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.