this move which will create jobs for your area. If my Party is elected, the move will go ahead as budgeted for under Treasury Board". They believed him because they are good, decent and believing people. They think that any man who aspires to be Prime Minister of Canada would keep his word when he gives it. That is the right, proper and decent thing to do. They do not expect to see a man stand in his place and treat flippantly and as a joke, to the applause of 211 pairs of senseless clapping hands, that kind of important question.
I would ask the Prime Minister, were he here, whether he thinks that is a good joke, or is the Prime Minister a liar? That is what I would ask him. The people in the area I represent take as an act of faith a man's word. They do not mince words. That same man has played them for a fool. It is a simple one word description. They ask him if he is a liar. If he were here, I would be interested in seeing how he would answer.
Supply
I did not expect and no member of this House expected, whether it be NDP or Liberal, that a few months after the election we would be sitting here engaged in this kind of debate about the fundamental credibility of the administration elected on September 4. I thought we were going to proceed with caution but not with paranoia. I thought we were going to see a government be decisive, but not unduly quick, not to the point of riding rough-shod over the rights of journalists, Members of Parliament and the public of this country.
I thought there would be what has been traditionally described as the period of grace before any heated words were exchanged in this Commons. Much to my surprise and I am sure to the surprise of the people of Canada-and we knew they could not meet the promises of the summer of 1984-not only do they refuse to keep their promises, but they have put under attack the fundamental social programs that are the underpinnings of the least advantaged areas of this country- Atlantic Canada, the North and parts of the West. I give the Prime Minister warning to draw upon all his oratorical skills and great debating experience because I will have the opportunity in a few days to ask him in this House if he has lied. I will ask him is he a liar. I will put that question to him.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It doesn't enhance your reputation.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The House Leader suggests it does not enhance my reputation. However, as I said earlier, the people who sent me here took as an article of faith the word of the Prime Minister of Canada. It is quite simple. It is not complicated. They did not ask for it in blood. They did not even ask for it in writing, although they got it in writing. They will equally want a straightforward and simple definition of what has gone wrong.
How could such a promise made by a Prime Minister be contained in the list of programs to be cut in a budget provided to this House under the direction and with the approval of the Prime Minister by the Minister of Finance? That is the question that is addressed in this motion today. The cynicism is not the fact that this Government has broken promises. It is the ease with which it is prepared to break promises that is bothersome. It is not the fact that it is prepared to be secret, not the fact that it wants to manipulate and manage the news which bothers us so much; it is the flippant way in which they defend it, with big grins on their faces, as the crowd applauds. The best advice I can give this Prime Minister and his Cabinet is to get some ear plugs and wear them. They might be able to get a much more objective view of this country. I warn them that the eyes of the people of Canada are on you in those first few months. They best not try their patience much further.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Question or comments?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the death rattle of the Party to my left in this discussion of cynicism. Certainly those of us who were here in the last Parliament recall all too well the manipulation and secrecy which characterized the Liberal government. It was interesting to hear the Hon. Member talk about respect for Parliament

November 27, 1984
Supply
and for the role of the Member of Parliament when it was his Prime Minister who talked about parliamentarians being nobodies 50 feet from Parliament Hill. There must be a new attitude. As I said this morning, they are born-again Liberals.
The Hon. Member indicated that he is concerned about openness in government, the spirit of openness, accessibility and trust. What is the position of his caucus with respect to the decision of the Auditor General to ask for confidential documents which relate to the Petro-Canada takeover of Petrofina? Do the Hon. Member and his caucus support the request of the Auditor General or do they not?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member spent so much time preparing his question and was so anxious to get to his feet that he began to talk about the death rattle of the Party to his left. I believe that the Tories are in big trouble, but I think it is a bit much to go that far when they have only been in this House a few months. The Hon. Member would much better serve himself, those wo are interested in this House and the listening public if he would bring himself to a position of relative calm before he gets to his feet so that he can stay oriented.
With respect to making information available about Petro-Canada's takeover of Petrofina and with regard to Petro-Canada's development in the offshore, for example, something I am very interested in and have spoken about at length in this House, I as a Member of Parliament would be totally in favour of seeing whatever documents can be placed on the Table of this place. That is my position. I give it openly and with great joy in my heart. I hope it makes the Hon. Member feel a little better.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker I have a question for the Hon. Member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member will permit me, I would like to make a short statement on this, and on the matter of supplementaries.
On Thursday, November 22, 1984, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame de Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) asked for clarification on the application of the 10-minute question and comment period covered in Standing Order 35.1 undertook at the time to comment at a later date, and now might be an opportune time to reiterate the guidelines under which this 10-minute period should operate.
Members will, of course, realize that the recognition of Members during this 10-minute period is totally within the discretion of the Chair. However, as much as possible the Chair will operate under certain guidelines. These were clearly set out by Speaker Sauve on January 17, 1983, and Members may wish to refer to this statement for more complete details.
To summarize briefly, the Chair will attempt to give priority to Members representing Parties other than that of the Member who has just spoken. Members recognized should keep their questions and comments short, in order to allow as many members as possible to participate. The Chair will cut off any Member who attempts to monopolize the entire 10-
minute period when other Members are attempting to participate. Questions or comments must relate to the Member who has just spoken and should not be used as an occasion to bring forward new issues.
With the co-operation of all Members, these 10-minute periods will operate efficiently and to the benefit of the House as a whole and will enhance the quality of debate which, of course, was the intention of this new rule.
I would like to add that on the question of supplementaries, the Chair would prefer that these supplementaries be asked at the end of the 10-minute period so that the Chair is able to see as many Members as possible within the short 10-minute period that we have.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I trust that that time taken did not bite into the 10-minute period that we have to question the Hon. Member.
In the last few days the Hon. Member has been raising in the House the situation in Newfoundland regarding offshore resources and the delivery of same. Could the Hon. Member inform the House-if he can speak on behalf of his caucus-of what method of delivery of that natural resource they favour?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member right now what method I favour. I favour the use of floating concrete platforms which would be constructed in the Province of Newfoundland. I am four-square behind the position as articulated by both the Premier of Newfoundland and the Leader of the Opposition in Newfoundland. I do not have to consult with my caucus to tell the Hon. Member where I stand with respect to the unacceptably high level of unemployment in my province. In my own riding, the level of unemployment is 27 per cent. I am four-square behind the Premier of the Province, the Leader of the Opposition and every Newfoundland MP-which I hope would include the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie)-in ensuring that a method is used which will bring some economic benefits to the poorest province in Canada. That is the reason for the decision by the federal Minister and the Minister from Newfoundland. There is a large area of controversy between the federal Government, the provincial government and the industry about putting a gag order on the release of the documents which were ready to be made public on November 15.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member criticized the Government throughout his remarks for giving him information, for answering questions and for supplying the details of changes in programs. He did not like the changes in the programs, nor did he like the information. I was wondering if he could tell the House, is he supporting the Government on this motion, or is he supporting the Opposition? The motion calls for further information. In that respect, could he perhaps tell us where he has been missing information on the Government's attitude with respect to programs?
November 27, 1984


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would take the time to read the motion, he would realize that it condemns the cynicism and the mistrust with which his Government approaches the people of Canada. I can think of nothing more cynical than a government which, on the one hand, preaches consultation with the public and with the people who will be affected by government programs, but, on the other hand, unilaterally announces in the House-consulting nobody, least of all those affected-that there will be $4.2 billion in cuts, especially when one examines those documents and finds out that the cuts apply mostly to the rural, northern and most disparate parts of this country. If the Hon. Member were doing the job he was sent here to do-that is, to be his constituency's spokesman in Ottawa, not Ottawa's apologist in his riding-he would be on his feet and joining me in condemning the actions of his Government.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure that the Hon. Member inadvertently failed to answer the question which I asked initially, so perhaps I might ask a supplementary question.
Does the Hon. Member support the decision of the previous Liberal government to refuse access to the documents requested by the Auditor General with respect to the Petrofina take-over?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I did my best. I tried hard. I jumped up and down in the House and tried to do my homework, but I never made Cabinet. I was not there when those discussions were held. 1 do not know the context in which they were made.
However, I will tell you as a Member-because in our Party we do not have to check with the Whip in order to open our mouths-that I will support, and do support, access to all the documents that can be made available and tabled in the House. I can say that in this Party-unlike members of the Party opposite-without consulting anyone.
My constituents sent me here to represent their interests, not the interests of my Pary first and my constituents second. That is an unusual position for the NDP to come to grips with. They often speak with one voice. They all sound the same. Surely to goodness when we see that kind of unanimity all the time, we know that the mind has ceased to function on its own and that the ability to receive instruction has been enhanced greatly in that Party.


Mr. Mclnnes:: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is so concerned and sensitive about this particular issue, would he indicate whether he has made an inquiry of his caucus as to why the information concerning Petrofina was not furnished when it was requested?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I have an earth-shattering revelation which is long overdue in this House. This is November 27, 1984! While it may be mentally overwhelming, Members opposite are in the Government. We must go forward and get on with the job. We are the Opposition. As I can tell by the strained look on the Hon. Member's face, we are the Official
Supply
Opposition-the only Opposition in this House. I can tell by the glow on his nose that he found that out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The period provided for questions and comments has now expired. The debate will proceed with the Hon. Minister of Communications.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, in our democratic system, communications and information are the very basis of our decisions. Information helps the citizen find out what statutory benefits are available to him. Information ensures that the citizen is informed of the decisions of the State. It means that the citizen is aware of what Cabinet, what the Government has decided in a specific case. Information and communications are fundamental aspects of a democratic system.
In today's debate, it is surprising that the motion moved by the Liberal Party should be couched in terms we heard earlier. If ever a political party abused information and communications in this country, the Liberal Party certainly did, and it did so for years. One remembers their attempts at objective information on the Canadian Confederation in Quebec, to name only one instance. It is certainly ironic that today, the Liberal Party should be addressing the issue of information.
If Quebeckers and Canadians had been properly or at least better informed, with less cynicism, less propaganda, less patronage and fewer campaign promises by the Liberal Party when that Party held the reins of government, far more Canadians would have been inclined to appreciate the real advantages of the Canadian Confederation.
The issue before the House today concerns a guideline approved by Cabinet for a number of altogether positive and laudable reasons. At a meeting on November 22 of this year, Cabinet agreed that open and effective communications with the public were a matter of the highest priority for this Government. In this connection, ministers reaffirmed the Government's commitment to the principles of the Access to Information and Privacy Act and endorsed the guidelines made public by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and sent to the Government's deputy ministers. In fact, the Prime Minister himself explained several hours later that he was fully aware of the Government's duty to be open and accessible to all Canadians, and that this responsibility should be shared by all his Cabinet colleagues and all public servants. The Prime Minister was reaffirming commitments he had made during the election campaign when, on his behalf of his party, he promised to examine the guidelines which has served to govern, I would not say the Government's information policy, but the Liberal Government's policy of secrecy.
At the time he had raised a number of questions with respect to the role of public servants and their responsibility concerning communications with the public.

