Debates of March 13th, 1998

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the division on the motion under consideration is deemed to have been requested and deferred until Tuesday, March 17, 1998, at the end of the time provided for Government Orders.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The government does not intend to call any other government business this day. If you would seek the consent of the House you might get agreement that we see the clock as being 1.30 p.m. and subsequently proceed to Private Members' Business.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed to call it 1.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from December 1, 1997, consideration of the motion that Bill C-216, an act to amend the Access to Information Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Access To Information Act

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-216, which seeks to include all crown corporations under the Access to Information Act.

Those of my hon. colleagues who support this bill referred to the principles of accountability and transparency to bring crown corporations under the ambit of access rules.

I do not dispute the merits of accountability and openness. This government supports this position. However, if one looks at the fact one sees that Bill C-216 does not take into account the legitimate interests of crown corporations that are currently exempt under the Access to Information Act.

Bill C-216 starts from the principle that there is no difference in the objectives of crown corporations. It does not take into account the difference in purpose of their public interest mandates, nor does it account for the different environment within which they operate.

I am concerned that Bill C-216 may be viewed by some members of Parliament as a relatively harmless extension of the Access to Information Act to crown corporations. The reality would be quite the opposite.

Allow me to illustrate my comments by focusing on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. If adopted, Bill C-216 would have a particularly harsh effect on CBC. It would impair this corporation in a number of vital areas, including the protection of its journalistic integrity, the protection of its independence under the Broadcasting Act and the protection of its competitive position. Information is the stock in trade of the CBC. Bill C-216 proposes to define the CBC as a government institution. This would mean that information in possession of the CBC would become accessible to all.

The definition of record in section 3 of the Access to Information Act is broad enough to include, for example, broadcast material, edited, filmed or taped materials, notes, confidential memos, names of sources which are recorded, and research done for programming purposes. There is no exemption under the Access to Information Act for journalist function. This would jeopardize the CBC's ability to carry out its mandate because all past, present and future records, whether gathered for administrative, creative, journalistic or programming purposes, would be subject to access application.

Do members think that individuals would be prepared to corroborate a story if they knew that their identity could be revealed? Imagine, for example, the consequences if subjects of a documentary on organized crime could apply under the Access to Information Act for the names of the interviewees who may have wished to be projected. Revelation could result in reprisal.

If Bill C-216 were to become law, a simple request could force release of information which press institutions legitimately strive to protect. The CBC would be forced to operate under different ground rules than those applying to its competitors. No other broadcaster in Canada is subject to the Access to Information Act. In fact, the federal government does not have the jurisdiction to place other broadcasting institutions under such legislation. The net result would nullify the CBC's journalistic force.

The Broadcasting Act repeatedly asserts the respect for freedom of expression in journalistic, creative and programming activities of broadcasting undertaking. This statute reiterates this independence, in particular to the CBC. Why is this the case? The CBC is expected to operate as a public broadcaster, not a state broadcaster. The CBC is an autonomous broadcasting entity with a mandate to gather and disseminate accurate information in an impartial manner free from interference from government or the public.

Various governments and committees throughout the years have taken pains to emphasize the autonomy of the CBC. The Broadcasting Act of 1991 reaffirms the CBC's arm's length relationship. Throughout the years the necessity to maintain the journalistic integrity of the CBC through the arm's length principle has been recognized and endorsed by committees and study groups which have reviewed the Access to Information Act.

In its 1987 report “Open and Shut” the standing committee on justice and legal affairs recommended that special provisions be made to exclude from the coverage of the Access to Information Act all program materials of the CBC. In 1994 the office of the information commissioner arrived at the same conclusion in its report “The Access to Information Act: A Critical Review”. The only exception granted was the program material of the CBC which it was agreed would not be subject to the legislation.

Bill C-216 would undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the CBC which is mandated by Parliament to provide a public broadcasting system at arm's length from the government. The CBC also has certain characteristics in common with other crown corporations such as Canada Post, Export Development Corporation and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited which have commercial operations that are not now exempted from the operation of the Access to Information Act. The CBC provides a service pursuant to the Broadcasting Act and it produces a product, the programs.

