Debates of Dec. 14th, 1994

Department Of Canadian Heritage Act

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(1)(8) a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.

Call in the members.

and the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The government whip has requested the matter be deferred until tomorrow at 10 a.m. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 17 consideration of the motion.

Access To Information

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is gratifying to know that the spirit of Christmas has fallen upon this House. It was interesting listening to the debate this afternoon.

Earlier this year Information Commissioner John Grace included in his annual report 43 recommendations to close loopholes in the 10 year old Access to Information Act. Mr. Grace stated: "The first decade has shown that the government bent on secrecy can certainly diminish the effectiveness of the access law".

Mr. Grace goes on to say that he wants the new government to have the self-confidence to be scrutinized and the fortitude to be forthright.

Motion No. 304 gives the Liberal government that golden opportunity to take this first crucial step toward restoring Canada's faith. At the top of page 92 of the red book which starts by talking of initiatives to "restore the confidence in the institutions of government", it certainly seems like the Liberal government in the spirit of this motion would have to agree with Motion No. 304.

The information commissioner's recommendation No. 43 states that the access act be extended to all federal government institutions including special operating agencies, crown corporations and wholly owned subsidiaries, any institutions to which the federal government appoints a majority of governing body members, the Senate, the House of Commons, the Library of Parliament and all officers of Parliament.

During debate on motion 304 of November 17, I was listening very carefully to the member for St. Paul's. He made a couple of comments in his address to the House that I would like to repeat.

"At the time of the act"-it was passed in 1982-"there was careful consideration to which institutions should be included in the coverage of the act and which should not". Later in his address he went on to say: "We cannot assume that these were frivolous decisions as to who was included and who was excluded". I thought to myself it was worthy of doing some research on. Was it carefully thought out?

We went to the Library of Parliament to see if we could find out some information about those debates and the reasons why some corporations were excluded and some were not. An article from the Hill Times printed March 17, 1994 is headed: ``Parliament's exemption from information access act perplexing''.

The reporter went back to the key people who were involved in the drafting of the act in the late 1970s and the early 1980s. Strangely enough, all of the people who were contacted said that they could not recall an actual reason for the exclusions. Then the reporter went back to the person who should really have all the information on this, the man responsible for drafting Bill C-43, Liberal minister Francis Fox. He was posed the question, why were these exemptions made? How did he respond? "You got me". That is what he said. He did not know.

We wanted to dig a little deeper into this. We went to Robert Auger, the Privy Council adviser to Mr. Fox and posed the same question. What was the reason for these exemptions? He said: "It is some kind of philosophical assumption that nobody questioned". Nobody has ever questioned this. That comes back to the debate of November 17 and the comments from the member for St. Paul's. I am certain that he did not intend to mislead this House.

Certainly the testimony I have presented today would indicate that there was not careful consideration at the time. At least we should ask questions and maybe even assume that some of these decisions were frivolous and without basis.

Crown corporations have not been open to public scrutiny and this continues to fuel the fire of voter cynicism. Canadians are demanding accountability. They want open government. Is there anything wrong with accountability and open government? It is high time that the government takes action.

Why are crown corporations exempt from the Access to Information Act? Let us look at a couple of them. In the case of the CBC and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, there are concerns that competitors would be able to gain an advantage in their respective markets through access requests.

These crown corporations continue to exist because they are financed by the Canadian taxpayer, not because they are profit making players in the competitive marketplace. This is a pretty strong argument for wanting accountability and access to information on how these corporations are operated. The taxpayers want to know how their hard earned dollars are being spent. Provisions could be made that could protect commercially viable information. Therefore that argument is also put to rest.

There have been numerous examples of the need for public access to information on crown corporations. Earlier this year the National Arts Centre spent $250,000 on a proposal to submit an application for a performing arts television network. If it had not been for the Auditor General's report, Canadians would have been kept in the dark about this ridiculously expensive proposition. The Auditor General said: "The activities of and the expenses incurred for this broadcasting project are beyond the objects and powers of this corporation".

In addition the Auditor General obtained legal opinions supporting the view that a performing arts network was outside the NAC's mandate. If the National Arts Centre had not been exempt from access to information, a private citizen might have been able to come forward with this information, an elected official of the House, or maybe even a journalist would have easily exposed this ludicrous proposal before some $250,000 taxpayer dollars were spent needlessly.

Canadians currently pay for half of the NAC's annual operating budget of $40 million. Do they not have the right to ask certain questions about the operations? The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is financed by Canadians to the tune of $1.1 billion, and yet it operates under the same veil of secrecy as the other crown corporations. Access to information would allow Canadians to question just how that $1.1 billion is spent. Canadians have the right to know.

Again I would remind the House that provisions could be made to protect the commercially viable information that needs to be protected.

According to CBC staffers, costs of production are kept secret, even within its own organization, to avoid jealousies among producers whose shows are given different budgets and to keep writers and others from knowing how little of the pie they actually receive. It is a shame.

Instead of going to Parliament the Auditor General's report on the CBC will be submitted to the CBC's board of directors and made public if and when the board sees fit. The true owners are being deprived of this information on the CBC. Who would they be? The people of Canada.

Access to information would eliminate this cat and mouse game. Again I would like to reiterate this because it is important. Provisions could be made to ensure commercially viable and valuable information would be protected.

Perhaps a crown corporation should file an access to information request just to find out for themselves what access to information really means. When information is kept secret, bureaucrats and politicians could be tempted to do things that they would not do if they were made public. The more information available to Canadians the better off the country will be.