November 27, 1984
Supply
It would perhaps be useful to see exactly what these guidelines are, what they mean and what kind of questions they raise, if any. The guidelines are as follows: First, communications with the public, including particularly Members of Parliament and newsmedia representatives, are part of the duties and responsibilities of managers in the public service. This means that for a public servant who is informed of the facts, informing Canadians is part of his duty. After all, if citizens are not aware of the real facts, they do not know what is covered by legislation or regulations and cannot enjoy the benefits thus provided. It is therefore imperative that the responsibility of a public employee not be limited to the management of government business, for he ought as well to make sure that the general public is aware of the consequences of that management. That is why the guidelines indicate that a staff function in support of this management role is performed by information officers in all departments.
Each department, Crown corporation and government agency has officials whose professional responsibility is the daily management of information, and their colleagues who are not directly involved in information are expected to consult those information officers. This way, public servants should be prepared-within their areas of responsibility, not in somebody else's bailiwick-to openly provide factual information to the public and the media that describes or explains programs or policies that have been announced or implemented by the government.
Can anyone ask for more open information? Can any government be expected to be more readily available to the people in order to tell them what government is all about? What is it in those guidelines that smacks of secrecy? What is wrong with guidelines urging public employees to ensure that the people are fully aware of each new measure, of the extent of legislation, regulations and administrative guidelines? It is amazing. This debate is a distortion of reality. Some of the people responsible for launching this debate are guilty of mythologizing! The only way to appreciate the true nature of the innuendoes of the Opposition is to consider closely the motion now being debated.
To contribute to open government, such interviews shall be on the record and for attribution by name. What does it mean? It means that if a citizen calls at the Canadian Government office in Caraquet to get information, he finds himself actually facing a public servant whom he knows. The latter tells him about the scope of a regulation, the nature of a benefit or a directive issued by a department. He knows that person, he can quote him or her any time by name, anywhere in town. But then, because this is Ottawa, there are people who are outraged because a bit of public information given to some people for public use is not published.
Why should a certain number of public servants here in Ottawa not be allowed to give meaningful information, to explain the actual meaning and scope of a regulation or a legislation, nor to do it outside the context of public use? If that were so, those people could be suspected of mischievously or meanly distorting the facts about a legislation or a regulation. And because the Government wants to make sure, first that the information given will be truthful, and second that such information could be used at any time, the Government wants to make sure that public servants are fully aware that such information is public and is to be used publicly. This is the least that can be done.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, we know very well that at times it is essential that technical briefings be provided for the media, for a group of citizens, for a Chamber of Commerce, for a business group. Reporters are not the only ones to be interested in information. All citizens may be. It may therefore happen that at certain times or periods, there has to be briefings, and in that sense, off-the-record background briefings could be given, but only in exceptional circumstances. And this is normal, because normally things must be done publicly. Therefore, briefings can only be held exceptionally, and must get prior ministerial approval.
Guideline No. 3-what does that guideline provide? It provides that public servants should not go beyond this discussion of factual information. A public servant's foremost responsibility is to enforce laws and regulations. His responsibility with respect to information is to make sure that people perfectly understand laws, regulations or directives. This is why we say that what may be discussed by public servants is what exists under statutes or regulations. It amounts to interpreting or clarifying something he is responsible for administering. In other words, what has already been established by the Government, or authorized by the Cabinet as Government policy.
Therefore, it is not proper in that sense for public servants to recommend or discuss recommendations or advice which they themselves have provided their ministers, or to question decisions of principle that could be made or business currently being addressed. This is normal. If we are to have a government working in harmony, ministers who can trust their officials, if we are to have people work in an absolute peace of mind, looking for the best solution to a problem facing the Government, such discussions can only evolve under a minimum of confidentiality, and within the parameters of the oath of office that they themselves have taken. Otherwise it is impossible, and indeed altogether impossible, whether here in government or in any firm, to have discussions, to go through the process leading to decisions, when you cannot trust the people around you. Because we would never know who would use an outside lobby or a newspaper leak to exert pressure on the group entrusted with the developing of policies.
November 27, 1984

We have to make sure that during the period needed to write the budget, or during which my department for instance, is drafting a Canadian communications policy, or another department is developing some other policy, there is a climate of confidence between the minister and his advisers. And in that sense, since there has been as yet no government decision, no act passed by the Government, nor any order in council, it is normal that during that preparation stage, during that period of collective and joint reflection between officials, such a point in time be placed under the seal of confidence, because then no decision has yet been taken. But once the decision is taken, once the Prime Minister and the Cabinet have issued an order, then the public must be informed of the scope and meaning of that decision, so that people may benefit from what the Government has decided.
Those guidelines, Mr. Minister and Mr. Speaker, and this is guideline number 4, cannot and do not authorize the disclosure of information which is specifically prohibited by law. This is simple common sense! From the point of view of national security, as in the case of the Department of National Revenue, disclosing information on the income of individuals, is something specifically prohibited by law. Clearly then, the guideline reinforces the decision that is already generally known not to publicly disclose things that are specifically prohibited by law. Public employees acting in good faith under the guidelines I have been explaining, will not be considered as having violated their oath of secrecy. People must know that civil servants, like cabinet ministers and Members of Parliament, perform their duties under an oath of secrecy. They must stand by that oath.
1 would also like ... in my view, Mr. Speaker, all that noise, that scramble, that failure to seriously reflect on serious provisions cannot stem from those guidelines issued by the Cabinet. I would like to come back to a normal information and policy process.
Whatever its colour, when a new Government takes over, it is very homogeneous, the Cabinet solidarity is strong and there is much consultation among caucus members and Cabinet colleagues. This is true of all new governments, such as the Government of Mr. Trudeau in 1968 and the Government of Mr. Levesque in 1976, and if news reporters will look at what themselves or their colleagues wrote at that time, they will see that they were describing the same situation. Those people acted in secrecy. Why? Because that new Government was replacing a previous one which had often ended its mandate in the most total anarchy and confusion, and there was a world of difference between the Pearson Government of 1966, where everyone was talking in the end, and the authority evidenced by the homogeneous Liberal Government in 1968, which the press dubbed a new era of secrecy. However, it was not a new era of secrecy, but rather a new Government which applied the
Supply
usual standards for any Government coming to power instead of the confusion typical of the last days of its predecessor.
The same thing is happening today. For a year and a half, reporters were informed of everything that can occur within the Government and the various departments because, as the Ministers of the previous Government knew quite well that their Leader would resign as Prime Minister, they were all trying to position themselves, not by having a positive program or a positive decision, but rather by destroying a colleague or criticizing the policy of another Government Member. Naturally, the newspapers found a gold mine in all this and there were many issues to comment. But was this a normal way to administer Canada or a reasonable way for a democracy to operate? Should we have done the same! No, Mr. Speaker! It is not with anarchy and confusion that a Government can guarantee good management to its people, but with homogeneity, caucus cooperation and exchanges among colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that this Government has no gossip to feed all the tattle-talers in Canada does not mean that its information policy is wrong. On the contrary, it is a good information policy, but with no gossip to give out. This is a good example of it. Indeed, to a certain extent, the same thing happened in Quebec. When the present Quebec Government came to power in 1976, the same discussions about government secrecy in Quebec took place. There are two possibilities. Either some members of the Press-and 1 emphasize "some" because in this spurious debate there is no consensus-some members of the Press did not take the time to read the guidelines or did not understand them, or on the contrary, because almost total anarchy and decay in Government which are the characteristics of the last days in power of a party, appeal more to them. Unfortunately for them, this Government is just beginning its mandate and it will keep the mentality of a new government for a long time, Mr. Speaker. We want to provide and we shall provide information to the people because well informed people can support Government action, but we want this information to be factual and not about conflicts within the Government.
I know that the opposition feeds on gossip, but the people live on objective information and the benefits of legislation and regulations, and that is the difference, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we would like the Canadian people to be well informed in order to enjoy the benefits of the legislation and regulations because that is how the government will secure their continuing support. The opposition may have less to say but it will be only better for the government because it will explain more thoroughly the benefits made available to Canadians.
This is the government policy, Mr. Speaker. It is clear and unbiased. It is positive and it relates directly to the commitments by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Progressive Conservative Party to provide an open govern-