In both the provision of the service and the production of its product, the CBC competes with the private sector. The net results of this proposed legislation would be to compromise the competitive position of the CBC. The CBC's proprietary technologies and standards together with the confidential commercial financial information related to its business activities and that of its contractors, suppliers or business partners would be at risk.

The CBC currently generates $300 million in the marketplace. Bill C-216 would jeopardize the ability of the CBC to maximize its shareholders' investments in Canadian programming. I do not believe that the public interest would be served by placing sensitive proprietary information in the public domain where it would be open to the scrutiny of competitors that do not have the same disclosure rules.

In terms of the public's having an open window on the corporation, the CBC takes pride in applying very high standards of accountability, openness and transparency. They are the centre pieces of the CBC's corporate governance process. The CBC does not only apply those standards through its formal reporting requirements to government bodies and Parliament but it has also taken steps over the years to increase its accountability through its ombudsman offices and through public outreach programs. These initiatives led this year to the presentation of the corporation's first on the air annual review which included a forum that allowed for questions and comments from the public both on the air and via the Internet.

The CBC must not be subject to Bill C-216 because of issues of journalistic integrity and competitive equity. Canadians have the right to a public broadcaster whose journalism and entertainment are benchmarks for the industry in Canada and around the world. They deserve no less.

The legislation before us would cause more harm than good to Canadians. It is not in the public interest and that is why I cannot support it.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on this bill, which is aimed at ensuring that the Access to Information Act applies to all Crown corporation.

The corporations not presently covered by this legislation are such bodies as NavCanada, which is responsible for everything relating to air traffic control. What could be more important in terms of safety than air traffic control?

There was a strike at Canada Post last fall. Labour, management and the Canadian postal system in general all suffered as a result. The public has many questions about the administration of this organization. We are not even entitled to obtain certain types of information about this crown corporation which we would if it were a department, although it needs to be at least as accountable to the public, if not more.

The same applies to Atomic Energy Canada. I have been rereading a speech by the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington, who is a Liberal. He is in favour of this bill. One of the points he made is that, if all crown corporations were governed by the Access to Information Act, they could not be competitive in their respective fields. Another Liberal refuted this.

I will quote part of section 18 of the current Access to Information Act:

1. The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains:

(a) trade secrets or financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that belongs to the Government of Canada or a government institution and has substantial value or is reasonably likely to have substantial value;

This is proof that what my hon. colleague who spoke before me said was incorrect. If the Access to Information Act applied to all crown corporations, they would still have protection for confidential information and information not of public interest. At the same time, these corporations should be answerable to the public in areas on which they are not required to provide information at the present time.

In that sense, I am rather amazed to see members oppose this motion, when, about this time last year, they unanimously passed a motion to ensure that all crown corporations are subject to the Privacy Act.

Today, we have before us a bill with a similar intent. This bill also arises from a recommendation made by the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General. In a report entitled “Open and Shut: Enhancing the right to know and the right to privacy”, the committee recommended that the government make this kind of changes to ensure that the Access to Information Act applied to all crown corporations.

It is fair to say that the Access to Information Act is one of the finest achievements of our society. It was developed in the 1970s and 1980s to counter the bureaucratic steamroller.

The more regulations and procedures there are, the harder it is for ordinary citizens to find out about their rights and responsibilities in society. The Access to Information Act gives them equal access to relevant information.

Naturally, governments soon realized that this tool could prove dangerous. It often brings to light information that could embarrass the government, that could help reveal social inequities and injustices.

The federal government did not follow through on its initial rush to liberalize information and started at the same time to create crown corporations. This must be seen as a rather significant element.

When the Access to Information Act was passed, most crown corporations were subject to the act. The number of crown corporations has since grown considerably. This may be justified for reasons of efficiency. In certain regards, crown corporations may actually carry out their mandate more efficiently than a department would. However, no provision was made in the legislation to also make these corporations subject to the Access to Information Act. A provision to that effect should have been included in the act.

We realized, at least I did, when we reviewed the legislation establishing NavCanada, that this was not an oversight, but a decision made deliberately by the current government, so that these agencies would not be accountable.

NavCanada is a corporation responsible for air safety. There are going to be, as we saw in New Brunswick last fall, airplane accidents, incidents that will impact on insurance and also on the public, which needs to feel safe about air transportation. So, there are many important elements of apparent justice that are not present in this case.

