Debates of March 22nd, 1995

Access To Information

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make on this bill. It is a pleasure to speak in support of the motion of my colleague, the member for Red Deer. His motion states:

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 very appropriate motion as it would make these agencies more accountable to Canadians. If one thing was made clear by the results of the last election, it was that Canadians demand accountability from their governments and their institutions. They are no longer willing to accept governments and institutions that help themselves to the public purse. They are demanding value for their money instead of governments and institutions that take hard earned tax dollars for granted and make their deals behind closed doors.

One of the best mechanisms currently in place to give Canadians some control over these institutions is the Access to Information Act. This act lets Canadians take a look at government books for themselves. This is only fair. In Canada we pay a very high amount of tax and we have every right to know how the government is spending the money.

In this respect the Access to Information Act serves as a useful tool to keep an eye on the appropriateness of government spending. All members in the House can show they support this right of Canadians by supporting this motion. It would be a gesture very much appreciated by Canadians.

As a farmer, I would like to use the example of the Canadian Wheat Board in speaking in support of this motion. I was shocked recently when I requested information on the pension plans and wages for Canadian Wheat Board commissioners and staff. Regarding the pension plans, I asked for a breakdown on employer versus government contributions as well as the age at which the commissioners and staff are eligible to receive benefits. My request was denied by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on the basis that the Canadian Wheat Board does not fall under the terms of the Access to Information Act.

As a grain farmer and a member of Parliament I was appalled that I was refused information regarding pensions which I am responsible for funding. I can inform the House that the level of secrecy under which the Canadian Wheat Board operates is increasingly viewed with resentment by western farmers.

It further makes me wonder why the Canadian Wheat Board is so insistent on secrecy when a notice that compensation figures for executives and managers of Canada's major banks was recently released, presumably with no danger to the future operation of these banks.

Financial figures are available for the upper levels of just about every other corporation in the country and yet the Canadian Wheat Board insists on keeping its financial data a mystery. If banks can release this information, it shoots down the argument that the wheat board needs secrecy to remain a competitive player in the marketplace.

I wrote to the wheat board urging them to reconsider its policy. At that time I stressed this would go a long way in re-establishing the trust and confidence of other grain farmers in dealing with the wheat board. In turn, I was contacted by the wheat board. It provided me with some general salary information, but not in the detail I originally requested. Moreover, I was

told that the general information is only available to wheat board permit holders.

This experience shows how frustrating it can be for Canadians if they are trying to get financial information about a government agency that is not covered under the Access to Information Act.

I am not alone in my frustration with the wheat board. Recently a publication called the Prairie Agricultural Digest featured an article that asked why things at the wheat board are so secretive. This newspaper wondered what makes the wheat board so different from virtually any other privately traded or government corporation. The only answer they could come up with is that the people running the wheat board are either arrogant or out of touch.

The newspaper has embarked on a campaign to make the wheat board more accountable. Grain farmers can fill out a card directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. The card states: "I am very opposed to the secrecy of the Canadian Wheat Board, and the board's consistent refusal to answer questions regarding the salaries, pensions and other benefits the wheat board commissioners and other employees receive. I oppose the Canadian Wheat Board being exempt from the freedom of information act".

Apparently these clippings have been flooding into the newspaper office. This sends a clear message that farmers are fed up with the secrecy, but it is a sad comment that they have to take this drastic action in order to try and get accountability from an agency that is supposed to serve them.

The wheat board has advertised a position described as fitness instructor. How much sense does it make to have a fitness instructor on staff but not have an access to information officer that could answer questions about how the board spends its money.

The issue of accountability also becomes important when we look at the pasta industry in the country. Pasta producers in western Canada came to see me around the middle of November claiming heavily subsidized pasta from Italy was coming into the country and they could not afford to operate any more.

When I showed my facts and figures to the prairie pools, they had no answers. The Canadian Wheat Board sells durum wheat to the Americans for the pasta industry and we also sell it to Italy.