I will give some more examples of the kinds of abuses that I am talking about. There have been abuses throughout history. Perhaps the most famous was that of the Aberdeen Marina, the Hong Kong club where Canada's foreign offices spent some $773,000 on memberships for 34 diplomats and family members. That was back in the early 1980s. Or maybe it was the so-called bridge to nowhere. Members may recall the $2.1 million structure erected in the riding of a federal Conservative cabinet minister. The only problem with the project was that the bridge when built was not connected to any road.

A more recent example, and we may never have the answer to this one, is much taxpayers paid to chauffeur, entertain and put Haitian leader Jean Bertrand Aristide in hotels during his recent six day visit to Ottawa in January.

A local Ottawa newspaper reported that it requested the information under access to information. It was refused by foreign affairs which claimed Aristide's hotel bill was too sensitive and could lead to squabbling among other foreign visitors because they may receive lesser treatment. Do the taxpayers of Canada not have the right to know this information? I think they do.

The Liberal government red book talks of initiatives to restore confidence in the institutions of government. Gosh, that sounds good. According to my research, the government should do so soon. It has an opportunity right now. Freedom of information builds faith like few other policies build faith in the Government of Canada. It slows the build-up of dirty laundry that a future government will only be too happy to wash.

My Liberal colleagues could well learn from the information commissioner's scathing criticism of the Mulroney government's attempt to put roadblocks in the way of citizens trying to find out about how the government made decisions and what those were.

The final piece of evidence that I have today is from a gentleman by the name of John G. McCamus who was involved as a witness in the second reading of Bill C-43 in 1980. He said: "As many critics of the bill have observed, there is one highly visible category of federal agencies which have not been included in the schedule-the federal crown corporations engaged in the supply of goods and services. The exclusion of commercial crown corporations from the access scheme is, in a word, indefensible".

In closing, Motion No. 304 is about openness and accountability. The government owes it to all Canadians to have the self-confidence to be scrutinized and the fortitude to be forth-

right. The passage of Motion No. 304 will help to regain the public confidence in this institution.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege and an honour for me to represent the people in my riding of Shefford, who elected me in the last federal election and who expect a high degree of integrity from us.

It is my opinion that the Access to Information Act should be extended to all government institutions, as tabled in Motion No. 304 by the member for Red Deer. The purpose of this motion is to make the whole Canadian federal administration more accessible and open.

This transparency is necessary if we are to win back the confidence of the taxpayers, particularly in this period of economic austerity, when the federal government is preparing to make cuts in a multitude of social programs, when, at the same time, the heads of Crown agencies are getting rich on taxpayers' money and enjoying privileges beyond the reach of the average Canadian, and when this same government is making thousands of partisan appointments, with no public control.

Nevertheless, in his Speech from the Throne last January 18, the Prime Minister stated that integrity and public trust in the institutions of government were essential. In addition, he said, and I quote: "The Government is committed to enhancing the credibility of Parliament. Changes will be proposed to the rules of the House of Commons to provide Members of Parliament a greater opportunity to contribute to the development of public policy and legislation".

The time has now come for the federal government to table legislation designed to ensure that its institutions and Crown agencies excluded from the Access to Information Act are more transparent.

The Bloc Quebecois particularly wants to stress the need for federal institutions such as the Senate and Crown corporations to be transparent. The public should be able to scrutinize the actions of these bodies which are undemocratic because non-elected and more likely than not using taxpayers money.

For the sake of democracy and to make the current system more transparent, the Bloc Quebecois can only concur in the March 1987 report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, which recommended that the Access to Information Act apply to all federal institutions, including administrative tribunals, the Senate and the House of Commons.

This committee recommended at the time that the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act apply to all 53 parent Crown corporations and their 127 wholly owned subsidiaries. These corporations and their subsidiaries had assets tens of billions of dollars in assets over which the public has absolutely no control.

On the other hand, these recommendations did not apply to other corporations, including 140 subsidiaries that were not wholly owned by Crown corporations and 26 joint ventures and mixed enterprises, of which the capital stock is jointly held by the federal government and other levels of government or organizations.

The report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General states that there are certainly other entities with no capital stock for which the federal government has the right to appoint, directly or through a Crown corporation, one or more persons to the board of directors or similar body, with the public being systematically excluded from the process, except to foot the bill.

Canadians pay for all that. Therefore, they have a right to know. Since these are theoretically Crown corporations, the taxpayers of Quebec and Canada are entitled to and should know how these corporations are administered. That is why they must be subject to public scrutiny.

I would like to ask a question in this House: Why are some Crown corporations subject to the Access to Information Act while others are not, when they all receive public funds?

The burden of proof rests on the federal government. The Liberals-yes, the Liberals-must keep their word and restore trust in public institutions.

You will tell me that we all want to see positive changes and ensure that our political institutions and Crown corporations operate with honesty and integrity.

I know for a fact that these issues were raised by the Liberals when they were in opposition. Now that they are in power, I hope that some of them will remember the importance of making public institutions more open, accountable and honest.

Quebecers and Canadians have never been so disillusioned with federal institutions, public administration, politicians and the public sector.

The people must be able to trust those in power. Obviously, they have little confidence in the federal government, while the credibility of public institutions is steadily eroding.

This disaffection may be attributable to several factors: some elected officials committed indiscretions while others governed arrogantly, it must be said.

Citizens are unhappy because they are not really consulted, because their views are ignored, because public affairs are dealt with behind closed doors as soon as they become crucial.

Quebecers and the people in the rest of Canada are disappointed and unhappy with the poor quality of many public services, given government overspending and the tax burden imposed on them.