November 27, 1984
Supply
merit. It is a guideline closely related to the public interest because Canadians have the right and desire to know the advantages of the legislation and regulations. On the other hand, the guideline gives the cabinet and the ministers a peace of mind and confidence to work with their officials. Thus, Canada will be administered by a team that trusts its officials and a government that gives all the information needed on the benefits of the legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Mr. Cassidy:: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the statements just made by the Minister of Communications. He is a Minister who must be impartially responsible for communications, but he has shown clearly that, as far as he is concerned, he wants all information provided by the government to be favourable to the government. He stated clearly that, in his opinion, the public must understand the consequences of the actions of the State, and he said that the information provided by the State must be favourable to the Conservative government and the Conservative Party.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications: does he believe that factual information must be released by public servants to the public or to Hon. Members if that information is unfavourable to the government? Yes or no?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear, and that is that the Hon. Member did not understand the guidelines since he did not understand what I said.
I said clearly and simply that the responsibility of public servants is to inform the people about the reality of the law and regulations. I am talking about hard facts. I never did ask public servants-and there is no reference to that in the guidelines-to make a distinction between what might be favourable or unfavourable to the government.
The directive is clear and specific, and it has to do with facts and reality. We have never claimed that public servants should provide only the kind of information which is in the interest of the government, not anymore, I am sure, than my colleague would urge Canadian public employees to release only information detrimental to the government so as to serve the short-term interests of the New Democratic Party.
What we all want-and if my colleague is honest in this debate on information, what he would want to know and what he would want to see as a reality-is that Canadians be kept well informed about the facts. If that is what the Hon. Member is seeking, he ought to read the guidelines and apply them as do public servants, and the people will be well informed.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister explain to us how it is that public service officials have refused to release the
results of the recent impact studies on jobs which have been carried out by the government? Why have officials of all departments refused to do that, and why have the government and ministers of the Crown also refused to release the results of these studies which assess the impact of these measures on employment in various regions of our country?
If you really believe that objective information must be made available to the public, so that Hon. Members and the Canadian people as a whole can make an informed judgment on the government's action, why is the government refusing to release this information and why are government officials also refusing to release it?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member seeking information to understand the scope of the legislation, or is he merely seeking information as an Hon. Member? I think that the guidelines are directed first and foremost to the Canadian public as a whole who has the right to know the scope of legislation and regulations.
If the Hon. Member is referring to background documents which are currently serving as the basis for the development of government policy, it is not yet government policy. Once it becomes government policy, there will be information papers which will advise Canadians as to the scope of the regulations and the benefit of the legislation. What we want, Mr. Speaker, is better public information on what the government is offering, not necessarily public confusion due to a host of conflicting documents originating from here and there and everywhere. What we want is to be able to work with our officials in an atmosphere of trust and serenity until legislation is passed and regulations authorized. From then on, we are dealing with "factual" facts which are known to the public, and we want the public to be well informed, because we feel that well informed people would return this party to power for a long, long time, since our legislation and regulations will benefit the Canadian public.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) on a question.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister referred to the importance of having a well-informed population. I would like to ask him a question concerning a very specific population, namely the employees of the CBC. If the Minister is sincere when he refers to the importance of having well-informed people, I would ask him why he did not enter into the required consultations before announcing the $85 million cut, if I remember right, in the CBC budget? Why did the CBC employees have to learn about the details of those cuts in the newspapers? The Minister's duty in my view is to explain that to the House and to all Canadians. The question is, first, were there specific studies made on the impact on the CBC
November 27, 1984

employees, as to how many will lose their jobs. And second, Mr. Speaker, will he publish these studies?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is fully aware of two things. The choice is his. Either he is setting a huge trap, big enough to completely engulf the Parliament of Canada, or else he is badly informed. Since the beginning of this month, I have been explaining in this House, and the Hon. Member has always been listening very closely to my answers. But perhaps I should give him further explanations. It is not my responsibility, as Minister of Communications, to get involved in the day-to-day operations of the CBC. The Hon. Member would be the first to blame me if I were to decide how the CBC will be organized, with a station in this town or in that city, how programming should be developed, or that the CBC should have so many hundreds or thousands of employees. The Hon. Member would be the first to blame me for interfering in areas where I have no business. I am therefore convinced that he did not ask the question out of ignorance. He knows I cannot answer that question. It was a trap, Mr. Speaker, a bear trap or whatever you want to call it. You know very well, Mr. Speaker, that this is absolutely not within my responsibility! The responsibility lies with the management of CBC. They have to develop the budget and send it to the Minister of Communications, who will discuss it and introduce it into the budgeting process within the parliamentary system.
But I would never attempt, and certainly never with your approval, Mr. Speaker, or that of my hon. colleague, to enter the CBC's innards and work my way up to its thinking process. The CBC is an institution which as we must recognize, has been historically very important both to the French-speaking and the English-speaking population of this country. And you may rest assured that the CBC, established as it was by the Progressive Conservative Party many decades ago, will not be destroyed by any disciple of that party, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The question period being over, we will proceed with the debate. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the speech we just heard by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), and I think there is considerable confusion on the part of the Government, which is talking about open information and favours a communications policy. It is quite clear, however, at least from the perspective of the Minister of Communications, that although speaking is communicating, what we are talking about is propaganda.
The Government wants to impose a propaganda policy that will promote the Government and the Progressive Conservative Party at the expense of the Members of this House, the press here in the gallery and all Canadians, every single Canadian citizen. This is 1984-of course the title of George Orwell's novel comes to mind-and we have had a clear demonstration
Supply
that the Conservatives prefer a policy that leads to the management of information, to an open information policy.
The Liberals have just criticized the Government for its cynical attitude, but I would say their Government had a similar policy from 1980 until this year. There is very little difference. For instance, it was the former Liberal Government that refused to give the Auditor General the information he needed to examine the purchase of Petrofina shares by Petro-Canada. Today, after criticizing the Liberal Government's policy, the Conservatives are pursuing the very same policy now they are in power. Both parties take the same view that information must be controlled to benefit the Government in power and should not be used to benefit the public and government in general.

I would like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in August, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), as he now is, then the Leader of the Conservative Party, said in Kingston: "The present Government believes that you have only limited rights to know. Conservatives believe you have every right to know". That was a quote, Mr. Speaker, but there were some words left out. It now appears that Conservatives believe you have every right to know what the Conservatives think you ought to know, and nothing more. That is the chilling effect of the new guidelines which were put down last week by the Prime Minister, the interpretation in the communication to deputy ministers and, more recently, as I know from listening to this debate, by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse).
I found the interpretation and propaganda which came from the Minister of Communications deeply disturbing. It reminded me a bit of the New World Information Order which has been discussed in UNESCO and strongly criticized by the Government and the people of Canada, the journalists of the free world, the United States and most of the other industrial democracies. That is a policy of news management which has been discussed by some Third World countries, which we have been right to reject in UNESCO, and which I would hate to see imposed in this country.

If I may continue, Mr. Speaker, as Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the Prime Minister promised a fundamental change in the Government of Canada if the Conservatives took over from the Liberal Party.
This is why they were elected on September 4. What we see now certainly is a fundamental change, but it is designed to restrict even further the freedom of information of Members of Parliament, members of the press and the Canadian people. [English]
As in so many areas, it seems to me that the Government has reversed its stand and has rapidly and precipitously abandoned its promises of making fundamental changes, the promises on which they were in fact elevated to power. These implications are severe for the press and for us in this Chamber. They are particularly severe for the 250,000 men and

November 27, 1984
Supply
women who work for the Public Service of Canada. Many of my constituents are in fact in that position. They are public servants and they work for the people of Canada. The message which they have received in the first 10 weeks of this Government has been very clear and unmistakable. At first it was, "Check it with Erik. Do not say a thing".
Ludicrously, ministries, including the chiefs of staffs of ministries, were not prepared, at the political level, to give any information to the public or the press without checking it with Erik. We heard the rather overwrought and over-reactive responses of the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in his speech in Alberta and the directives he passed down. It got to the point where diplomats had to carry a ten-foot pole so that they would not get too close to members of the public or the press when they attended social events. During its first ten weeks in office, the Government sought to throttle the flow of information. It got to the point where the Prime Minister and his advisers finally realized they had gone too far.
What has the Government replaced that with? We must examine the statement of policy in the Prime Minister's release last Friday as well as its context. We should also bear in mind that the Government has learned a great deal from the Republicans in Washington whose desire it is to put the electronic media in the forefront, to discourage investigative reporting in the print media and to attempt to deliver one message per day.
I believe that in our vast and complex country with which the Government must deal and because of the fact that we have 70 or 80 missions abroad, it is impossible for the Government to function with one message a day. It is not possible to meet the concerns of dairy farmers, those concerned with acid rain, those who want to know its position on Cruise missiles and those who want to know about a small business program in Nanaimo. Too many people require too much information simply to wait in line for some information from the Prime Minister or whatever Minister is designated to deliver such information.
However, it is the Government's clear intention to have a managed and active policy on what it calls "communications". I suggest that this smacks of private sector thinking. I presume that it comes from some of the Government's advisers here. I would suggest to those people who advise the Prime Minister, such as Mr. White, that this is not the private sector. The Government of Canada is not the private sector and it cannot be managed like a private sector company such as Brascan or Imperial Oil.
When the Progressive Conservatives were in Opposition, they criticized the government for delivering a single message through its advertising strategy and for spending too much money for this purpose. However, the Government's letter to deputy ministers states quite clearly that deputy ministers and Ministers should get together to review current communication policies to ensure that "communications to the public are
managed effectively in accordance with the priorities of the Government". The Minister of Communications stated this very clearly in his speech. He said that objective information should be put out, which, in his view, would be information that would favour the interests of the Government, that is, in other words, the priorities of the Government. Those guidelines for public servants must be read in the context of a communications policy which wants government information to be in accordance with the priorities of the Government and to be carried by primary spokespersons.

There must be a primary spokesperson in each department and each region who will be responsible for departmental communications with members the press, members of Parliament, politicians and the general public. However, we all know, and I have experienced this myself, not simply as a politician, but also as a reporter, that the role of a primary spokesperson is to block information, not to facilitate access to it. For those who are sufficiently knowledgeable to be aware of what information they want, it is also necessary to know the details of a policy or of a government activity.
I was myself a corespondent for the Financial Times of Canada. This is a well-known newspaper with no socialist leanings, but it does a good job of discussing government policies. As a journalist of the 60s, I sat here in the press gallery and I did my job of communicating with Members of Parliament and public servants asking for explanations about government policy. If it had been necessary to always speak to the primary spokesperson of the Government, I would have wasted so much time that it would have been impossible for me to do my job, or else, in most cases, that primary Government spokesperson would not have had the necessary information to help me in my work and I would not have been able to meet my deadlines. Each week, I had to write articles to inform my readers, and it would have been nearly impossible for me to do my job.
In addition, as a journalist, I also had to know, not only things like how many tons of steel were produced the month before, which is factual, but what would be, for instance, the impact of the cutbacks just announced by Mr. Wilson, the Minister of Finance. What will be the impact on the Mari-times, for instance, of the policies recently announced by the Government? Will the regions without the backing of a strong private sector, be able to react with the necessary buoyancy to the action taken by the Government, as it relies increasingly on the private sector and not only on the public sector as was perhaps the case in the past?
These are typical questions which are often asked by ordinary people, journalists, members of the private sector, as well as politicians who want to form an opinion about Government policy.
November 27, 1984



What the Government is saying, however, is that that kind of information will simply not be available. That kind of discussion will not be available because public servants have been told that it is not appropriate to speculate about policy deliberations or future policy decisions. They must not go beyond the discussion of factual information.
I believe we should interpret what factual information is in light of the comments made earlier by the Minister of Communications. In his view, facts are the kind of information which favours the views of the Government.
When the Minister was asked for facts about the impact of the cuts in the CBC, he would not give that information because it was not desirable. He said it would create dissension, tension and problems because such information would cause anxiety for those involved. His advice is to wait until the information is complete and the decisions are made.