The Americans bring in 40 million kilograms of pasta for a value of approximately $84 million. This pasta costs about $2 per kilogram. The Italians ship 17 million kilograms of pasta at $19 million, which is about half the price the Americans are charging for their pasta in this country.

I asked the prairie pools if they could explain how we could sell durum wheat to Italy, ship it over there, have it manufactured and brought back into this country for half the price. Is it not subsidized? They could not give me a reasonable explanation.

It makes you wonder what is going on when you do a little digging and come up with some of these figures. It creates a stronger argument for openness and accountability at every turn.

The Winnipeg Commodity Exchange is a totally open process. A public gallery allows you to actually watch the trading. That is the type of openness the Canadian Wheat Board should be trying to achieve, otherwise we are left wondering to whom it is accountable.

It is not just Canadians who are upset with wheat board secrecy. American farmers are getting very upset with having to compete with this bureaucracy. It is not the Canadian farmers they do not want to compete with, it is the large, secret dealing wheat board they see as an unfair competitor.

I am not advocating the dismantling of the wheat board, but this illustrates how, when when operating with a shroud of secrecy, people automatically suspect that you are not playing above the board. By dropping this shroud of secrecy the wheat board could avoid many of these problems.

When the wheat board came into being, it was a dual marketing system. That is what farmers want again. The time has come for the government to give Canadians the accountability it promised in its red book, and put an end to the secret dealings of government organizations like the wheat board.

The Reform Party has always stressed the need to be more accountable and responsible to the people who elected us. We have always stated clearly that the common sense of the common people should be respected. They have the right to be consulted on public policy matters. They have the right to govern themselves through truly representative and responsive institutions.

In the Liberal government's red book it states: "People are disappointed by and irritated with the poor quality of service provided by many public institutions, given the cost of government and the taxes the government are taking out of citizens' pockets. A Liberal government will take a series of initiatives to restore confidence in these institutions of government. Open government will be the watchword of the Liberal program".

We have been waiting for evidence of that open government, but so far it has been lacking. Canadians have watched in frustration as billions of dollars were funnelled through crown agencies such as the CBC, Canada Post and the wheat board, and they are waiting for action.

The time for that action is now. This non-partisan motion can be supported by all members of the House because it goes beyond party politics and achieves a purpose that is equally important to Canadians from coast to coast.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address the motion raised by the member for Red Deer. I compliment him on raising the issue of public access to information held by crown agencies and Parliament.

It is obvious from the debate that has ensued from the motion, and indeed from the voices of Canadians across the country, that there is need for greater openness and accountability in government. I agree with the spirit and objectives of the motion of the member of the Reform Party. I cannot, however, lend my support to it because I find it is lacking the comprehensiveness needed to achieve appropriate improvements.

In keeping with our commitment to make government more accountable, open and honest while at the same time controlling costs, the justice minister fully intends to consult with Canadians to develop more comprehensive and up to date access to information legislation.

My constituents in Etobicoke-Lakeshore along with other Canadians are calling for updated and forward thinking legislation. It must involve a careful examination of the complete framework of the Access to Information Act, with careful consideration being given to each institution. By expanding the coverage of the Access to Information Act to Parliament and crown agencies, as the member has suggested, all practical implications must be taken into account.

In our efforts to control the deficit and achieve economic recovery the government has had to modernize programs, making them more effective and cost efficient. The values of openness must be balanced with fiscal responsibilities. I believe it is the government's role to assist Canadians in the evolution that is currently taking place across Canada and around the world. That is why the government is looking at ways to enhance public access to information.

With the explosion of new technology and the evolution of government policies greater openness and transparency are needed to ensure that government structures and programs are geared to the highest priorities of Canadians. The Liberal government's policy defined in the red book is to promote more open and accountable government. Our commitment to it is demonstrated in the introduction of several initiatives aimed at restoring government integrity. The review of agencies, boards and commissions, the introduction of amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act, and reduced costs in the operation of the House of Commons are just a few of the initiatives.

Canadians are demonstrating faith in Parliament. According to an international poll conducted by the Times Mirror in the U.S., Canadians ranked highest among the eight of the world's richest countries in confidence in their legislative institutions. Our Prime Minister has said that we have managed to restore the prestige of this institution. It is a credit to all members of Parliament who were elected, whatever their opinions and options.

With this in mind I believe we should look beyond the motion and support and participate in the justice minister's upcoming review of the access to information legislation. The opinions of access experts, the information commissioner and individual Canadians who have an interest in the act should be taken into account.

Numerous recommendations have been made since the act came into effect in 1982 by the two successive information commissioners. Its effectiveness as a supporting tool to democracy has been monitored and assessed over the years through the courts and by a parliamentary committee of the previous government. Most recently recommendations have been submitted to the information commissioner advising a broadening of the access law. One by one the provinces have been enacting their own access legislation, including Ontario.

This too must be assessed in the modification of this very important legislation. In our review we must be sure to look to the example of other foreign democratic governments that have developed similar legislation.

The people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore continually remind me of the importance of incorporating new technologies into more efficient and open government. They tell me to remind the justice minister that his review must be sure to take into consideration the advice of the information highway advisory council and the blueprint for improving government services with new technologies. This thorough review will go steps further than the motion does. It is the best way to ensure enhanced openness of government for Canadians.

I also question the addition of other agencies to the existing legislation. I agree with the suggestions of my constituents that the government consider improvements to the existing legislation rather than simply adding agencies to the current schedule list.

The recent report of consultants to the information commissioner has recommended measures such as increases to request fees, swifter and more open responses, a reduction in years for accessibility to cabinet documents, et cetera. The recommendations should be considered, focusing on government account-

ability rather than, as the motion proposes, expanding the legislation to cover more independent agencies.

Crown agencies independent of the government should be subjected to scrutiny. This is provided for in other ways. In this area of the legislation our priority should be planning for a modernized access act that benefits Canada through open and accountable government.

The hon. member for Red Deer stated in his motion that he would like to see Parliament and crown agencies subjected to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act. The motion would give a general definition to crown agencies. This open ended wording does not define exactly or take into consideration the individual circumstances of the various agencies.

Modified access legislation should take care to carefully define the specific relevance of institutions to the federal government. We would be wise to follow the listing methods contained in the majority of provincial access legislation. Different laws apply to different institutions and the different laws may constitute varying applications of the law.

The wording of the motion could also lead to increased litigation in an already overflowing courts system. I can easily foresee differing interpretations of the law being used by an agency in an attempt to exempt itself from the access legislation. This would eventually end up in the courts, further burdening the legal system.

In this manner the motion would only serve to decrease the efficiency of an institution while increasing the cost to taxpayers. That is not the goal of the Liberal government.

Before considering such broad legislation suggested by the Reform Party member, one must take into consideration the implications of the motion on Parliament. It is important to protect the personal information of a constituent when considering applying the access act to the offices of members of Parliament and senators. All sorts of questions arise and we must ensure that greater thought be given to the privacy of the individual taxpayer. Any legislation must therefore be precise in its purpose and the motion is certainly not precise.

I believe the motion was an excellent stimulant for initial debate on the subject of access to information and government openness. The motion offered general amendments to an act that requires more detailed reworking. Knowing that the justice minister is planning a more full and comprehensive review of the Access to Information Act I cannot support the member's motion. Further, I cannot emphasize enough the value I place in a thorough consultative process with the Canadian people.

[Réjean Lefebvre, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on Motion M-304 brought forth by the hon. member for Red Deer with respect to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

The objectives stated by the hon. member for Red Deer tend to be very similar to those of my own party. As a matter of fact, in our view of democracy, it is very important that public financial management be characterized by transparency and openness.

All the hon. members of this House were elected by people who want and have a right to know how their money is managed, this money we take off their pay cheques every week for taxes of all kinds. The people of Quebec in particular want to know what the Canadian government is doing with their money and what they get back in return.