Although Quebecers and the people in the rest of Canada attach great importance to social programs and our democratic heritage, they are annoyed by the apparent confusion among the various public powers. Likewise, duplication in federal government services is unacceptable to all our taxpayers.

I agree with the essential part of the motion proposed by my colleague from Red Deer, that all publicly financed government institutions should be subject to the Access to Information Act.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, everything to my hon. colleagues in the opposition, particularly in the third party, seems simple and very easily fixed. I suggest that this shows a lack of imagination and a lack of understanding of the complexity and sensitivity of much that we in government have to deal with.

My hon. colleague from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt leaves the impression that everything that is secret is somehow evil, that nothing which is personal or concerns individual Canadians is or should be confidential.

I would remind him that even public boards like boards of education and municipal councils at the local level deal with personnel, legal and property matters in camera and not in public.

However, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Red Deer for putting this motion forward at a time when Canadians are losing trust in their political institutions, or were. All of us must be active in finding ways to promote more open and accountable government.

However, in searching out these various ways to promote more open and accountable government, we must recognize that our institutions face a variety of other challenges equally important to Canadians.

For example, Canadians want government to cost less, to be more efficient and to operate in a more business like manner. In come cases it may be necessary to balance the value of openness with these other values.

Although I find the objectives behind this motion laudable I cannot support this motion for three reasons. First, we must be concerned about the impact this motion will have on the competitive position of crown corporations. I do not say the impact is great or small, merely that before adopting this motion I would want to hear directly from those crown corporations on this issue.

Second, in times of fiscal restraint we must stop and ask what will this motion cost the taxpayers? How will those costs be paid? The fact is that processing access requests requires an access to information bureaucracy and costs money.

The third reason I cannot support this motion is that it fails to distinguish between different kinds of crown agencies and different institutions of Parliament.

The motion is too broadly worded and as such disagrees with the findings of the 1986 parliamentary committee report "Open and Shut" and with the most recent report of the information commissioner.

Returning to my first reason for opposing this motion, I am not convinced it has struck the proper balance between the competing values of open and accountable government on the one hand and smaller, more efficient government on the other.

The motion asks that crown agencies be subject to the scrutiny of the Access to Information Act. There are presently more than 130 crown agencies subject to the act. I assume that the hon. member means by crown agencies those crown agencies not yet subject to the act. In particular, I assume he is referring at least in part to crown corporations.

It is with respect, particularly to crown corporations, that the balance between efficient, competitive business like crown agencies and open, accountable enterprises becomes most important.

The basic question is whether crown corporations which have mandates to operate in a business like fashion, sometimes in competition with the private sector, should have to work under different rules than their competitors. If you believe that crown corporations should act like businesses, why would you impose a different set of rules on them?

If you believe crown corporations should not be competing with the private sector at all, that is a completely different question. Subjecting crown corporations to the scrutiny of the Access to Information Act will not terminate the crown corporations if that is your goal. It will simply make them less competitive, more expensive and less efficient.

I would not want to make a decision on the motion before the House until I know more about the implications. I am not prepared to support the motion at this time.

Another reason why I do not support this motion is that we do not have enough information about what the potential cost to the taxpayer will be. The fact is processing access requests costs taxpayers money. The most recent report of the information commissioner says that the annual cost of processing access requests is $20 million and that the current fees are not designed to recover costs, but merely to deter trivial requests.

Adding institutions to be covered by the Access to Information Act is saying that the government needs to spend more money. Where will this money come from? How much will it cost? Whatever it costs we know that it is a cost that private business does not have to incur and therefore will make crown corporations less competitive, at least to the extent of the cost of processing access requests.

I do not say that the cost of processing access requests cannot be justified. The information commissioner says that $20 million is a bargain for such an essential tool of public accountability. He may be right. All I am saying is that we should not adopt motions based on good intentions without first asking the basic questions of how much will it cost and who will pay.

Also, I am reluctant to support this motion because of the report of the parliamentary committee that examined the Access to Information Act in 1986. Its report is called "Open and Shut". That committee considered a broad range of entities which might be made subject to the Access to Information Act. It concluded that it would not be appropriate for all crown agencies to be made subject to the act. It thought a definition of crown corporation should be developed and should be limited to corporations in which the crown has a controlling interest and which provide goods or services to the public on a commercial basis. It thought there should be special exemptions for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, mentioned significantly by my hon. colleague, in relation to program material.

With respect to Parliament, the parliamentary committee was of the view that the offices of senators and members of the House of Commons should be excluded from scrutiny of the act. It said the relationship between such elected and appointed officials and the electorate is sometimes described as akin to solicitor-client privilege, and parliamentary privilege is involved. Therefore, the committee suggests their continued exclusion from the scope of the act.

The committee thought that the Access to Information Act should not apply to the judicial branch of government and therefore not to the Federal Court, tax court, Supreme Court of Canada. Perhaps surprisingly, the committee thought the act should apply to administrative tribunals which perform quasi-judicial functions.

The committee recognized that the federal government is involved in joint ventures with others, notably the provinces, and in those cases thought it would be best if there were negotiations with the provinces before making such joint ventures subject to the Access to Information Act.

Here we have a parliamentary committee that studied the issues very carefully.

The considered conclusion was that it would go too far to include all crown agencies and at least in the case of the CBC it saw merit in examining the special circumstances of crown corporations that would become subject to the act. It saw merit in excluding courts, MPs' offices and federal-provincial joint organizations.