Let me give you another example. A few years ago, Canada Post unscrupulously shut down many rural post offices. This required a change of government, as well as a moratorium supported by 1,500 municipalities.

If those who review the work of Canada Post, and also the citizens who suffer a prejudice because of certain situations, could invoke the Access to Information Act, they would have access to documents and information that do not deal with the competitiveness of the corporation, but that would be very helpful in bringing about more compassionate and realistic decisions that take people's situation into account. The idea is really to restore a balance between the bureaucracy and what people expect in terms of accountability.

NavCanada and Canada Post are very telling examples.

If the government decided to pass this bill, it would really help counter the negative aspect associated with the creation of crown corporations. As I said earlier, there are positive aspects, but there are also negative ones.

When we deal with public servants who know their legislation, these people can often explain it very well. However, their point of view is not always the same as that of the citizen who feels he has been wronged. Citizens can currently ask a department to produce documents. The Access to Information Act is not always easy to administer. It is complex.

Members of Parliament are aware of that. Whenever we make inquiries about controversial issues, the government takes as long as it can to come up with an answer, and it provides as little information as possible. Still, the act is an important tool, because if we did not have it, if it were not specified that departments have to give us this information, we would never get it. The same situation applies to crown corporations. Their numbers are growing.

For example, what will the revenue department look like in the future? There is talk of a new tax collection agency. If this agency has a status similar to that of a crown corporation, will the government require that it be subject to the Access to Information Act? If so, that would be very good because it would provide some balance for the taxpayer.

But I doubt it. In the past, each time new crown corporations were established, the list of those that are not subject to the Access to Information Act grew longer, while the list of those that come under the act became shorter. For several years now, no crown corporation has been added to the list of those that are subject to the Access to Information Act.

This bill reflects one member's concern, which is understandable since last year, in the same spirit, the House unanimously supported my motion that the government make all crown corporations subject to the Privacy Act. I think this bill would complement this effort and give Canadians a voice they currently lack in government.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by stating I believe the government remains committed to the principles of openness and accountability inherent in the Access to Information Act. Bill C-216 provides us with a valuable opportunity to discuss these principles and to determine the most appropriate means of balancing them against other competing public interests.

Bill C-216 proposes that Parliament extend coverage of the Access to Information Act to federal crown corporations. According to recent lists there are 48 parent crown corporations, of which 27 are subject to the act. Current coverage is sporadic.

For example, the Bank of Canada and the Canadian Film Development Corporation are subject to both the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

Canada Post Corporation and the Export Development Corporation are covered only under privacy legislation. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as my colleague discussed at length, on the other hand, are not subject to either act.

Consequently, what this bill considers is including the remaining 21 crown corporations in schedule 1 of the Access to information Act.

The standing committee on justice and the solicitor general examined this issue in 1987 during its review of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. In the report entitled “Open and Shut: Enhancing the right to know and the right to privacy”, the committee made three recommendations.

The first was to extend coverage of both acts to all crown corporations and wholly owned subsidiaries. The second recommendation was to apply the legislation if the Government of Canada controls a public institution by means of a power of appointment over the majority of the members of the agency's governing body or committee. Finally, the committee proposed that the acts apply to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but provide an exemption in relation to its program material, again as my colleague went into in detail.

The government responded to the committee's report by promising to review the proposals from the perspectives of the need for openness and to promote government accountability, the role of the institution involved and the need to ensure that any extension of the act will be in the public interest. Therefore it is in the context of these elements that we must examine the merits of Bill C-216.

They may be summarized as the need to support openness in government, the absolute necessity to consult with organizations that potentially could be affected by this amendment, and the necessity to ensure that there are provisions within the Access to Information Act to protect the legitimate commercial and competitive interests of the crown corporations.

The bill does reinforce the message we receive routinely from the Canadian people. They want a more open and accountable government. They believe they have a right to obtain information controlled by federal institutions, whether the institution is a department, an agency or a crown corporation. It is important to note that this right is already afforded to them in other jurisdictions.

Recent provincial freedom of information acts have established a precedent for including crown corporations within the scope of their legislation. For instance, although my province of Ontario has laws which cover crown corporations that deliver services and programs, the legislation contains a clear exemption for commercially valuable or sensitive information. The same applies to Alberta and B.C.