An Hon. Member:: Until it is factual.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I suggest to the Hon. Member that factual information could mean that in a year there might be some evaluation paper which indicates that the decisions taken in October of 1984 had the effect of costing more than 1,000 jobs in Radio Canada, particularly in the regional services across the country. That is factual but is still open to judgment, because the CBC could have made those cuts as a result of a reorientation of its policy. Perhaps only 800 of those jobs resulted from cuts, while 200 jobs may have been the result of a separate policy decision. In other words, "factual" is a matter of judgment.
Facts, as they pertain to government, are substantially relative in nature and a matter of judgment. However, matters of judgment, according to the Government, are not to be speculated on or discussed by public servants.
What will happen? There will be a chilling effect, with no information, or the public and the press will be asked to talk only to the political assistants to the Ministers. Those political assistants will eventually say that they cannot do their jobs because people are constantly calling them. They will cease to return calls and information will be throttled in that way.
Perhaps certain journalists, members of the Opposition or even deputies from the Government will have some of their channels restored, but public servants will always face the risk that they will be told to make a note of who they talk to. They may be questioned about what they said. Although journalists or deputies may not consider a certain matter to be on the record, it might be on the record as far as the Department is concerned. We do not know what consequences that will have.
Eventually, when public servants are deemed to be talking too much or are seen with the wrong people at lunch, they will be brought on the carpet and shown these guidelines. They will be told to shut up and not to do anything that might be deemed to be giving succour to the public or to the press.
In conclusion, the Government is giving a very clear message to public servants that if they want to progress they
Supply
should keep quiet, give as little information as possible and discourage free discussion. The Government does not want to allow the free flow of ideas, which is a concept upon which western society has been based. It frightens me that a government that believes in free enterprise and the free flow of ideas in the commercial sector would want to throttle the free flow of information with respect to its policies.
We in the New Democratic Party think that basic changes in the direction of openness should have been implemented by this new Government in its first three months in office. We all know that once a government is in office for six or nine months, the old ways set in and it is very difficult to go in a new direction.
I happen to think that the statement made by the Joe Clark Government in 1979 was a positive statement that went in the right direction. I wish that that had been repeated rather than superseded by the statement made by Mr. Mulroney just a couple of days ago.


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


Michael Morris Cassidy: I mean the Prime Minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have already reminded the Hon. Member a couple of times. The Right Hon. gentleman for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) should be referred to as the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead. The same refers to the Prime Minister.


Michael Morris Cassidy: When the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) was head of the government I thought that government's policy was going in the right direction. I am sorry that that particular precedent has been thrown to the wind.
I would remind members of this House that in Sweden, where there has been a Social Democratic Government for most of the last 50 years, the policy was one of total openness, to the point where correspondence with the ministries is made accessible to journalists, deputies, or whoever wants to look at it along with responses from the ministries. A person can go to any government bureaucracy at nine o'clock and look at correspondence day after day after day. The Swedes have pioneered that kind of openness. It has made for an excellent level of public debate. The Government has not been undermined because different options are being thrown around. People enjoy free discussion. People have the kind of information that has been systematically shut off by our Government over the course of the last few weeks, Mr. Speaker. I point out, in contrast, that when we have sought information about the impact of government measures and cut-backs, that has been consistently denied. Mr. Mulroney said-


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


Michael Morris Cassidy: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister in August stated that Conservatives believe people have every right to know. He made a promise to that effect.

November 27, 1984
Supply
That is a broken promise, one that has been broken not only by the Prime Minister but by all his Government. I call the attention of the Government to the kind of model which the Social Democrats have pioneered in many nations of the world, rather than this propaganda mentality which says that the only information that will come out is that which is favourable to the Conservative Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there any questions or comments?


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). Since he represents the Ottawa Centre constituency, he must have had the opportunity over the weekend to see his constituents, as we all do, to discuss some of these issues. Could he let us in on any reaction he may have had from civil servants who are likely to be affected by these guidelines?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I will remind the Hon. Member the response of the Public Service Alliance which has quite correctly detected the dangers of the policy just stated by the government. I have had a few reactions from public servants but I think that many are frankly afraid to speak openly with a member of the opposition. It will take a little time. Then some of them will perhaps begin to show some courage. However, it is a good thing that some officials could discuss with me the impact of cuts, for example at the National Research Council. They knew quite well that they were taking some risks since the government had clearly said that even factual information given to the opposition about the impact of the cuts could jeopardize their careers.

I believe if that were the case in the early days, the elaboration of the policy as it is now being explained by the Government will simply continue that chilling effect where people will have to meet members of the Opposition in parking garages. They will be making clandestine appointments late at night. This will turn 250,000 civil servants into a bunch of "deep throats", Mr. Speaker. They will have no other option in terms of how they get necessary information, which they believe it is their duty to communicate, because, as the Minister of Communications seems to indicate, factual information, entirely factual information even, will not be permitted to get out if it is unfavourable to the Government.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member aware of the document which was produced in July, 1981 entitled, "Communication Roles and Responsibilities" which the previous government put out? Does he not think that the present guidelines as laid down by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) are far more fair, far more reasonable and will promote more openness than those restrictive guidelines the Liberals had in their heyday?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. member looks and compares the guidelines set out by the Conservative Government in 1979 and then the guidelines set out in 1980 by the Liberals, he will find they are similar. They are almost the same. The guidelines set out last week are drawn largely from that source, with the exception that there is a prohibition on off-the-record interviews. That in itself has a chilling effect. But it is what surrounds those guidelines in terms of the directive about communication policies to deputy ministers, the designation of spokespeople and the way the Government has behaved with respect to information over its first 75 days in office that has created such disquiet, in my opinion, not just among us on the opposition benches but among people working for the civil service as a whole.
The Hon. Member asked whether I am not upset over the guidelines that existed under the former Liberal government. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. As Mr. Mulroney said in August in Kingston-


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


Michael Morris Cassidy: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister said in August in Kingston, the present Government believes that people have only a limited right to know. I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I have to ask for your forbearance. I will change. It is difficult for me to accustom myself to different rules.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If I bring it to your attention often enough, I am sure you will.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I think you will, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: As the present Prime Minister said in August, the present Government believes people only have a limited right to know. He was referring to the guidelines that existed in 1981. If he believed those guidelines were wrong, why has he made them more restrictive rather than more open?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now over. The Hon. Minister for Supply and Services (Mr. Andre).


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to direct a comment to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and suggest that he try to make up his mind. On the one hand he offered as an example the Swedish procedure where apparently anybody can look at any letter. Yet, on the other hand, he criticizes the guidelines that suggest that when our public servants talk in that open way to the media they must also identify themselves. Surely you cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. You cannot call it sinister when, first, it is suggested that when you talk to the media you are to be identified, and, second, it is suggested that you keep things open.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Make everything public. This is news management.
November 27, 1984


Harvie Andre: I want to address the Hon. Member's comments about the so-called policy of releasing only factual information that is favourable to the Government. That is nonsense, and the Hon. Member knows it. One of the biggest releasers of information is an agency responsible to me, namely, Statistics Canada. Every day it releases information, some is favourable to the Government, some is not. There is not the slightest suggestion anywhere from the Government, in these guidelines or anywhere else, that this would somehow be filtered and that only factual, favourable information would be released.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Where are the impact studies?


Harvie Andre: The Hon. Member is making absurd judgments or comments on the intent. He quoted the Prime Minister's statements made during the election campaign. I am glad he did. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre also quoted a part of the letter which the Prime Minister released, a letter to Ministers and deputy ministers indicating the Government's policy toward communications with the public. The Hon. Member quoted only a portion of the paragraph. I should like to read the whole paragraph to demonstrate that in fact it is entirely consistent with and a fulfilment of the promise in Kingston. The opening sentence reads:
In view of the Government's commitment to openness-
There is a statement to deputy ministers and Ministers, made public, that the Government is committed to openness. It is exactly consistent with the promise made during the election campaign. It continues:
-Ministers have also agreed on the need to review with their Deputy Ministers the current communications policies, procedures, resources, and management structures within their departments to ensure that communications with the public is managed effectively in accordance with the priorities of the government.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That's it, that's it.


Harvie Andre: Exactly. The priority of the Government is openness. We are instructed to examine our structures and methods to make sure that we are consistent with the priority of the Government, which is openness.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: If the Hon. Member would read that paragraph objectively instead of pejoratively, he would in fact be applauding the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for this letter. It is an indication of our commitment to openness. The paragraph continues and suggests that at long last we have a government in Ottawa which recognizes that there is a lot of country outside the capital region. It suggests that Ministers and deputy ministers be particularly sensitive to communications to the regions of the country and that they have communication capabilities so that not only the tight little group on Parliament Hill knows what is going on but the whole country knows what is going on. That is the commitment to
Supply
openness the Prime Minister introduced in fulfilment of his promise which the Hon. Member quoted to the House earlier.
I am surprised, although I suppose I should not be, at the crass hypocrisy of the Liberals in claiming that the Government is overly secretive. I cannot count the number of times when, as a member of the Opposition for nearly 12 years, I was stonewalled by the then Liberal government and told that it was none of my business what the government was doing. I cannot count how many times I wrote to Ministers, talked to Ministers, talked to government and talked to officials trying to get some information, only to be told that it was none of my business. Perhaps it is an exercise through which we should go. I wonder how many questions were left-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During debate one can exaggerate, but the Hon. Minister is saying that he talked to Ministers, to public servants and to people over the years as a member of the Opposition and never got a true answer or an answer. I think that is an exaggeration. I know him to be an honest man who talked with us before. He has had information from the Public Service and from the government, and he knows it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. That is not a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, but it is a good point.