I am not prepared to say that parliamentary committee was wrong in making these judgments. I think it goes too far to say in a sweeping statement that all of Parliament and all crown agencies should be subject to the Access to Information Act.

In conclusion, I support a comprehensive, careful review of the Access to Information Act and I will support amendments aimed at improving access to government information. I may well support extending the application of the Access to Information Act to crown agencies not yet covered by the act, but I cannot in all conscience support a motion that fails to distinguish between various kinds of crown agencies that might make the correspondence I receive from my constituents automatically subject to the act and that is voted on without hearing from executives of crown agencies not presently subject to the act.

I think the better approach is to take the Minister of Justice at his word that it is time for a review of the Access to Information Act. Let him draw upon all of the expertise we can acquire and use the full parliamentary procedures, including committee hearings, to produce the best set of amendments possible.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by saying that committee would decide many of those things which the hon. member has just talked about.

I am sure he, as a fine parliamentarian, is also aware that a private member cannot initiate a motion or a private member's bill which is going to cost the government more money. Therefore, I think it would be appropriate for the member to make sure that he gets on the record at some point that he well knows what the purpose, plan and policy of private member's motions and bills is.

I would like to make a few comments about Motion M-304 which my friend from Red Deer brought in. I think it is excellent, quite frankly, because the government has said it was going to do all kinds of things with access to information but here we are well over the one year birthday and precious little has happened again in that vein.

Let me just refresh your memory, Mr. Speaker. I do not know where you were on July 11 but I was in the bush in Beaver River having a wonderful time getting some rest and relaxation. I do not get the Ottawa Citizen out there nor do I get Canada's national newspaper, the Globe and Mail . Nonetheless, let me

look at some of the things that were going on while you and I were away from these hallowed halls on July 11.

The Ottawa Citizen , July 11 stated: ``Justice Minister Allan Rock is promising an overhaul of the federal Access to Information Act so it is more in line with public expectations of openness in government''. We have read about openness in government in the red book and in any number of places. He thinks it is now out of date, very much in need of an overhaul. My friend just suggested that it certainly is in need of an overhaul, but when? When are we going to see any changes in this thing? We have been promised all kinds of legislation. We have had take note debates on just about every subject we could dream of and yet there is no action.

We have been in the House now almost a year in this new session and we have seen precious little come forward in terms of tangible, get your teeth into it kind of legislation.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

You cannot keep up with the action.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across might be surprised at how I could keep up to the action.

The justice minister says the present act reflects the state of the art as of the mid-1970s. We are not in the 1990s. Before he gets it together, dear knows, we will be into the next century and into the 2000s, I am not sure how we will say that. However, he says people's expectations of government are different. There is a need for more openness. For heaven's sake, that is absolutely right, the Ottawa Citizen is bang on.

There is a word here that is going to go through my comments over and over again, a motif, and that is the word secrecy. If anything would disgust the Canadian public it is a government that sits in here and does not talk about secrecy but acts secrecy. That is really frustrating for people.

Members of this House are all aware of the need for accurate, complete and timely information. The Access to Information Act which was brought in on July 1, 1983 talked about openness and making sure that people had access to some information if they really needed it, not just for fun. It is time consuming for people to dig up information as well as expensive because you are paying people to dig up that information. The bottom line on that is what is the cost if we do not do it?

If we ignore access to information, if we do not go ahead and process people's requests and have them accessible to the information that they really need, that people are demanding, what is the cost if we do not do it?

I think there are some long term costs there that the hon. member might think about, especially when he is campaigning in the next election.

We take this as a right of the Canadian people. Along with rights that we all have come responsibilities. We as parliamentarians have responsibilities to the Canadian public, after all it is paying our cheques.

Many companies, crown corporations, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, cabinet ministers' expenses, if the public is paying the bills, why should it not have some of this information at its fingertips? It seems ludicrous to me that we would say sorry, there are certain parts of the act that are exempt and so we do not have to tell you.

If anything is going to frustrate people-and on a school board as well, as my hon. friend mentioned earlier-if anything frustrates the parent teacher association it is going to a meeting and demanding that they look at the minutes, because they are paying those bills too. When I was participating with school boards in my teaching career it would be ridiculous for people involved in the school system to say we do not think you should have access to that information.

I taught in a small school in a small town and nothing would run you out of town faster than a parent teacher association or the parent advisory council saying "what do you mean, you are not going to tell us? We are paying your salary and you had better let us know some of this information".

There should be few state secrets at any level.

Speaking of secrecy, in the Times Colonist from November 17, 1994, very fresh, a few weeks ago, the title of an article was ``Weak Government's Lapse into Secrecy''. Freedom of information works great when things are going well for government but it is a different story when the going gets tough. That is for sure.

This person says government information in the electronic age should be preserved as a national resource. Government should help people gain access to it and should be held in easily obtainable form. In other words, people should be able to have access to this with computers and the electronic highway and everything else that we have. There should be absolutely no reason for secrecy.

The Ottawa Citizen on January 22, 1994 said that not only is it so secretive but that once you do crack through on that on access to information, if you are going to get any information out of it, it is slower than molasses in January, when this article was written. This person says that one of the most common complaints about access to information is that it is slow and getting slower. If there is anything we need in this bureaucracy it is not slow and getting slower. That is for sure.

Ten years ago almost 79 per cent of requests were completed in 30 days or less, while 6.3 per cent took more than 60 days. Now only 57.5 per cent are completed in 30 days and 21.4 per cent take longer than 60 days. This looks vaguely familiar, what

I see every day across the way, a government that says it is bringing in legislation on this and that and the next thing.

