Debates of June 21st, 1995

Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies)

[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(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Debate is on Motion No. 8, Group No. 3.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-65, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 3, on page 8, with the following:

"26. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 6:

"6.1 The Minister may, with the approval of"".

Mr. Speaker, we spoke about the proposed changes to Bill C-65 to reduce the number of members of the board.

Motion No. 8 is a little different. It has to do with the Minister of Public Works and his requirement to oversee emergency preparedness in the country. That is a very important role. In this instance, we feel there is one small change that would be required. I would like to persuade members opposite this time by appealing to the red book.

The red book has become the standard by which we gauge whether or not legislation is effective and whether it is going in the right direction. The red book said there would be more openness, more accountability, and a renewed trust in government. This amendment is very small, but it is in that direction. I do not think it is so dramatic an amendment that members of the Liberal Party could in any way be against it. It does go in the right direction and it does not go so far that they should be frightened by it. It simply requires that the minister report annually on his activities and on the degree of emergency preparedness that is in place. That is a very important aspect for the security of the country, for a country that is ready to deal with emergencies of all kinds, whether they are civil insurrections or natural disasters.

We are simply asking the minister to open up a little and report annually. I do not know whether members know what is involved. For example, the minister has the power to require that the railroads have a one-year supply of fuel on hand, so that if for some reason the normal supplies of fuel are destroyed by some disaster, either natural or through some sort of an act of war, we would still be able to operate our railroads for a reasonable length of time. It is good for Canadians to know what kinds of arrangements the minister has made in this area.

What we are asking is very simple. I plead with members opposite, in order to fulfil the promises of the red book, to vote in favour of the amendment. It would provide a little more openness, a little more accountability, and a little more transparency. It would go a long way in undoing some of the criticism that has been levelled at them in terms of their being secretive and too closed.

I will abbreviate my comments because of the urgency of the day. I will gladly stop speaking in exchange for the commitment of Liberal members to support the amendment.

[John English, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has spoken most eloquently about the need for transparency

and openness. He has also spoken often in the House of Commons about the word "economy". In the case of this motion the two purposes are in conflict.

I say this with respect to the hon. member's amendment. This motion seems to perpetuate the requirement that the minister lay before Parliament an annual report on the operations of the act.

The rationale for eliminating annual reports is government-wide. It is an attempt to lower costs and is focused on reducing associated preparation costs. We intend to provide new mechanisms such as expanded Part III estimates, and most important, new department outlet documents will be provided to parliamentary committees for this review.

In this case the argument for economy is a very cogent one. There are other means through which transparency and openness will be provided.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 8. 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 nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on Motion No. 8 stands deferred.

We will move to Group No. 4 with debate on Motions Nos. 10 and 11.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-65, in Clause 49, be amended by replacing lines 10 and 11, on page 13, with the following:

"49. Subsection 9(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

"9. (1) The Minister shall establish a board to be known as the National Archives of Canada Advisory Board, consisting of the Archivist, the National Librarian, the Director of the Canadian Museum of Civilization and not more than seven other members appointed, from among persons who are experienced in archival matters, by a committee of the House of Commons composed of two members from the government party and three members from opposition parties.""

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-65 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Mr. Speaker, I am having a busy evening but I am still smiling. I have to concede it is somewhat frustrating to have such well thought out amendments, which I sincerely believe are defensible, decided against by the members opposite. It is a bit of a rebuff but I will try to live with it and I will recover by tomorrow. The Liberals now have an opportunity to redeem themselves by supporting Motions Nos. 10 and 11.

The National Archives have a problem. The amount of material to be saved keeps growing. It grows and grows. Until now to dispose of things the administration of the archives had to consult with the members of the board. These members, who are GIC appointments, held the archivists responsible for not destroying records which should be kept.

It is almost like having a Senate, a place of sober second thought, but a real one. It is a case of: "Here is a decision to throw something away. Do you agree?" Perhaps the judgment of one person could be flawed. Perhaps that person could miss something that is important. It would be an advantage to have more people involved to provide for checks and balances against discarding material which others would have the insight to recognize might have value in the future and should be kept.

In this instance the amendment would only require a very small expenditure. It says that the national archives advisory board should not be eliminated entirely. This is a change in the system. Sometimes members of the Reform Party are charged with only wanting to cut, cut, cut. We want to cut in the right places. We want to manage the fiscal affairs of the country so that we do not have cut in areas where cuts are unwarranted. This is one area where we want to retain the powers.

I want to give an example. We presently have in the country and in Parliament a very sharp division on what is important. The members of the Bloc Quebecois are very interested in taking their province out of the country and the rest of us want to keep Canada together.

The individual looking at the archives' records may have a certain historical perspective and even a certain present political perspective. It could cloud the decision of whether certain documents should be kept or destroyed. That is why we are strongly recommending that the decision not be made by an individual, but that there should be consultation involved. This small board would have a very real and very important function.

Consequently I am recommending that the backbenchers in this instance exercise their powers of thinking and cogitation to consider very carefully the argument I have made and notwithstanding anything they have been led to believe earlier today, think of the weight of the arguments and vote in favour to the amendment.

[John English, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is a very important matter.

I believe the member for Elk Island raises some important points about the retention of certain records and the importance of the decision prior to destruction.

Currently the situation is that all proposals for destruction under the care of the archivist must be reviewed internally. There will be an examination of all contractual and legal obligations, the importance of the records in relation to the mandate of the National Archives, and that the National Archives acquisition policy must determine if these specimens or copies are held in other depositories.

I am inclined to agree with the member for La Prairie that it is deplorable that some records have been destroyed in the past which fall within the purview of historical records of importance. It is important that a board of this kind recognize at all times the importance of the historicity of records.

I do not think this amendment responds to that need. The current board of voluntary users effectively scrutinizes historical records. Moreover, the archivist has undertaken to establish a voluntary panel of experts on archives matters which will represent a cross section of interests across Canada, representing users, institutions and archival communities. This board will preserve historical records as is necessary.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 10. 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 nays have it.

And more than five members having risen: