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.