I have been tallying what was an actual government sponsored, initiated, carried through to fruition bill in this House. It was not something from Kim Campbell that was held over and was going to be updated and change the name of departments and move ahead with this and that. The Tobacco Smuggling Act was something that this government could take credit for because it started it, carried through and finished it, whether it was good or bad is immaterial. Everything else was something left over.

"Public information, political property", from the Globe and Mail , Canada's national newspaper, July 5, 1994, when we were out of the House again. Public information, should it be public property? Of course. Is it? No. It belongs to the government and it keeps its claws and talons right into it. Heaven help anyone who tries to find out anything. From Toronto Star last January 29: ``This law errs on the side of secrecy. When you get into thorny areas, it gets very cumbersome''.

If there are people who are finding this tedious, perhaps they could mention this to the hon. justice minister and he could perhaps get something through here. I would hate to think we were keeping anyone up.

In 1983 the Liberals were the government and I was not here. The Toronto Star says: ``When the act was passed 33 statutes were exempted, cabinet discussions and tax information, for example, under section 24''.

Under the Conservative government in 1986 the Liberals were here too: "In 1986 a parliamentary justice committee said section 24 should be repealed because it was undemocratic". Imagine such a thing in this institution.

Let me finish by reading an article from November 18, just a few weeks ago. This was from the Ottawa Citizen : Canadians don't enjoy an open and accountable federal government''. It could not have been a Liberal that wrote that article surely, because they have told us for months now that they have an open and accountable government:Instead they are saddled with a bureaucratic culture only marginally less secretive than a decade ago'', we know who was in power a decade ago, ``when the principle of access to information held by government was first enshrined in a new federal law''.

I do not want anyone to think we are making light of this, surely. Only some of the faces are a little different over there and you and I looked at them all in the last Parliament, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately it seems many of those faces are the same. The names have changed. If anything shrouds this piece of legislation which has been in place for years now, if anything is going to send us on our Christmas recess and make it look like this place has not changed a bit, it is if this government is not really committed to changing the Access to Information Act.

We welcome real, substantive changes to that. We look forward to 1995 and hope that we have far more substantive legislation in place that we can support.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on the motion from the member for Red Deer, since the very essence of this motion is in line with what the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for and I should say that it is also what my constituents in Chicoutimi expect.

The objectives of the Bloc and the official opposition are clear and precise. We want greater transparency and openness in the management of public affairs and respect for the taxpayers' acquired right to know what the government is doing with public funds.

This motion says that Parliament and crown agencies should be subject to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act. At present, the Access to Information Act, passed in 1982, gives access only to federal government documents. Under this law, therefore, government institutions must make their documents available.

Nevertheless, there are exceptions. Some of the 112 federal crown corporations and several government agencies, including the House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament and officers of Parliament are not subject to this law.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that the Access to Information Act must be extended to any government institution financed with public funds. In a democratic system like ours, public affairs must be run as openly as possible. That is what our constituents want. Openness, yes, but it is a word which frightens my colleagues opposite.

We see it in the way they have run the affairs of state for a little over a year. Need we mind you of their reticence and great lack of openness on many issues? First, on Bill C-52, concerning the Department of Public Works and Government Services, the Liberal government persists in blocking any amendment which would make this department's awarding of government contracts more open. It is hard for members of this Parliament to obtain relevant information on their riding from this department.

Members of Parliament are the last to find out about the reorganizations going on in their riding. In Chicoutimi, a reorganization of post offices was announced to the public after the fact. Moreover, firms of consulting engineers or architects were never told why they could not bid on certain contracts.

A public inquiry might shed some light on how these contracts are awarded, but I imagine they are reserved for friends of the regime. You will also remember this whole episode when the Minister of Canadian Heritage wrote to the CRTC about an application. Some said it was a lack of ethics, others talked about a lack of transparency, while others concluded that it was patronage. The government did not follow the principle of transparency, and was caught in the act. It is Bloc Quebecois members who dared to reveal that the Minister of Canadian Heritage got personally involved in issuing a broadcasting licence.

And the Prime Minister did not even take any sanction against that minister, who had intervened. The Prime Minister even had the nerve to excuse his minister by saying that other Cabinet members had also been involved in similar patronage activities. The government also objected to the bill on public financing for political parties. That speaks volumes about their desire to ensure transparency. Past experience tells us that the main financial backers of political parties are usually the ones who get lucrative government contracts. These people are called friends of the regime.

Then there are the reports of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which are submitted to the Solicitor General. However, the solicitor refuses to let the parliamentary subcommittee on national security have access to these documents. Why was that subcommittee set up if it cannot have access to the reports tabled by the agency responsible for monitoring intelligence activity?

Given this lack of transparency, which is becoming more and more prevalent, the Access to Information Act remains one of the only means for elected members of this House, and Canadian taxpayers, to obtain information on the operations of departments and government agencies, including crown corporations.

Thanks to that act, MPs were able to have access to the findings contained in a SIRC report. SIRC concluded that the inquiries conducted by one of the branches of CSIS are not related to threats to Canada's security, as defined in the act but, rather, to threats to the security of private businesses. In conducting such inquiries, CSIS duplicates the operations of the federal and provincial police forces.

As my colleague from Bellechasse pointed out a few days ago in this House, it is unfortunate that parliamentarians are the last ones to be informed of such allegations. Without the Access to Information Act, this government would not reveal anything, either to the official opposition or the citizens of this country.