Harvie Andre: At the end of my statement the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) will have an opportunity to make his comments. However, it would be an interesting exercise to count the number of questions left on the Order Paper over the last 16 years which were not answered by that government. Perhaps we could have a pool. Personally I would like to pick a number somewhere in the vicinity of 10,000.


John Horton McDermid: And those were only Tom Cossitt's questions.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Eighty-five per cent were answered.


Harvie Andre: They were questions by Members of Parliament asking the government for factual information. They were not asking for opinion.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: As of today, you have only answered five questions out of one hundred.


Harvie Andre: That factual information was not permitted. For the Liberal Party of Canada, with its record, to accuse this Government of excessive secrecy is like the Ayatollah Khomeini accusing Ronald Reagan of being a dictator.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) who spoke earlier delivered a tirade crammed so full of hyperbole that it was almost worthy of her predecessor. If she were sincere in her remarks, I cannot imagine what objectives she would use to describe the behaviour of the previous Liberal government.

November 27, 1984
Supply
The Leader of the New Democratic Party in his remarks acknowledged-and I give him credit-that advice from officials to Ministers should remain secret. He acknowledged that the functioning of our parliamentary system, imperfect though it is, requires that officials be able to provide advice to government and to Ministers in secret. Then he went on to say that something called "studies" should be made public. It makes one wonder just what the Leader of the NDP believes regarding the form or type of advice officials give to Ministers. Surely he recognizes that, depending upon the issue under consideration, all manner of studies, analyses, proposals, opinions, et cetera, are given to the Minister. If it were to prevail that advice which might be considered to be studies must somehow be hived off from the rest of the advice and made available, surely the Leader of the NDP must recognize that studies as such would never be committed to paper. That is the sole consequence, just as I am certain that the consequence of the Swedish experiment about which he talked is less letters and more telephone calls.
As I indicated, the Leader of the New Democratic Party recognizes that in fact it is essential for the workings of our system that advice be available to the Government on a confidential basis. He recognizes that. I applaud him for that. If he truly believes that, he would not continue this absurd charge that somehow the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is not releasing information he ought to release. I believe he must be sincere in his statement that ministers should have the right to receive confidential advice from their officials prior to the formulation of policy decisions, that is in the policy formation stage, that that advice is to be kept confidential for the workings of this place, and that the Minister must then stand in his place and defend the decision taken. If so, then, in all conscience he cannot turn around and say that he has a suspicion that some of the advice the minister may have received from his officials may not entirely support his decision and then demand to be given that information so that he can stand in the House and beat him over the head with it. He cannot be on both sides. If he believes, as I do, that as the system is structured advisers must be in a position to advise the minister in confidence, then he cannot turn around in all good conscience and say that he wants some of that advice released.
As important as the confidentiality factor is in advising Ministers and government, it is equally important, in fact very important, that the Government communicate with the public in terms of its decisions, programs and activities. It is essential to the operation of our democratic system that there be that kind of openness and that kind of communication.
It is for that reason that the Prime Minister issued these guidelines. Hon. Members should read the guidelines objectively prior to reaching their decisions. The opening statement reads:
1.	Communications with the public, including particularly Members of Parliament and news media representatives, are a part of the duties and responsibilities of managers in the public service.
It simply says that communicating our activities, our decisions, our programs, is an important part of the function. It is
a direction to the Public Service to be open and to communicate. It is not a restriction; it is a direction. It continues:
2.	Public servants should be prepared to openly provide-
It instructs them to be prepared, and then continues:
-factual information to the public and the media within their areas of responsibility that describes or explains programs and policies that have been announced or implemented by the government.
The instruction is that public servants are to be prepared to be open on all these questions. To call that somehow a gag rule and to suggest that we are restricting openness is absurd in the extreme. It is a flight of fantasy, it is imagination. It continues:
3.	Public servants should not go beyond this discussion of factual information. It is not appropriate to discuss advice or recommendations tendered to Ministers-
That is simply stating in these guidelines what the Leader of the NDP agreed to in his comments earlier this day when he said that that kind of advice must be kept confidential. He acknowledged that it is essential for the operation of our system that the advice be kept confidential. That fact is stated in point 3. How can that be viewed as a muzzle on the press, a restriction, a gag rule when it merely states in the terms of reference what everybody in the House, I believe in all honesty, agrees is absolutely necessary to the operation of our system?
In his remarks, the Leader of the New Democratic Party said that other jurisdictions have situations where advice is given to Ministers in a formulation. I believe he indicated that that is the situation in the United States. He is totally wrong, as he frequently is. Every democratic jurisdiction recognizes that you have to be able to have open discussions with some confidentiality, discussion with advisers of a confidential nature or you will not get the benefit of that advice. That is all these guidelines state. Discussion on policy alternatives, be they in the form of surveys, studies, opinions or whatever form, which are part of the decision-making process should be kept confidential. Everything else should be open. More than that, Departments should be in a position to provide that information, not just here in Ottawa but around the country. It is an explicit statement here in support of the commitment to openess of the Prime Minister during the election campaign.
It is absurd to have this debate today criticizing guidelines which are a declaration of our openness. It is absurd to say that they are somehow restrictive. Perhaps more absurd is to have that motion introduced by the Liberal Party. It has to be the height of absurdity that the Liberal Party with its record would introduce this kind of motion and suggest that this Government is not being open.
Perhaps the new Government is not perfect, but one area where we do not need lectures from the Liberals and in which I am totally confident is the area of communications. It is the height of hypocrisy and nerve for that Party to stand up in the House and rant and rave about secrecy, given its history. A new era started on September 4. It is an era of openness and
November 27, 1984

accessibility. These guidelines simply make sure that that will happen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I shall now entertain questions or comments.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre). Apparently the minister has not read the letter with the former guidelines which was circulated. That letter was signed by the then Prime Minister, now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). That letter contains a couple of interesting paragraphs which are omitted in the letter signed by the present Prime Minister. I want to draw this to the attention of the Minister and then ask him a question. One paragraph reads as follows:
One of the things we can do is to encourage open and responsive behaviour among public servants in their day to day dealings with the public, including particularly Members of Parliament and representatives of the news media.
That paragraph is completely missing from the present Prime Minister's letter. Instead, we have directives to deputy ministers with veiled threats that their performance appraisals will be affected if they do not clear up their act. Second, referring to Ministers, we have the following:
It is for your decision which levels of public servants in your department are to be authorized to deal with the media. However, in the spirit of the guidelines, this list should be broad rather than narrow.
Nowhere in the present Prime Minister's letter is there any reference to broadening the number of public servants who will be accessible to Members of Parliament and the media. Instead, we have the creation of a primary spokesperson who will be some sort of media czar through whom all information will be channeled. The author of the 1979 letter and guidelines should be concerned about the extent to which they have been subverted.
I want to ask the Minister a specific question. I have before me a copy of the guidelines written by the former Prime Minister, now Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have the guidelines which were drawn up by Cabinet on Thursday of last week. In Kingston on August 12, when campaigning for office, the Prime Minister said, "Not since the last war have Canadians had a government so obsessed with secrecy as they have today".
Looking at the guidelines which are in effect today, comparing them with the guidelines which were in effect during the Liberal term in office, where in the new guidelines is there any indication whatsoever of an attitude of greater openness? The only change in these guidelines is to prohibit off the record conversations with Members of Parliament and with the media.
I agreed with the then Leader of the Opposition that what they have done is to impose a gag or muzzle. How can the Minister stand in his place and suggest they are more open when in fact they have taken a step backwards?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member to again read the opening sentence in the guidelines:
Supply
Communications with the public, including particularly Members of Parliament and news media representatives are a part of the duties and responsibilities of managers in the public service.
It is a declaration. It is part of their duty to communicate. In the letter it says:
In view of the Government's commitment to openness-
If that was not the Government's commitment, why in heaven's name would the Prime Minister write that in a letter to deputy ministers? Why would he write to deputy ministers of this Government's commitment to openness if it were his intention to do exactly the opposite? That is absurd. You are fabricating. You are beating the blazes out of some straw man that does not exist, a straw man of a secretive Prime Minister, of a secretive government, and you are pummelling the devil out of that straw man. He does not exist. Read the document, "This government's commitment to openness". It instructs officials not only to be prepared to communicate with people here in Ottawa, in our cosy little cocoon, but to communicate with people throughout the country so that they might know what we are doing. It instructs Departments to be open and to communicate with the rest of the country. Calling it secretive and imposing a gag is to be at least unfair, if not worse.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Minister seems to be living in some outside world. I remind him that it is not this Government, this Party, or this Opposition, but the media who are seeing you as being secretive. "It is secrety time". "Paranoia starks Parliament Hill". "Tories keep us in the dark". "The Great Stone Wall". "Finance Minister refuses to release information". There are headlines in the media every day. You should read The Globe and Mail.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Will the Hon. Member address the Chair, please.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: In an article in last week's Globe and Mail, Patrick Martin stated as his fourth rule for the Tory dynasty, and I quote:
Centralize the message. "If this Government is going to centrally run anything, its the media," admitted one senior Mulroney adviser on the condition that he not be identified.
This was an off-the-cuff remark.
"Its going to be managed," he said, referring to the message that the Government will allow the press to record.
The Mulroney administration has already become known for this. Ministers have been muzzled-
This Minister has the gall to say that he is part of an open government. It is perceived in the real world as being one of the most closed keyhole administrations we have ever had in 'this country. On top of that, he has the gall to come here today and say to the House that the former government did not answer questions on the Order Paper, when the record will show that 85 per cent of the questions were answered. But his own administration, out of 100 questions, has answered only four. Only four questions have been answered in three and a half weeks. Who is withholding information? The Government is. I beg to say to the Hon. Member, that 85 per cent is a

November 27, 1984
Supply
damn good average compared with his Government's, which is about one-twentieth, or about 5 per cent.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, 1 am heartened to note the Hon. Member's faith and belief in the writings of the media. Apparently he agrees with the view of the media. Therefore, I look forward to his challenge to the Leader of his Party, that is if he supports the view of the media and I look forward as well to his admonition to his Leader to release the letter he and his predecessor exchanged which, as the media has suggested, is most proper.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The election is over.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is a new Liberal Party.