The Access to Information Act is one of the tools available to them and I think it should be amended to apply also to crown corporations such as Air Canada and Canada Post Corporation, government agencies such as the Senate as well as public office holders who report directly to Parliament, like the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Auditor General of Canada.

As I said, the Bloc Quebecois firmly believes that public administration should be as transparent as can be in a democratic regime. But this is not always the case here. Too many government institutions are still not subject to the Access to Information Act and I think that it is high time that the scope of this act be broadened to force these institutions to operate in a more upright and honest way.

The government continues to hide far too much information that could be useful to the public. Take the Senate for example. Partisan appointments to some of the best paid positions in the government are made by the party in office. The public has no say in the process, nor does it have access to the information circulating within the ranks of the government. That, in my opinion, is not very transparent.

Yet, transparency is essential to regain the confidence of taxpayers who are increasingly wondering about the way their money is spent, considering the national debt and the numerous cuts to social programs and other government services.

In his Throne Speech made in January of last year, the Prime Minister 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 Prime Minister also

said that, to achieve this agenda, integrity and public trust in the institutions of government were essential.

It goes without saying that a relation of trust between the government and the public is vital. However, we realize that no such relation exists when we see the resentment shown by Canadians toward the federal government.

This is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to give weight to his words by taking concrete legislative measures to ensure greater transparency within the public institutions and agencies.

Of course, the Access to Information Act plays an important role in providing information to which the public is entitled. However, we must not forget that certain types of information must remain confidential so as not to prejudice the competitive position of certain Crown corporations.

The relevant legislation, the Privacy Act, is particularly important because it has the effect of protecting information, the disclosure of which might be injurious to national security. That is why this confidentiality has been recognized by means of exemptions provided under the Act. It also protects the interests of individuals, both with respect to personal information and information of a commercial nature. However, it is probably true that the corporations and institutions exempted from this legislation are not necessarily motivated by concern that information might be disclosed to competitors but may be simply reluctant to reveal to the public certain threatening aspects of their activities.

In any case, the complexities of a system for access to information on government administration are well beyond the scope of the motion presented by the hon. member for Red Deer. Here the concern is not, as it says in the motion, to require that Parliament and crown agencies be subject to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act. As we have seen, there are two sides to this issue: providing access to information while reinforcing measures to protect privacy.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois, in the name of our democratic principles and in its resolve to increase the transparency of the present system, agrees with the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General released in March 1987, which recommended that the Access to Information Act should apply to all federal institutions, including administrative tribunals and the Senate.

The Bloc Quebecois insists above all on the importance of full transparency, especially with regard to the Senate. As I said earlier in this House, people are entitled to have access to information issued by this non-elected level of government.

Quebecers and Canadians are dissatisfied with the present government, which keeps important information from them and which ignores them by not taking their views into consideration and dealing with important public matters in secret.

They are unhappy with the treatment they receive from federal institutions, public servants, politicians and the government machine. This is why the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the essence of Motion M-304 and believes the Access of Information Act should apply to all publicly funded government institutions. It is time to get on with it and implement real and effective access to information legislation that will reflect our concern for true and just democracy.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 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, 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.

People in my riding of York-Simcoe and Canadians from across the country want government to cost less, to be more efficient and to operate in a more businesslike manner. In some cases, it may be necessary to balance the value of openness with these other values. Although I find the objectives behind the motion laudable, I cannot support this motion for three reasons.

First, we must be concerned about the impact the 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 these times of fiscal restraint we must stop and ask what this motion will cost the taxpayers and how those costs will be paid. Processing access requests requires an access to information bureaucracy and costs money.

The third reason I cannot support the motion is that it fails to distinguish between different kinds of crown agencies and different institutions of Parliament. The motion is too broadly worded. As such, it 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 the motion, I am not convinced it has struck the proper balance between the compet-

ing values of open and accountable government on the one hand and the smaller, more efficient government on the other hand.

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 the hon. member means by crown agencies, those crown agencies not yet subject to the act. I assume he is referring at least in part to crown corporations.