This time around, the government cannot deny the public its right to scrutinize the management of public affairs, which are financed in large part through the taxes it pays.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the objective of making the whole federal administration accessible and transparent, for the sake of fairness and equity.

We have been elected by our fellow citizens; our mandate is to report to them on the activities and functions of the public administration.

Moreover, the Access to Information Act should also apply to the Senate, an institution which is appointed, not elected.

However, the act should not apply to government agencies and crown corporations which hold confidential information for the purpose of competition, insofar as that information is concerned, but the act should apply to them in the case of general information such as expenditures, budgets, trade practices and personnel management.

In view of the many examples I have just listed, the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this motion since it promotes more transparency. Let us hope that our friends opposite will know enough to take advantage of this opportunity.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise and speak in support of the motion in the name of the hon. member for Red Deer which reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Parliament and Crown Agencies should be subject to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act.

This is a timely motion. Yesterday afternoon I attended the public accounts committee of which I am a member and regularly attend. We have been having problems getting some information from the government regarding a $2 billion loss this country has suffered. The taxpayers are out $2 billion and we have been trying to find out who actually caused the loss. Was it the Ministry of National Revenue? Was it the Minister of Finance, or was it the Department of Justice?

Officials were in front of the committee and we were trying to determine who was responsible. Was it bad advice from lawyers? Was it bad decision making by revenue and finance?

When the Minister of National Revenue was in front of the committee he gave a complete and detailed report. He said that the public accounts committee had every right to read the legal opinions which had been obtained from the Solicitor General's department on a particular case but we were not getting them. He was prepared to say we had every right to have them but as far as he was concerned we were not getting them.

Now we are debating access to information. I think access to information is a fundamental part which goes to the very heart of democracy. We on behalf of the taxpayers should know and have every right to know. When the taxpayers lose $2 billion they have every right to know who made the mistake. Therefore,

access to information is more fundamental than most people think.

Think of other situations. A couple of months ago we were all distressed to find out that the Commissioner of Official Languages was driving back and forth between Ottawa and Montreal in a chauffeured limousine courtesy of the federal government, just because he would rather live in Montreal than in Ottawa.

Access to information would help us to find those things out earlier. It is the taxpayers' money. Not only is he being driven in a chauffeured limousine between Ottawa and Montreal because he likes to live in Montreal but works in Ottawa, but we have also given him an apartment that I think costs $15,600. We are paying that because he likes to live in Montreal but his job is in Ottawa and he needs a place to hang his hat while he is here. We find these things out.

The chairman of CN Rail needed a place to hang his hat too so he got a $300,000 interest free loan from CN. Who owns CN? The taxpayers. Does CN make a big profit? CN is subsidized. There is a major loss of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money but the chairman said: "I am worth it. I do a good job for this organization. I need and should have a $300,000 interest free loan in order for me to do my job better".

I am sure many taxpayers would agree with the idea that they could do their job better if they had an interest free loan of $300,000 but they cannot have it. There is a Liberal member over there who suggests that perhaps he could also do his job better if he had a $300,000 interest free loan. Only one, his seatmate, disagrees but that is by the way.

The point we are trying to make is that if we had the information, people would be a lot more careful about the way they spend taxpayers' money than they do. If it is secret they do not have to answer to anybody; just keep it under the table and everything will be fine.

I looked at the Access to Information Act. I opened it up and looked at section 13. The subject in subsection 2 is that the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record. This is the Access to Information Act. I thought that must be an aberration. Section 13 deals with information obtained in confidence, but that is okay. He could perhaps refuse that one.

How about federal-provincial affairs under section 14? The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this act. How about section 15, international affairs and defence? The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this act.

On it goes. Under section 16 on law enforcement and investigation, the head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under the act. In section 17 concerning the safety of individuals, again may refuse to disclose.

By the time we get through to section 24 we get to statutory prohibitions. Virtually every document is protected and not open to information, to scrutiny, nor to the taxpayers who pay millions of dollars for this organization. The House of Commons has a budget of $243 million. That does not include the Senate. That is for here. Think of the mountains of paper we produce, all secret.

The Reform Party in the last election said to cut $300 million or $400 million out of subsidies to crown corporations. That gives an idea of how much money they are losing. It is in the billions every year and nobody has the right to find out how they are losing the money, what kind of service they are producing, or anything along those lines.

Surely the taxpayer who is footing the bill has the right to know. That is all we are asking. It is not very much. They are forking out about 40 per cent of their income every year in income taxes and it is all secret. The government denies them access. It does not get back to them to say what it is doing with their money.

The honourable thing to do would be for the government to support the motion. The member for Red Deer put this motion forward seriously thinking that we would take note of the fact that Canadians need to know and want to know and government will work a lot better if they do know.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time provided for Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, do you want me to start right now? It is not on MIL Davie but on fisheries.

Excuse my English. I was just trying to maintain a good relationship with my colleagues. I hope the people will forgive me. I want to reassure French speaking Canadians, I am not

being assimilated. I was just practising my English. After all, at least 15 per cent of my constituents are English.

I am pleased to rise this evening to address a question I have asked in this House concerning the repatriation of fisheries management. This question was put to the Minister of Fisheries on December 6. As usual, I was not satisfied with the answer and, therefore, intend to ask the question again this evening.

On November 16, I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans whether or not he intended to make changes to administrative responsibilities regarding fisheries, as requested by the Quebec fisheries minister at the federal-provincial conference of fisheries ministers held in Victoria on November 1.

I also asked the minister if he intended do comply to this request along the lines of what Quebec is asking for.