I also recognize that Bill C-216 stands for access and privacy. It complements a private member's motion that the government make all crown corporations subject to the Privacy Act, which was also alluded to by the opposition. This motion was debated in the House in April of last year and was passed.

While the federal government is committed to openness and accountability of government, we also have a commitment to protecting privacy rights.

The enhancement of these rights was recently outlined in a public discussion paper entitled “The protection of personal information: Building Canada's information economy and society”.

This paper examines the privacy issues surrounding electronic commerce and associated consumer transactions. It addresses the need to develop legislation that will permit Canadians to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by advances in technology.

At the same time, it proposes the means by which the security of their personal information can be protected in the private sector.

Before supporting any amendments to the Access of Information Act to the category of crown corporations we must take into account the other two elements to which I referred earlier, the need to consult with crown corporations themselves and the need to ensure there are provisions within the legislation to adequately protect their legitimate interests.

We must recognize it would be absolutely necessary to consult with the affected crown corporations and identify any unique circumstances under which they operate. It would be essential that we consider adjustments to existing legislation to avoid causing damage to the commercial interests of one or more of the organizations.

From the perspective of encouraging openness in government, I appreciate the intent underlying Bill C-216. However, in its extremely brief form it does not strike an appropriate balance between promoting the accountability of public institutions on one hand and on the other the requirement to protect the public's interest in ensuring that the operations of its crown corporations are not unfairly compromised. Consequently, I cannot support Bill C-216 because it fails to achieve this balance.

I would like to compliment the mover of Bill C-216, however. Although I cannot support it in its current form I did support its thorough airing as a votable bill since it addresses a subject of great interest to the Canadian public.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to add a few comments to the discussion on my colleague's Bill C-216, an act to amend the Access to Information Act respecting crown corporations.

First I would like to commend my hon. colleague for Nanaimo—Alberni for bringing forward this piece of legislation. I am very encouraged with some of the comments that I have heard from both sides of the House. Hopefully as we work our way through the three hours of debate hon. members from all parties can see the merit in this legislation and move to pass this bill because it is certainly something that is needed.

People from all parties are saying it is very plain that there is something seriously wrong with a system whereby the majority of crown corporations have to comply with access to information and yet some are exempt. I would refer to a list that was provided by my hon. colleague that clearly indicates what I could call the lucky 13, 13 corporations that he has found to be exempt from the Access to Information Act.

The question is why would these 13 corporations be fortunate enough to be able operate in a shroud of secrecy while taxpayers do not have the privilege granted under the Access to Information Act to actually delve into their dealings and hold them accountable. The act has been used countless times since it was implemented to do exactly that, to hold crown corporations and the expenditures of taxpayer dollars and hold that whole process accountable to the taxpayers themselves. Certainly I commend my hon. colleague for bringing that forward for debate.

I would like to confine my comments to a subject near and dear to my heart and which I have spoken on at some considerable length in the past, one of the lucky 13 on the list, the Canadian Wheat Board.

It is interesting that things have progressed or perhaps regressed to the point with the Canadian Wheat Board that there is actually a grassroots movement that has sprung up in western Canada called ending secrecy at the Canadian Wheat Board. It is actually an organization that has been founded to do the very thing that we are talking about doing today. Basically it has two goals in mind, to make sure the Canadian Wheat Board has to adhere to the Access to Information Act, the subject of today's debate, and to bring it under auditing by the Auditor General of Canada. On both those subjects Reformers spoke at great length recently when Bill C-4 was before the House.

In the very informative pamphlet which this group published for the general public to more fully understand the issue of secrecy at the Canadian Wheat Board, some 58 government corporations which already fall under the Canadian Wheat Board were missed. In the few minutes I have in this debate I certainly do not have time to read the entire list.

However, in looking at the list there are some corporations which jump out at me, such as the Bank of Canada, the Department of Justice, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Finance. In the agricultural field there is the Canadian Grain Commission. All of these corporations are on the list of corporations which have to comply with the Access to Information Act.

In fact if Canadians are concerned about a possible threat to their tax dollars, they can request information. Indeed those corporations have to provide information to them. Therefore, they are held accountable.