It is with respect to crown corporations that the balance between efficient, competitive businesslike crown agencies and open accountable enterprise becomes most important. The basic question is whether crown corporations which have mandates to operate in a businesslike fashion, sometimes in competition with the private sector, should have to work under different rules than their competitors.

If we believe that crown corporations should act like businesses then why would we impose a different set of rules on them? Of course, if we believe crown corporations should not be competing with the private sector at all, that is a completely different question. Subjecting the crown corporations to the scrutiny of the Access to Information Act will not terminate the crown corporations, if that is the 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.

Also, I do not support this motion because we do not have enough information about what the potential costs to the taxpayers will be. Processing access requests costs taxpayers money. The most recent report of the information commissioner says that the annual costs 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 it is a cost that private business does not have to incur. Therefore it will make crown corporations less competitive, at least to the extent of the cost of processing access requests.

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

As well, I am reluctant to support the motion is 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.

The committee concluded it would not be appropriate for all crown agencies to be made subject to the act. It thought a definition of crown corporations should be developed and should be limited to corporations where the crown has a controlling interest and which provides goods or services to the public on a commercial basis.

The committee thought there should be special exemptions for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 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 the scrutiny of the act. It said that the relationship between such elected and appointed officials and the electorate is sometimes described as akin to solicitor-client privilege. Parliamentary privilege is involved and therefore the committee suggested 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, the Tax Court or the 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. In those cases it 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 committee's considered conclusion was that it would go too far to include all crown agencies. 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 the parliamentary committee was wrong in making these judgments. I think it goes too far to say in a sweeping statement that Parliament and all crown agencies should be subject to the Access to Information Act.

I support a comprehensive careful review of the Access to Information Act. 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.

However, I cannot 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 the crown agencies not presently subject to the act.

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 the expertise we can acquire and use the full parliamentary procedures, including committee hearings, to produce the best set of amendments possible.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in this very important debate on Motion No. 304. This is a motion which I believe everyone in the House should support. What better way to show Canadians that we got the message the people sent a little more than a year ago?

If we can ever say that when Canadians go to the polls they speak with one voice, it was in the results of the 1993 election. The electorate wanted fundamental changes to the way politics are conducted in this country. Canadians took great pains to ensure that a message was sent throughout the political world.

If politicians ever thought they were above the people or in some cases above the law, that election proved to be a great leveller. Now that we are here, it is important we do not breach the trust which was placed in us.

Parliament is subject to the charter of rights and freedoms. How can Parliament and the crown agencies establishes and is a shareholder in not be subject to the Access to Information Act? A committee in the last Parliament studying the Access to Information Act likened it to the charter as one of the fundamental tenets of our society. Therefore it seems to me that if we are bound by one we should be bound by the other.

I know the Access to Information Act is used by opposition MPs and the press to dig up as much dirt as they can in order to embarrass the government during question period. The concern on the government side must be that if the access net is cast even further, that it will simply involve more work being put into question period presentations. The potential for embarrassment will simply be enlarged. That could happen.

Is the answer not simply to ensure there is no potential for embarrassing matters to be brought to light under the access procedure by assuring that crown corporations are run in a sound and efficient manner? The answer is not to limit the application of the Access to Information Act but to ensure MPs and crown corporations act in a responsible manner with taxpayers'dollars.

We are here to exercise a trust. That trust has been placed in us by the people of Canada. We are to be good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. The money collected by Revenue Canada is not our money to do with as we please; it belongs to the people of Canada. If we keep this in mind every time we do something on this hill or in our constituency offices, then we have nothing to fear from the Access to Information Act. We have everything to gain.

Suppose that tomorrow we all became subject to the act, then weeks go by without any stories in the press about mismanagement of public moneys or about trips being taken which could not be justified. Think about how that would raise the opinion of the electorate in this group it elected in 1993.

Surely the same reasoning applies to crown corporations. With them not subject to the act, there is a perception that something is going on behind closed doors. All of us have been here long enough now to have participated in in camera meetings of committees. The perception is that once the doors are closed and the sound recording is turned off, real and momentous decisions are made which affect the life of this country.

