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.

Shame!

Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):

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.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):

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?

Hear, hear!

Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):

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.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):

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.

Hear, hear!

November 27, 1984

Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):

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.

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)

Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):

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?

Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):

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?

Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):

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.