It would seem to me that taxpayers deserve and have the right to transparency. We heard government members talk about transparency when questions were directed at them today in question period. They talked about the transparency of their accounting practices. It is almost laughable in light of the fact that the auditor general and now the Canadian Institute of Accountants have clearly called into question their accounting practices. They cling to the notion that there is transparency in their accounting.

In the 13 crown corporations which my hon. friend has noted, there is no transparency. They do not have to comply with the Access to Information Act.

I do not want to use up all the time today. I know there are a number of other individuals, and certainly many of my colleagues in the official opposition, who would like to address this bill.

However, I would like to note that Kevin Avram, projects co-ordinator with the prairie centre, first wrote to the Canadian Wheat Board in January 1994, quite some time ago, asking for information on salaries, pensions and staff positions. Such information is readily available from virtually any government department. Anyone can find out who works in any government department and what the salary structures are for those positions.

The Canadian Wheat Board replied to the letter by stating that the request must be made pursuant to the Access to Information Act. Then he was told that even if he did make an application under the Access to Information Act he still would not get any information because the Canadian Wheat Board is exempt from the act. As I said, a reply to an inquiry like that would be almost laughable if it was not so serious.

I would like to read into the record a letter from Mr. Avram to Robert Roehle, head of corporate communications for the Canadian Wheat Board in Winnipeg. It casts some factual information on this whole area of how the Canadian Wheat Board would be able to operate if it were under the Access to Information Act. We have heard a lot of what I believe to be falsehoods about that and how it would come about. Mr. Avram states:

It has come to our attention that, as a spokesman on behalf of the Government of Canada's policy with respect to issues of secrecy, you are repeatedly stating to the media and the general public that the reason for the Canadian Wheat Board's exemption from the federal Access to Information Act is directly related to the issue of customer confidentiality. I would draw your attention to the fact that Canada's Access to Information legislation already addresses such matters.

As regards CWB operations, the section of the Act known as “Severability” (section 25) provides a mechanism to retain confidentiality with respect to the purchaser's name, yet release information pertaining to the details of CWB wheat and barley sales, i.e. quantity, sale price, grade, protein content, payment terms, etc. You are stating something that is patently untrue when you say that having the CWB come under the provisions of the Access to Information Act would require revealing the identity of grain purchasers.

I would urge you to address this issue from a factual perspective and that you undertake to be better informed about Access to Information legislation before you put forward erroneous positions defending the CWB's ongoing policy of secrecy. Your stated reasons for defending the CWB's policy of secrecy and exemption from Access to Information legislation have no basis in fact.

The letter is dated January 27 of this year and is from Mr. Kevin Avram, Committee to End Secrecy at the Canadian Wheat Board. I certainly agree with the thrust of that letter.

It is interesting to note that as recently as a day ago the Canadian Wheat Board has now denied that it told the committee to end secrecy and that it has no objection to an audit of its books by the federal auditor general or ending the exemption from the Access to Information Act. It now says that it told the committee that the matter is out of its hands and requests for changes should be directed to the federal government.

That is exactly the purpose of this bill today. We are directing that request to the federal government and hopefully it will act on it.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, speaking to Bill C-216 today, I lend my cautious support to the bill on the basis that if passed it will genuinely represent a commitment to open and accountable government.

It is not often that a representative of the New Democratic Party would possibly be supporting something put forward by the Reform Party. Politics is a complex game in which there are no definitive answers, only winners and losers. This is unfortunate. This is why I am pleased to see two parties with opposing views possibly coming together on this issue.

I believe I am speaking for many members of the House when I say it is nice to see the Reform Party put forward responsible and intelligent suggestions. It would be nice to see the Reform members focus more energy on issues relevant to the country as a whole and less time on flag throwing, redundant nit-picking and issues which make the voters identify Reformers as nothing more than comic relief in the House. We have great responsibilities, responsibilities beyond performing as the court jesters of Parliament.

With regard to Bill C-216, I support in large part three particular points put forward by the Reform member.

First, the Access to Information Act is intended to increase and enhance public confidence in government by opening it up to scrutiny. It is an indispensable means of ensuring that government is as transparent as is reasonably possible and prudent.

Second, Bill C-216 will improve the freedom of information. It will expose and deter extravagance and waste and make crown corporations more open and accountable to the public. Open government means not only opening the finances of government to the people but also conducting the affairs of government above board.