Those of us who have participated in those in camera meetings know that nothing is further from the truth. However, the perception is that we should open up the process; open up the process for both parliamentarians and crown corporations. Between us and the crown corporations billions of dollars of taxpayers' money are spent, presumably for the good of the country. If this is the case, then the public has a right to know. If it is not the case, then surely letting the public know becomes a first step along the road to cleaning up waste and mismanagement.

The rule of law is the foundation upon which our system of government is built. It was established hundreds of years ago in Great Britain during the reign of the Stuart kings that no one, not even the crown, is above the law. This is the cornerstone of the rule of law. We are all equal under the law and no one is above the law. We are equal in that the law applies to every one of us in the same way. Be we rich or poor, white or black, it applies equally.

Again, no one is above the law. No matter how high you have scaled the corporate ladder, no matter which political office you occupy either federally or municipally, when you look up, the law of the country is still above you.

If these beliefs are true, and we all know they are, then how can we work here knowing that a law which is designed to open certain parts of government to public scrutiny does not apply to us and to the crown corporations? I do not believe we can justify this situation. We must act to ensure that laws such as the Access to Information Act apply equally to all, including politicians.

This will send an important message back to the electorate. It will show that we have learned from the mistakes of the past. We have learned to listen to the people of Canada and act upon what we have heard.

We have a message and the message is loud and clear: We are to be frugal stewards with taxpayers' money. We are not to receive anything more in the way of benefits than the ordinary taxpayer. And we are not ever to assume that we are above the law.

Parliament must act and let the sun shine in. It must act in a positive way to tell Canadians it has nothing to hide. We have been good in this Parliament in this regard. We have opened up to scrutiny the meetings of the Board of Internal Economy which would have been unthinkable in years gone by. It is important that we send out the message that we are open to scrutiny ourselves. If we have nothing to hide then why put up barriers? If there is something to hide then we and the crown corporations are not acting in the best interest of the taxpayers. This deserves to be exposed.

I urge all members from all parties to support the motion. The end result will be a strong message sent to the government to amend the Access to Information Act. It will then be up to the government to show that it still stands behind the promise of openness it made in the last election.

I seem to remember the Liberals promised openness and fair play in that red book they keep talking about. They promised openness and fair play to the Canadian people. Passage today of motion 304 will help to do this.

We on this side of the House will be waiting and watching. The people of Canada will be waiting and watching. If the government does not act on this matter we can rest assured the people of Canada will act at the next election and elect a group that will let the sun shine in on Parliament and its workings.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure to stand today to close the debate on M-304, a motion to extend access to information to Parliament and crown corporations.

This will demonstrate the openness of Parliament and the accountability and transparency of government. I have been very impressed with the quality of the speeches and how many people have spoken positively about the motion.

Basically four concerns have been raised which I would like to address very quickly. The first concern is that members' private business and budgets would come up for more detailed scrutiny. Mr. John Grace, the access to information commissioner, assures me there are protections within the present act so that would not be threatened.

The second concern is that there will be changes to the Access to Information Act and that it is on the justice minister's timetable. The justice minister is extremely busy right now and I would question how soon access to information would come up.

The third concern which has been raised is that the motion did not have enough detail in it. That concern was addressed probably better in the last Parliament when a number of Liberal members said that we did not need to have all that detail. Besides, this is a motion and the details can be added.

The fourth concern mentioned was that the competitiveness of crown corporations would be affected. I would like to read this from the access commissioner to assure members that it would not be the case. It states:

It is my view that the existing exemption provisions provide the necessary protection for sensitive information in the hands of crown corporations. Sections 18 and 21 provide ample opportunity for crown corporations to provide valuable information as well as corporate strategies and plans.

Therefore I do not believe that is a concern.

Because those things are not a concern and because this is a non-partisan issue, I strongly ask that all members consider voting yes for M-304.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.49 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 93, the time provided for this debate has now expired.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

As is the practice, the division will be taken on a row by row basis starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour of the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the mover. Then those in favour of the

motion sitting on the other side of the House will be called. Those opposed to the motion will be done in the same order.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion lost.