The minister's answer was very clear. On November 16, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans indicated that he had been asked this question by several provinces weeks or even months earlier.

The minister understood the demands made by the provinces in order to improve administration of this resource and to eliminate unnecessary overlap in the fisheries sector.

Indeed, Quebec had reached this conclusion several decades earlier. Unfortunately, since another Liberal government was in power at the time, in 1983-84, it decided to repatriate management. Today, in 1994, we still have to enter into negotiations merely to recover what was taken from us.

The minister went on to say that he intended to respond directly to reorganizing the fisheries sector and that he looked forward to continued good dialogue and discussion with all of the provinces. He even added, "including Quebec". You will understand why I was anxious. Finally, we had someone who was willing to take action.

I raised the matter again on December 6. At that time, I asked the minister why he had not responded to the request from the Quebec government, because the Quebec government had expressed, through a letter, its desire to make official the claims that had been made at the federal-provincial conference.

The minister responded to me in a way that I would qualify as boastful. I expected something else from a minister. He said that it was a shocking thing that fully 35 days had passed. But when a minister is getting ready to table a fisheries plan that will affect all the Atlantic provinces, I think that 35 days is a long wait.

Thirty-five days of silence, it is a long time, when Quebec is putting forward a serious and important proposal, asking the minister to start the negotiations.

My message is: Does the minister intend to table in this House a planned schedule for meeting with his provincial counterparts, and to inform the population of Quebec and Canada of it?

He has been a minister for 14 months now, and nothing is happening. All I am asking him is: Does he have a plan, an agenda to meet with his counterparts from Newfoundland, Quebec and British Columbia?

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Gaspé that the issues raised by Minister Landry are serious and require careful consideration.

He should also know that the whole question of federal and provincial roles and responsibilities and the management of marine fisheries is of key concern to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Far from ignoring the Quebec government's proposal I can assure my hon. colleague that the questions raised by Quebec are being carefully analysed. I do not believe that the hon. member would expect an immediate response to a proposal that calls for a fundamental restructuring of federal and provincial roles and responsibilities in the marine fishery.

I understand that the Quebec government is seeking increased responsibilities in marine fisheries management and has devoted a great deal of energy to formulate its proposal. However, given the multilateral nature of the Atlantic fishery and the federal government's responsibility to ensure the conservation of the resource, I believe that his request needs to be addressed in the context of multilateral discussions of fisheries.

For example, it is essential that we strive to reach a federal-provincial consensus on historic shares that will meet the needs of all stakeholders before we can move on to consider specific proposals.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has also indicated that in order to consolidate the views of all stakeholders on licensing reform and processing capacity reduction he will be launching an Atlantic round table in early 1995.

I trust that this series of round table consultations will offer an opportunity to the Quebec government as well as to the other Atlantic provinces to play a constructive role in the design of the fishery of the future.

Finally, I would like to respond to the comments made to the Quebec government regarding overlap and duplication in federal and provincial programs and services. As part of the government wide program review exercised, the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans has undertaken a thorough review of its programs with a view to maximizing efficiencies and eliminating costly duplications.

Extensive consultations have led to the establishment of important co-operative agreements in the fisheries sector which demonstrate that federal and provincial fisheries programs can harmonize without putting at risk local interests with tangible benefits to taxpayers and clients.

The Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans remains firmly committed to the path we embarked on some months ago which is designed to achieve new efficiencies and forge new and productive partnerships of all the stakeholders in the fishery.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on November 24, I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question on an order to deport Mrs. Thérèse Sabadin and her two children to the Seychelles. Mrs. Sabadin had suffered physical violence and had received death threats from her husband, who was convicted and subsequently deported to the Seychelles.

Although this was a very sad case, Mrs. Sabadin was deported with her two children to Barbados and then sent back to Canada. This involuntary trip was very expensive for Mrs. Sabadin.

Finally, as a result of numerous representations by the Bloc Quebecois and several women's organizations, the minister agreed to allow Mrs. Sabadin's application for permanent residence to be processed in Canada.

Mrs. Sabadin now has to wait several months before she can get a ministerial permit. Until then, she will have no status in this country and will not be able to work. Without official papers, she will also have trouble obtaining social assistance and will have to wait at least a year before she can get permanent residence status. To apply, Mrs. Sabadin had to pay $700, which she did not have, in administrative costs. She had already paid $650 for her initial application. Action réfugiés Montréal, a community organization, paid the fee on her behalf.

In this House, I have often criticized these fees as arbitrary and unfair. Recently, even the Liberal member for Winnipeg North was critical of this abuse of people in need by the Department of Immigration.

I would ask the minister to be more sensitive to the plight of women who claim refugee status on the grounds of fear of persecution because of their gender.

It is now ten days until Christmas and two weeks before the end of 1994, and I want to take this opportunity to send my best wishes to my constituents in Montreal North, especially those of ethnic origin, the Italians, Haitians, Arabs, Latin Americans, and so forth.

I also want to send my best wishes for health, happiness and peace to all new Quebecers and new Canadians. Despite the feelings of hostility that are apparent in some sectors of public opinion, I believe that most people still support immigration and opening our doors to refugees fleeing persecution. To the thousands of immigrants and refugees in Canada and Quebec, I want to send a message of support, understanding, solidarity and hope.

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration confirmed for the hon. member on November 24 in this House that this case was being reviewed by immigration officials.

The minister had previously advised a colleague of the hon. member on November 17 that immigration officials conduct an additional review in cases where there may be new information that may or might alter a decision to remove a person.

