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.