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

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to pursue a question that I asked of the minister responsible for ACOA last week.

I asked him if he would explain to the House why he cut millions of dollars from a national defence program set up to help Atlantic Canadian communities hurt by base closures.

The Department of National Defence transferred the $30 million program to ACOA because the regional agency is believed to be in the best position to deliver such programs in Atlantic Canada. The ACOA minister has turned around and slashed $10 million from the program.

When I asked the minister to explain the cuts, the parliamentary secretary to the ACOA minister said that the government would take my concerns under advisement.

That is not a good enough answer for the people's whose lives will be affected by the minister's actions. Maybe the reason the minister cannot offer an explanation is that he knows there is no way to justify what he has done. He is playing with people's livelihood. Even members of his party are appalled by his antics. The hon. members for Dartmouth and Moncton, just to name a couple, are on the record in their opposition to the ACOA minister's actions.

The Minister of National Defence has said:

The $30 million is for base closure. The $30 million was given by defence to ACOA for base mitigation. Thirty million will be spent for base mitigation.

The money was given to ACOA in trust to help people hurt by the base closures imposed by the government. It was supposed to help hard hit towns and cities attract industry to replace lost armed forces jobs and military spending, which is known as permanent infrastructure in the communities.

The Prime Minister made a commitment to help these communities. It is not ACOA's money to take away, even if the finance minister has asked ACOA to make cuts to its own budget.

In fact an editorial in an Atlantic Canadian paper put the minister's actions in very clear light. It said: "If your father gave you $30 for your brother, you would have no right to keep $10 for yourself because your father also asked you to cut back on your own spending".

The same is true of ACOA and the minister responsible for ACOA. ACOA was asked to do a task and does not have the right to redefine the terms of that task after the fact. However, it seems the minister believes he does not need to answer to anyone, at least not to the people who will suffer at his hands.

The minister has cut the ACOA board, which is supposed to represent all of Atlantic Canada, and has put the focus of the board in his own riding of Cape Breton-East Richmond, known as the Cape Breton Enterprise Board. According to reports, he has handed out over 183 projects to his riding, totalling at least $15 million last year. He did that before he announced a change to the ACOA funding to allow for repayable loans.

The minister has refused to tell the Saint John Telegraph Journal the findings of a 1992 company by company job survey for ACOA, even though the federal information commissioner ruled in the paper's favour. Perhaps the minister believes that taxpayers do not have a right to information paid for with their dollars.

I placed a question on the Order Paper about the financial assistance provided to each federal riding and Atlantic Canada by ACOA on October 4, 1994. That was 172 days ago and I have yet to receive an answer.

Does the minister responsible for ACOA believe he should be accountable to anyone? Does he believe he should be accountable to Canadian voters who are also taxpayers? If he does believe this, then he would not only explain to Atlantic Canadians why he cut $10 million from a fund designed to help communities hurt by base closures, but he would also tell them how he plans to rectify the situation.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, this has been a tough time and a tough budget. After 10 years of Conservative economic and fiscal management, or perhaps I should say mismanagement, these measures were long overdue.

It was a fair budget. ACOA's continued existence is a testament to this government's commitment. The bottom line nevertheless is that ACOA was cut. Of the overall $562 million cut to regional development, ACOA was asked to absorb over 30 per cent of that, or $173.5 million over the next three years.

Consistent with the overall reduction, the base closure adjustment fund was reduced by $10 million, or 30 per cent. It is completely incorrect to refer to the base closure adjustment program as a trust fund. The base closure adjustment program is administered by ACOA and was thus included in the budgetary review process.

Let us remember that after reductions there still will be $20 million available to address adjustment measures in the affected communities. ACOA will take a leadership role in working with the communities affected by base closures and by these tough but fair budget measures. ACOA will strive to maximize benefits with the remaining $20 million. It will ensure that every effort is made to apply its full array of other program instruments to address economic development programs in these communities.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.24 p.m.)