Harvie Andre: Oh, I see, this is a new Liberal Party.
I would only reiterate to the Hon. Member that he should take the facts. There have been suggestions all afternoon that factual information about government activities should be transmitted, and everyone agrees. Will he please take this factual statement of fact. The guidelines state quite specifically that this Government views communications with the public as very important and that the Government has instructed the officials to put in place the mechanism to communicate with the public, not just here in Ottawa, but across the entire country, so that the people in the so-called regions of the country can have the same access to information and can be communicated with in the same way as people in this nice little cocoon in Ottawa.
As I indicated earlier, the reality is that the Opposition is beating to death a straw man with no substance, no soul and no reality. In fact, the real substance of the situation is a government committed to openness and communication with the Canadian public.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: One short and succinct question, with a short and succinct answer. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a factual question. I would remind him that a member of the Public Service was rapped over the knuckles for giving an answer to a certain question. The question was, "Does the Prime Minister have a nanny on the payroll?" If he will recall, the reason the public servant was rapped over the knuckles was that the answer was no, that he had someone who was a maid and who helped out with the kids. Is the question, "Does the Prime Minister have a nanny on the payroll?" a factual question? Could the Minister indicate to the House what is a factual question?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I thought we were talking about factual information. I do not know what is a factual question. I cannot get my head around that. However, I know about the communication of facts. The facts the Hon. Member was alluding to were communicated by the Prime Minister's press secretary. So if he can read, he knows the answer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments is now terminated. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier).


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to speak in this debate, but in view of the irresponsible attitude taken by the Liberal Opposition and especially the article by Jeffrey Simpson published in the Globe and Mail this morning, "The door stays shut", I think I have a duty to take the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the communications guidelines. I must say that since it was elected on September 4 of this year, this Government has been acting very wisely, considering the economic shambles we inherited from the previous Government.
Mr. Speaker, there has been far too much "laissez-aller", and that is why corrective action is necessary and why Canadians have endorsed such action, as expressed in the policies announced by the Conservative Government.
At my riding offices, Mr. Speaker, and everywhere else in Quebec and Canada, constituents favour the measures adopted by this Government. When we came to power we said we would clean up the mess, and that is what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister said during the election campaign that the deficit would be over $30 billion, the Government at the time said he was wrong. Now we know that the Prime Minister was right. When he asked for papers on the economy, the then Government steadfastly refused to provide them. The Leader of the Liberal Party kept saying: No, sir, you are wrong. The facts were different, however. One might say that our predictions were substantially accurate. This Government must now find an acceptable way to deal with the situation. Why were public servants not allowed to provide this information last summer? Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that perhaps they were afraid to release for public consumption information which would have put many people to shame. Perhaps they were hesitant under the previous government, hiding behind the smokescreen of confidentiality or for any other motive, hesitant to come clean with the people. They did not want the people to know anything about the administration of public funds.
People who have been in office in the past know very well that the government had full discretion when it came to releasing information. In that context, unfortunately, all information which Canadians rightfully expected to have to be able to pass their own judgement on the administration was practically unavailable or, at best, diluted. The government did not reveal more than it wanted the people to know. Had the people of this country been kept well informed, it is a safe bet that the Liberal government would have been thrown out a long time ago. Now that we have come up with communication guide-
November 27, 1984

lines, the Opposition screams foul play. Yet those guidelines are designed to guarantee open and responsive government.
During the election campaign, we promised to review the guidelines on Government secrecy, especially those governing the role of public servants and their responsibilities when communicating with the Canadian public. We told the people that we would take action in this area. We did not wait for years as did the previous Government to establish guidelines on communications.
During the Cabinet meeting of November 23, the Prime Minister and all the Ministers reaffirmed our commitment that open and effective communication with the public would be an absolute priority for this Government. The Ministers also confirmed the Government's commitment to the principles contained in the Freedom of Information and the Protection of Privacy Acts. This is a positive, practical and realistic approach on the part of a Government which is open to the people. On the other hand, under our system of Government a Minister, normally chosen among his peers in Parliament, is traditionally accountable to Parliament, and only to Parliament, for the action taken by his department. This is the basic principle of ministerial accountability. In view of this, it is normal for certain restrictions to exist or for certain matters to remain confidential.
In spite of this, our Government will be known as an open government accessible to every Canadian citizen. If after 20 years in power, the Liberals were unable to establish clear and satisfactory guidelines on communications, they have only themselves to blame. If they refused to act and if we have inherited the results of their inaction in this area, they should be the first ones to congratulate us for the initiatives we are taking after less than three months in power.
However, to avoid giving out inaccurate or erroneous information, it is standard practice to provide guidelines for public servants asking them not to comment upon political decisions or certain documents which must remain confidential for security reasons. This is not censorship, but the provision of appropriate information to the people concerned. In this spirit, we can be certain of providing accurate information without distorting its meaning. Government information will therefore be clear and to the point. This is why the guidelines emphasize that all the contacts between public servants and members of the media must be on a non-confidential basis and for attribution by name. I am convinced that public servants should be prepared to openly provide factual information to the public and the media within their areas of responsibility that describes or explains programs and policies that have been announced or implemented by the Government. It is a responsibility and a duty to undertake to do that, as I do with my constituents and people from the media in my constituency.
Supply
People wishing to discuss recommendations or advice as provided to the Minister or to question decisions that might be taken or business currently being addressed should get in touch with the Minister. We are elected representatives, we have received a very definite mandate from the people and it is our duty, especially the Minister, to answer and provide details on the policies of this Government.
Most importantly, we cannot have everybody at liberty to say what we are doing. This is something we have to tell the Opposition and the media, and let them comment if they so wish. We have been elected in a democratic way, and we are assuming our responsibilities, quite simply.
If in the past, guidelines such as guidelines no. 45 issued by the then Liberal Cabinet in March 1973 did put limitations on the information held by the Canadian government, the Conservative Government has attempted to remedy the situation in October 1979 by introducing Bill C-151, the Freedom of Information Act. Had that Bill been passed, it would have made Canada the first federal government with the British type of parliamentary system to have a legislation giving the public access to government documents. In July 1980, the Liberal Government introduced in the House of Commons Bill C-43, the information bill which dealt with the Freedom of Information Act and the Protection of Privacy Act. The legislation was given Royal Assent in July 1982. While Bill C-15 would have provided for an exemption for Cabinet documents, the Freedom of Information Act states it does not apply to such documents. The difference means that under Bill C-15, Cabinet documents would have been subject to provisions concerning judicial review, but they are not subject to such review under the Freedom of Information Act.
By unduly criticizing the guidelines issued by this Government, the Liberals simply confirm their disregard for some of their own bills.
Reference is made to muzzled civil servants, Mr. Speaker. Why, we make sure that public servants can communicate with the public under the guidelines issued by the Liberal Prime Minister who was in office in July 1981. Ministers, so he said, have a responsibility to establish, to delegate adequate powers of communication and information to their own staffs and officials. Public servants are not there to defend this party's policies. In this morning's Globe and Mail, columnist Simpson attacked the government. The government wants its officials to release factual information only and prohibits them from expressing opinions on future policies "in the making". As Hon. Members can see, the third part of these guidelines issued by the Right Hon. Prime Minister have not been changed by the Conservatives.
As to regional information, Mr. Speaker, it used to be badly circulated. As members of the Conservative Party, we want to make sure that officials in the field are fully informed about the various government programs or, when this information is not available, that they are aware of the avenues to get it. You

November 27, 1984
Supply
are certainly aware that a one year study on regional communications, a study commissioned by former Minister Johnston, has just been completed; its findings are that regional information officers cannot properly carry out their duties because they are kept in the dark by Ottawa. The report blames the very low level of knowledge of these officials. We are saying to the Deputy Ministers that they must ensure adequate regional information, so that all Canadians can benefit from it and not only those living in Ottawa, where 80 per cent of all information officers are residing.
Much has been said about the part played by Deputy Ministers in the area of information. We are being blamed for assessing the performance of Deputy Ministers and senior officials in part on the way they manage communications. In fact, as early as 1981, the government added its own criteria in the assessment of its officials. Historically, governments have tried to have it recognized that communications were part of the responsibilities of senior officials. We are emphasizing again this point now that we are trying to clarify the guidelines concerning the information officials may release. And in this evaluation process, we are emphasizing again communication planning. This is nothing new, it is a global approach to management.
We will remind the medias that they will criticize the government if they cannot communicate efficiently. For example, if the government does not keep the regions properly informed, we will be handed as insensitive to their needs.
Mr. Speaker, I think that those comments had to be made and I believe that the media will play their part. We have been elected and I do not believe that a single journalist in Canada was elected to make comments in his paper. If they want to administer the country, let them get elected as we did and support a government who has done very much to promote freedom of speech in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. I regret-