Such reviews may be conducted when in keeping with the authority delegated by the minister to managers, a manager of a Canada immigration centre determines that there might be additional information.

In this particular case a manager in the CIC in Montreal granted a two week reprieve in this case to give the individual an opportunity for further review.

I am pleased to advise the hon. member that the additional review has been completed and immigration officials have determined that the individual and her children should be allowed to remain on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The individual and her counsel have been advised of this decision.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Since the hon. member for Châteauguay has to leave immediately, we will hear the hon. member for Chambly.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in reply to two questions I recently asked in this House about the new regulations increasing bonds to be posted by customs brokers, the Minister of National Revenue referred me to the Canadian Association of Customs Brokers which seemingly supported his approach in this matter.

First of all, let me say to the minister that the picture is somewhat different from what he told us then. On November 24, the association held a meeting where 883 members gave their opinion on the advisability of these new regulations. The results of the vote were 803 against the regulations, 74 in favour and 6 abstentions. Because larger brokerage firms have multiple vot-

ing rights, the final result was 135 against the regulations, 141 in favour and 7 abstentions.

A study conducted by Brian Hull and Associates, a well-known economist from Ottawa, for the coalition of small and medium size brokers, shows that the new regulations unduly favour the larger brokerage firms. If they were to be subjected to the same standards as smaller brokers, they would see their security bill jump $1 million in one case, and between $150,000 and $180,000 in other cases, while they now pay only $30,000 for a maximum security of $10 million.

We can see the advantage given to these larger brokerage firms by this new administrative policy. Does the minister know that small and medium size brokers, those who broker 20,000 imports or less per year create 2,500 direct jobs in Canada and that their disappearance by a stroke of his pen would have a dramatic effect?

Does the minister know that with these new standards only 19 brokers would remain in Canada thanks to the privilege he would be giving them by instituting a ceiling of $10 million for the security they must post.

Let me quote the conclusions of Mr. Hull's study.

The effect of this new ruling by Revenue Canada for account security and the disproportionate burden of its impact as between large and small firms is to place the Government of Canada in violation of the basic principles of conduct on which the Competition Act of Canada is founded.

The effect of the new formula is to, first, impede the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy; second, restrict opportunities for Canadian competition in global markets, while discriminating on behalf of foreign competition; third, seriously impede the opportunity for small and medium sized enterprises to participate in the Canadian economy; and, fourth, to reduce the choice of competitive prices and services available to Canadians.

A $10 million security on a monthly invoice of $250 million is only 4 per cent, while a $1.8 million security for smaller brokers is 100 per cent of their monthly invoice.

Does the minister, who is trying so hard to protect importers, realize that large brokerage firms are just as likely as small ones to go bankrupt? I would even go so far as to say that large diversified companies, with interests in transportation, storage, handling, run a higher risk. Take real estate development, for example, Campeau Corporation, the Reichman brothers and others went under before all the smaller companies disappeared. In the insurance business, did some large companies not go bankrupt before many small ones?

If the minister is really committed to protecting the public, here is my suggestion: First, he should go back to the formula where everyone had ten days to pay duties and taxes, the way it is in the United States and the way it was in Canada before these interim payments, which are at the root of all our problems, were instituted. He should keep security at 100 per cent of monthly billings and make all brokers, large and small, equally responsible.

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the department is considering increasing the security requirement for obtaining release prior to payment of duties and taxes to 100 per cent of the average monthly invoice up to a maximum of $10 million. This action is being considered in direct response to the number of cases where brokers fail to deliver to Revenue Canada funds received from their clients, the importers.

Since importers remain liable, they have had to pay a second time to the department. As most brokers' clients are small businesses the department needs to ensure increased security to protect them and the jobs of the more than one million Canadians they employ.

Extensive consultations have been undertaken with the Canadian Society of Customs Brokers that negotiated a master bond program to make it easier for their members to meet the new security requirements. Discussions have also been undertaken with the Canadian Importers Association. Whatever is decided I do not believe any financially viable broker will be forced out of business.

Brokers are already provided with the flexibility to arrange for some of their clients to post their own security or to deliver interim payments to the department. Although many brokers have few assets in their companies they may also restructure their financial arrangements by using personal assets to obtain security.

A recent enhancement has been discussed that would assist both brokers and importers in obtaining security. The requirements for importers posting their own security, whether or not they use a broker, would be based on an amount equivalent to the duties and taxes payable on a monthly basis, less the goods and services tax.

This enhancement could make it easier for brokers to arrange for some clients to obtain security and enable them to protect the remainder of their clients from the consequences of default. As well, the cost of doing business for most of the 8,000 importers who deal directly with the department would not increase.

In conclusion, this enhancement is being discussed with the Canadian Importers Association and the Canadian Society of Customs Brokers, both of whom are contributing positively to resolving this issue.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before we adjourn this evening, I would like to say a few words on a more personal note.

Chief senior page, André Frechette, has now worked most capably in the House for forty-two and a half years. Imagine, forty-two and a half years of putting up with members of Parliament.

Tomorrow our Speaker will, I believe, pay tribute to Mr. Frechette and his long years of capable service to the House. Unfortunately I cannot be here and I would like to do so now. Can you imagine how many thousands of services Mr. Frechette has done for so many hundreds of members over those many years? We are all deeply in your debt, sir.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all of us in the Bloc Quebecois wish to join you in extending our best wishes to Mr. Fréchette on his retirement and say how much we have appreciated his work here in the House. I have had that privilege for the past ten years, and I want to say that although we will miss you very much, you truly deserve a wonderful retirement.