Third, Bill C-216 will make citizens better able to judge the performance of their governments and make more informed voters. The guarantee of public access to government documents is indispensable in the long run for any democratic society.

To highlight the issue for those who are not as familiar with the bill and/or do not have the information at their disposal, I will briefly outline both its nature and purpose.

Bill C-216 will make crown corporations subject to the Access to Information Act. Crown corporation as defined by the Financial Administration Act means a parent crown corporation or wholly owned subsidiary. This in essence is added to the definition of government institution in section 3 of the Access to Information Act which formerly read “government institution means any department or ministry of state of the Government of Canada listed in schedule I or any body or office listed in schedule I”.

Under Bill C-216 this will read “government institution means any department or ministry of state of the Government of Canada listed in schedule I, any body or office listed in schedule I, or any crown corporation as defined in the Financial Administration Act”.

Among the crown corporations which are currently exempt from the Access to Information Act are the Canada Post Corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian National Railway Company and the Canadian Wheat Board.

I want to say a few words about the CBC. I will be careful in my comments, because I think the service provided by the CBC is very good, but we must ensure that it can continue to provide such good service and to be accountable to Canadians at the same time. I will end my comments on that note.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to clarify some of the issues raised by Bill C-216 and the subject of enhancing access to government information.

This subject is important to Canadians. Since the passage of the Access to Information Act in 1983, Canadians have grown to expect that they will be able to obtain information controlled by the federal government. They believe they have a right to this information whether it is held by a department, an agency, or a crown corporation.

At the present time the Access to Information Act does not apply to all government organizations. It covers only those institutions listed in schedule I of the act. If a particular body is not listed, the legislation does not apply to it.

Bill C-216 proposes that Parliament extend the coverage of the act by listing all the federal crown corporations in the schedule. By recent count there are approximately 48 parent crown corporations, 27 of which are already subject to the access legislation. This proposal would include the remaining 21 corporations under the purview of the act.

It is important to carefully consider the fact that crown corporations were created specifically to deliver various programs and services to Canadians as commercially viable federal institutions and not as traditional departments or agencies.

By definition, crown corporations serve the public interest in a commercial environment. They range in size from small appropriation dependent corporations with limited commercial revenue to large commercial operations that operate on a self-sustaining basis. They are involved in activities that directly affect the lives of Canadians in areas such as transportation, communications and finance.

Crown corporations already respect the spirit of the government's broad socioeconomic policies. They have been subject to the Official Languages Act since it was passed in 1969. They also apply the principles of employment equity.

When the Access to Information Act was first debated, there was considerable discussion about which parts of the government should be covered and which should not. Crown corporations were often the focus of discussions precisely because they operate at arm's length from the government. While some argued that there was an even greater need for these institutions to be accountable for their actions and for the public funds for which they were responsible, one must keep in mind the fact that the Government of Canada has built-in mechanisms and reporting measures for crown corporations.

Since the establishment of the Access to Information Act, there have been further debates about the coverage of the legislation. For instance the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act were reviewed in 1987. Members of the standing committee on justice and the solicitor general have examined the Access to Information Act and the information commissioner has made several representations on the subject over the years.

In 1994 a special report entitled “Where Lies the Kingdom of Access” included a proposal that the crown corporations should be covered by the act unless Parliament in its wisdom specifically chooses to exclude an entity in explicit terms. It also proposed that there should be a special provision made to exclude all program materials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Excluding program materials of the CBC from access highlights the issue of the unique nature of many crown corporations. It is possible that the application to the CBC of some of the existing provisions of the legislation could have a very chilling effect on the ability to collect information and could compromise its sources. They could potentially impede the corporation's ability to disseminate information which we would all agree is its primary purpose.

It must be recognized that because many crown corporations compete with private sector firms they are expected to function like their private sector counterparts. They must operate in an environment free from the undue interference of government administrative constraints. Their use of private sector business practices often requires that the general government policies be tailored specifically to their needs.

Consequently even before considering the extension of the Access to Information Act to the entire group of crown corporations, close consultation with each and every corporation should be made and an examination of the unique circumstances in which it operates would have to be made.