There are no comments or questions. We will proceed with debate.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. It is indeed encouraging to hear the talk from the Government side about openness and consultation. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that when one considers the motion which is being debated here in the House today and the reasons behind it, one can understand why in Canada today there is confusion in the minds of people as to what happened between the time of the election campaign and today.
I would like to quote some of the comments made at that time by the New Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on social programs. The Prime Minister said:
We are committed to ensuring the full participation of every Canadian in the country's economic and social life. We will work to pull down the barriers which restrict full participation.
On regional development funds, the release says:
- in consultation with local and provincial authorities.
Consultation is the big word, it says:
Consultation will be the hallmark of the New Progressive Conservative approach to regional development.
On the offshore, it says:
-fairness, equity and opportunity govern the federal response-
On Atlantic Canada, it says:
-respected and consulted as partners. The Liberal legacy of conflict and bitterness will be replaced by a new approach based on co-operation, consultation and understanding.
On fisheries management, it says:
-mark the end of bureaucratic management of the fishery. The days of highly centralized control of the fishery ... are over. We will usher in a new era of co-operation among the federal government, the provinces, the fishermen and processors.
On policy, it says:
-participate directly and openly in the formulation and monitoring of federal ... policy... More decentralized decision making will result in quicker response times for resolving local problems.
Then we go to the PC handbook in which this is said:
We are committed to giving Canadians a well-managed, efficient and productive government. It will be a government open to public scrutiny-
At all times. On the PC Party in power, it says:
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canade believes that new attitudes and new approaches in government are the most important priority to bring about real change in Canada.
Then we got to reasons for voting Progressive Conservative. It reads:
We will put Canada back to work ... free from excessive government intervention-
We can solve our problems together . . . working closely with other levels of government, with labour and business, and with individual Canadians to solve our problems together. We will be a government that listens carefully, and determines national policies after consulting with the people.
They will be open with the people of Canada. It says:
You can trust us. We have been calling for necessary changes to the style and management of government for the last 10 years.
We will achieve equality for women. We will work closely with the provinces, with voluntary organizations and training institutions-
The PC commitment. .. open, honest and accessible government begins with respecting the role of Parliament and giving it the power required to ensure government accountability.
Then the Conservatives say they are looking to the future. They are going to reduce the barriers to full participation. Well, Mr. Speaker, they might still be looking to the future but they are walking backwards.
When you look at the guidelines which have been talked about here today-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Is that the end of the good part of the speech?
November 27, 1984


George Baker: -selective vision was certainly displayed by some government members. They talked about the guidelines, saying that it is necessary to communicate with Members of Parliament and the general public and media, and then they forgot to read this:
Off-the-record background briefings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances and must have prior Ministerial approval.
Public servants should not go beyond this discussion of factual information. It is not appropriate ... to speculate about policy deliberations or future policy decisions.
Public employees acting in good faith under these guidelines will not be considered as having violated oaths of secrecy.
Then two Cabinet Ministers stand up in the debate and say, "Oh, we have information officers."
I want to make a few points now which have not been made here at all. They have not even been touched on. I think they are perhaps the most important points dealing with any guidelines affecting the behaviour of public servants as they communicate with Members of Parliament, the general public and the media. What if you do not have open consultation? What if you are afraid as a public servant to communicate, exchange ideas or act as a sounding board to let people know what is being considered by the Government? In other words, when you have openness, when a public servant is not afraid to talk to a Member of Parliament or a union or a representative of the people no matter what their position, then you do not have the mistakes that are sometimes made by a government in power.
The question here today should not only be concerning whether public servants are permitted complete openness with Members of Parliament. What should be debated here today is whether the public servant is aware of the decision and formulation of decisions which affect him directly and which he has to administer and answer questions about.
I will give you a couple of examples. The other day a policy was announced which would do away with the fishing vessel insurance plan for all fishermen. It was administered by the federal Government and the policy decision was that it would be privatized. That is along the lines of the policy enunciated during the election campaign by the Progressive Conservative Party. However, it does not do me or a fishermen's union or anyone else much good to phone a public servant and ask: What is the situation today? What is the policy of the Government? If will not do me much good because that public servant has to turn around and say that the policy of the Government is to privatize this insurance scheme. That does not tell you anything. You could turn around and say: Yes, but are they taking into account this and that bit of information? Are they taking into account that perhaps private insurance companies will not be willing to insure certain fishermen presently insured under the scheme? Or: Do you know that this will mean an increase in the rates to the fishermen, perhaps double or triple, which will mean in some cases an extra $20,000 or $30,000 out of the fishermen's pocket this year? Without openness, Mr. Speaker, the public servant answering the question will not have the information and two things will happen. The Minister can stand up here in the House and give a false answer to a
Supply
question. Given the input respecting the measure concerned, the information is not complete.
For example, when I asked the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) a question concerning weather information, she had to say, "Well, we have not really formulated that policy yet. It is going to be done. We are going to charge Canadians for calls to the weather office but we do not know what Canadians we are going to charge". Then the question arises about who is going to make the decision. The Minister says to the media that the Government is consulting with Bell Canada and the telephone companies. Well, you can consult all you want; no telephone company can act as a collection agency for anyone, even a Department of Government. Even more important than that, the general thrust of that policy is to discourage people from calling the weather office, even though that person might be exempt from that charge. The policy is still there. In other words, in the formulation of that policy by the Government of Canada it was operating on misinformation. Someone other than even the Public Service laid that down as a policy for that Department.
If you ask a public servant whether a specific policy has been implemented within the Government, the public servant may say no. If you ask him when it will be implemented, he will say he does not know. If you ask him what is in the policy, he will tell you that it has not been worked out yet. That is certainly not appropriate. Members of Parliament must not be restricted to responses from public servants that this is the policy of the Government or this is the law of the land as it has been laid down.
I will give you an example of lack of co-ordination between government Departments. We often get a reply from the Public Service on what a policy is, without being given an explanation or the opportunity to discuss the matter with the person who is formulating that particular policy with the Minister. In responding to a constituent, the Department of Employment and Immigration gives a particular piece of information about a policy. A policy statement from the Department of National Revenue gives a policy position completely contrary to the first one. Then, through a decision of a judge of the Federal Court we get another interpretation of that policy.
Decisions have been made by the Government since it took power which were ill-founded and based on misinformation. Unfortunately, it is almost too late to change them because the Ministers have been backed into a corner and are not going to change their position. For example, in responding to the royal commission Report on Equality of Opportunity, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) said that the Government is going to do this and that. A public servant could have told her that the worst examples of discrimination in hiring were in the very rules for federal job creation programs which she tabled in the House two weeks ago.
How can that be changed, Mr. Speaker? It certainly will not be changed by my questioning the Minister in the House and

November 27, 1984
Supply
trying to influence her decision accordingly. I do not think that will enable everyone who is available and able to work on federal programs because, as matters stand, if you have not worked in the previous two years, you are not eligible for a referral. If you did not run out of unemployment insurance, you are not eligible for a referral, and if you worked one week in the previous eight weeks, you are not eligible for a referral. The Minister tabled that document in the House two weeks ago and then, in response to the royal commission report, said that she would see what could be done within her Department, not knowing that two weeks previously she had tabled guidelines which violated that very report.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, unless there is openness, public servants will not know the truth. Public servants will not discover the grave error which was made in policy and in the carrying out of that policy within the Department. The Minister of Employment and Immigration stood in the House the other day and said that they will wait until the fishing season closes before considering whether to assist the fishermen in eastern Canada. There was snow on the ground at that point. There were no boats in the water and there was no fishing activity. That night, in response to follow-up question on the Late Show, the Parliamentary Secretary said that there was no special program instituted last year by the former Liberal government. Mr. Speaker, there was a special program but the Parliamentary Secretary was acting on information which he received typed up by a public servant who obviously did not know the difference.
The Minister should be telling public servants who advise the Minister on policy and communicate with Members of Parliament to speak to every Member of Parliament and everyone on the street as openly as possible in order to get all the information. In that way the Government would not continue to make the tragic errors it has made since it took power. The only way to stop those tragic decisions is to have a more open government, as was professed by the Progressive Conservative Party during the campaign. My remarks today apply to any government that is in power. We must have openness or we will have policies which are discriminatory toward the people and do not serve the public good.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, people in the Gallery or Members of the House of Commons who have been here for some years may have the feeling of having fallen through the looking glass. Hon. Members opposite have for years run the tightest ship in terms of secrecy. They are now becoming born-again advocates of open government.
I have served for 12 years as a Member in the House, Mr. Speaker. We, as members of the Opposition, attempted to get factual information from the Government about its activities. Year after year we encountered stonewalling on the part of the Liberal government, attempts to cover up information, systematic abuse of the roles of public servants, and the massive expenditure of public funds for partisan purposes through extremely large advertising campaigns financed by the taxpayers of Canada.
In a few minutes we will be having a vote on the motion of non-confidence which has been moved by the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner). Many of the people who will be voting to condemn the Government on its policies of openness are the very same people-


Mr. Boudria:: And rightly so.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Hon. Member says "rightly so". Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to hear from Hon. Members at any time when they criticize Government policies, if they want us to be more open. However, I think the Hon. Member has an obligation to speak to his colleagues who will be rising to vote. He should ask them whether they can, in conscience, vote in the way in which they will after their experience in the last several years. It was the Liberal government that imposed an Order in Council making it an offence to talk about the uranium cartel. That was a massive cover-up attempting to hide an international conspiracy which was designed to drive up energy prices for consumers in Canada. That government passed a gag order, an Order in Council, which made it an offence for Canadians even to refer to that information.
When we were debating the Constitution, the Liberal Government used the Canadian Unity Information Office, a massive propaganda arm of the federal government paid for with federal tax dollars. They commissioned a large number of public opinion surveys. These were the people, Mr. Speaker, who classified public opinion surveys and refused to release information disclosed in the public opinion surveys to Members of Parliament. To this day the Liberals refuse to release that information, although the surveys are years old.
The Liberal government was responsible for an explosion in publicly funded government advertising designed, not to provide factual information to Canadians, but to provide puffery which was to polish the image of the Liberal Party. Canadians rejected that. They said that something was wrong when a government was incapable of differentiating between the national interest and the partisan interests of one political Party in power. They could not condone the kind of waste of money which took place through the Canadian Unity Information Office. That is why one of the first actions of our Government was to scrap CUIO. It was a message that we would not allow that sort of abuse to take place in the future.
It was the very same Liberals, who will be voting to condemn our Government for its policy on openness, who abused the roles of public servants.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Nonsense!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Liberal Whip, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), sat on this side of the House this spring while I, as the PC spokesman on Revenue Canada, asked for information from the Minister, Mr. Bussieres. He sat there silently while, day after day, Mr. Bussieres either gave false information or simply stonewalled. He sat there without a murmur of protest when Mr. Bussieres sent out a directive to
November 27, 1984

every employee in my present Department that in no way were they to be permitted to speak to Conservative Members of Parliament on the PC task force on Revenue Canada.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is nonsense. Prove it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: In a few moments the Member for Ottawa-Vanier will be rising as a born-again advocate of open government. But his constituents and the people of Canada have the right to ask him where he was a few months ago and where was his commitment to open government at a time when Canadians were asking for factual information with regard to Revenue Canada. He sat there mute or he defended the policies of the previous government.
On September 4, Canadians asked for a change. They said that they had to put an end to this sort of abuse and bring a new government to office that was prepared to open up. In dealing with my Department, Revenue Canada-the same Department that had a gag order on it before-if he wants to get factual information, as the task force did, he can feel free to do so and to request the information. Indeed, I am here daily in Question Period. My officials are under instructions to provide factual information.
That was precisely the point of the guidelines that were issued in the past few days. It was to say on behalf of the Government that we recognize that there is access to information legislation-which we were finally able to press the Liberals into passing-which gives a statutory right to Canadians and Members of Parliament to have information. It was a right that was systematically denied them in consistent cover-ups by the Liberal administration.


Mr. Nunziata:: Not this Party.


Henry Perrin Beatty: We are saying that it is not simply a matter of the Government not passing the sort of gag orders the Liberals had on the uranium cartel and not systematically covering up, but that the new administration has the responsibility to communicate effectively and take its message to the Canadian people.
That is why I addressed 2,000 tax practitioners in Toronto recently to talk to them about the reforms we are introducing in our Department to make it more accessible and open to Canadian citizens. I was the first Minister of Revenue in recent memory who had even gone to the Canadian Tax Foundation to be available to them. The tax practitioners who were present found this extraordinary because they were not used to having someone from the federal government listen and communicate. The Hon. Members opposite with their constant barracking are attempting to shout down a Minister of the Crown who is attempting to give information.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: They talk about freedom of information and cover-up, yet when a Member on the government side attempts to give information, they attempt to shout him down. This is
Supply
exactly the same policy they followed when they were on this side of the House.


Don Boudria: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Our Government is committed to opening up government and providing information to Canadians. We are committed to ending the cover-ups of recent years and to cutting back on federal advertising that was designed simply as puffery to polish the image of the Party in power.
We are also committed to communicating effectively to Canadians the policies which are designed to serve their needs. One of the goals in the guidelines and in the letters sent to Ministers and deputy ministers in the past few days was to say that it is time to communicate far more effectively with Canadians in the regions.
For example, when dealing with my Department in the future, I want Canadians throughout Canada to feel free to contact the district offices to get information on a factual and timely basis. I believe that our Department has an obligation to solicit the views of Canadians and provide information to them as fully and factually as possible.
It is a dramatic change from the policies that have been followed by Revenue Canada in recent years. We saw that the Liberal government shut the public out.
The Hon. Members in the back row were not here during the controversy of the past year. If they were, they would have noticed that when questions were raised there were constant denials. The Liberals denied that there were quotas, that there were abuses and problems, until eventually Members of Parliament, the public and the press were able to prove that the Minister himself did not know what was happening.
When we attempted to get information from the government and talk to public servants, a gag order was issued to every official in the Department not to talk to us. Indeed, there was even an article in the papers which indicated that the then Minister of National Revenue had indicated that if Conservative Members of Parliament wanted information, they would have to use the access to information legislation to get it. Yet those Members today condemn the Government on its policies on openness.


Don Boudria: Rightfully so.


John V. Nunziata: It is a question of honesty.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Hon. Member says that it is a question of honesty. That is exactly what it is. Nothing could be more dishonest than a government which, during the 12 years I have been here, systematically covered up, systematically withheld information, systematically abused the position of public servants, and systematically abused the tax dollars to polish its own image. Suddenly they say that they are committed to open government.
They have a record, and that record speaks for itself. The record shows that they cannot be trusted when they talk about
670

November 27, 1984
Supply
open government because they have abused every opportunity they have had to come clean with Canadians. They refused every opportunity to consult with Canadians. Yet today, in Opposition, suddenly things would be different if they had the chance again.
The Hon. Member says that it is a question of honesty, and indeed it is. I call upon him to ask his colleagues who sit in front of him whether they are being honest when they portray this masquerade that we see today after that systematic cover-up that we saw taking place for so many years.


An Hon. Member:: We have heard your case.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Hon. Member, having raised the question of honesty, says not to mention honesty any more. We should not discuss it. I do not blame him. If our record had been as appalling as that of the Members opposite, I would not want to talk about honesty.
However, I do want to talk about honesty, and Members on this side want to talk about it for a very good reason. We are committed to opening the Government. We are committed to saying that Canadians have a positive right to get information according to access to information legislation. We are committed to directing public servants to give information freely, factually, and on the record.
Members opposite are saying that it should be given in secret and off the record. While they talk about openness, they say that when interviews take place in the future, they should take place in secret. That is the Liberal idea of what constitutes openness.
We want to open the doors and put it on the record. Let us not have secret discussions but open them to the news media.
These guidelines are also designed to protect public servants. The Revenue Canada episode in recent months showed that the Liberals were abusing the position of public servants and making them defend the discredited policies of the Liberal government. Many Members here will have seen The Journal earlier this year when that odious computer film was shown. It was paid for with $200,000 of taxpayers' money. The Liberal Minister did not have the courage to defend the policy himself. He put his Deputy Minister on The Journal to defend it rather than defend the partisan actions of the government himself. That is an example of the abuse of the position of public servants.
Our Government differs from the discredited Liberals opposite by the fact that we believe it is the responsibility of public servants to give out factual information. When it comes to attacking or defending the record of the government, that is the role of the politicians, and it is a responsibility from which we do not shy.
When our task force finally arrived in Ottawa after travelling across the country, it was clear to everyone, including the Government, that Canadians acknowledged that there was a serious problem in the Department of National Revenue. Was there ever a willingness on the part of the members of the Treasury benches to acknowledge any culpability or default in
terms of their responsibility? Was there any feeling of remorse about what had been done to ordinary Canadians? Their response was to fire the Deputy Minister. The Minister remained in his job. This will not be done again by this Government for 12 years. My colleagues and I who were elected in 1972 have fought to restore the principle of ministerial responsibility. The Liberals were there to snip ribbons when new plants were being opened, Mr. Speaker. They were there to present cheques. But when there was a problem, was there any Liberal Minister who was prepared to say, "It was my responsibility as Minister. I stand behind my officials. I take the responsibility"? Those Members who were in the House during that period, do any of them remember hearing the Liberals say that?


Mr. Taylor:: Never.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Let me ask Members who were here during that time if they heard three words. What about the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) when he lost $120 million of taxpayers' money on Consolidated Computer? We had questions raised in the House about that. We had leaked correspondence which the Minister would not table in the House and would not acknowledge-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: -did anyone here hear the Hon. Member for Windsor West or any of his colleagues say these three words, "I was wrong"?


Gordon Edward Taylor: No.


Henry Perrin Beatty: In 12 years I cannot recall an occasion when a Liberal member rose in his place and admitted that a mistake had been made. Yet the Liberals talk about openness. Blame would be shifted to the Public Service; blame would be shifted to the Americans if the economy turned sour; blame would be shifted to the Opposition; blame would be shifted to the Parti Quebecois or to the provinces. It was a policy of blame anyone else, but take the credit when things go right. Blame belongs to somebody else. If the polls started to slide-the Liberals loved polls-you would hear them say, "Don't worry. The taxpayers will fork out several million dollars more for new advertising campaigns". The Canada geese were scrambled and put on display. If there had been an honest portrayal of the Canada geese, they would have been shown flying south like everyone else during that period.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The geese have flown south and the chickens have come home to roost.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
November 27, 1984


Henry Perrin Beatty: This Government is committed to openness, Mr. Speaker. We are committed to the concept of ministerial responsibility.
1 was interested to listen to the Eton. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker)-an Hon. Member whom 1 respect who is a skilled and experienced parliamentarian-talking about the roles of Ministers, the roles of public servants, and whether or not it was appropriate for public servants to be asked to comment on policy matters or whether a Minister should be doing that. The Hon. Member has served, as a member of the government, on parliamentary committees when public servants have been there, for example, on the Estimates. What is the rule the Liberal chairman followed in parliamentary committees in the days of Liberal rule? It is pretty straightforward, Mr. Speaker. It was the role of Ministers to comment on matters of policy. It was the role of public servants to comment on factual matters and to give technical information. But when questions were raised under Liberal chairmen by members of the Opposition which touched on policy, what would the response be? "It is inappropriate to ask a public servant to be drawn into an essentially partisan debate. Those questions should be directed to the Minister".
That is precisely the position we are taking today in the Government. We are saying it is the role of public servants on a timely and factual basis to provide information to the public and to do so quickly, to do so as fully as possible and to be as helpful as possible when inquiries come from Members of Parliament, the media, or from members of the public. But it is the role of the politicians and not of the public servants to attack or defend policy. If we allow that blurring to take place, coupled with the abuse of public servants the way it took place under the Liberals, we will contaminate the public servants and put them in a position where their effectiveness and their ability to do their job is put into question.
These guidelines which the Prime Minister announced on Friday are designed to take the public servants out of that grey area, to give them clear guidelines on what is appropriate and to put a positive onus on them to be forthcoming in providing information and service to the people of Canada. That is to be the goal of this Government, Mr. Speaker. What we will be doing is ensuring that Canadians have information on a timely basis. We are making every effort to open up the doors and windows. We are hearing already from Canadians coast to coast that they feel the change which took place on September 4 was a change important to all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It being 5.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 62(9), to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings.

Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is the following one. Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra), seconded by Mr. Gray, moves:
That, in the opinion of this House, the guidelines issued by the Prime Minister, on November 23, 1984, with regard to the provision of information to the public, are inadequate and retrogressive and confirm the Government's mistrust of and cynicism toward Canadians.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour, please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed, please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
It being after six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.13 p.m. the House adjourned.

Wednesday, November 28, 1984