If Canadians want their crown corporations to provide services and deliver programs effectively and efficiently, these institutions must not be subjected to measures that could severely impede their work. In other words, if we expect crown corporations in effect to compete with the private sector, we should not force them to meet requirements above and beyond those of their competitors in the same market.

The federal government recognizes and appreciates the right of Canadians to have access to federal information. There is, however, an important and essential balance between the broad legal right of Canadians to information and that of individual privacy, commercial confidentiality and national security. This balance must be protected if we want crown corporations to be successful.

With respect to the protection of the release of commercially sensitive information, these kinds of safeguards are particularly important to maintain the competitive position of our crown corporations. These measures are consistent with the Freedom of Information Act in other jurisdictions, namely the provincial ones.

For example, the Ontario legislation covers crown corporations that market their services and products to the public while providing a clear and significant exemption for commercially valuable or sensitive information. If any adjustments were made to the current provisions of the act, the special interests of the individual crown corporations would have to be appropriately accommodated. Furthermore, we could not simply amend or extend access principles in this way without causing damage to the legitimate interests of one or more of these corporations.

The government supports the principles of openness and accountability inherent in the Access to Information Act. However, Bill C-216 in its present form suffers from sins of omission. The most serious sin is that it fails to provide any provision to protect the legitimate commercial interests of the crown corporation either collectively or individually. These interests must be observed since this complements the public interest in ensuring that corporations continue to operate effectively and on a level playing field with their competitors.

Therefore I must firmly reject the bill in its current form. I am very confident there are good reasons for doing so.

[Jim Jones, Progressive Conservative, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today in support of Bill C-216, the act that will bring several new crown corporations under the umbrella of the Access to Information Act.

When the bill was debated in the House back in December my colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac spoke to it. He addressed some concerns our party had with sections of the bill. There are concerns by some crown corporations that their competitors would be able to secure competitively sensitive information which could then be manipulated in such a way that would put the concerned corporations in a vulnerable position.

We have researched into the concerns of the corporations and have learned that under section 18 of the Access to Information Act these institutions can effectively exempt information of a sensitive nature in the competitive arena.

The PC Party through our party's address to the House on December 1, 1997 asked that the issues about which crown corporations were concerned be dealt with to cover all possible aspects that could jeopardize the competitiveness of these institutions.

Under sections 18 and 20 of the Access to Information Act these concerns have been addressed. Sections 18 and 20 are lengthy and I will not read them word for word, but I would like to say a few things in general about what these sections will cover.

Overall one section allows the withholding of information that is reasonably deemed to be of competitive sensitivity. In section 20 the act deals not only with government institutions but specifies that information provided by a third party to the government fall under many of the same stipulations as section 18 does for government owned information. This lends protection to corporations that may have concerns about their competitively sensitive information being available under the Access to Information Act.

We in the PC Party believe in more openness in government, but we also believe that competitiveness in Canada is essential to a successful marketplace. We do not want to jeopardize that balance of openness and competitiveness privilege by opening up information so much that it is easily used to take down one's competitors. We believe that this balance has been struck in the bill and we support it.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand to speak in support of Bill C-216, introduced by my colleague for Nanaimo—Alberni. I will contain my remarks primarily to one aspect, the impact of the bill on the Canada Post Corporation.

It seems absolutely bizarre that the Canadian military should be open to access to information and Canada Post should not. The Canada post office is a monopoly. It has no competitors. There is absolutely no justification in terms of its stamp-mail service not to have it open to public scrutiny.

There are many provisions of Canada Post that we should be able to look at to see if in fact it has any justification when certain actions are taken. For example, there is supposed to be criteria for the home delivery of mail in many communities which are not getting it.

Canada Post argues that it cannot afford to do this, that it is not feasible. Yet there are many groups including postal workers who say that it is feasible, that they could certainly do it but Canada Post is covering up a lot of the facts. That may or may not be true but we will never know that if we are not allowed to get certain information from the corporation.

Any information we get, whether it be from the Canada Post Corporation or anywhere else, has to be subject to a lot better access than we are currently getting in many areas. Many times people apply for access to information and the government chooses to cloud the documents they seek by calling them protected by cabinet security and thus completely protected for the next 20 years.

This happened to me recently with a request for information on certain studies done on Canada Post. It is very interesting that they would release certain ones if they agree with them, but anything that disagrees with the government or with what Canada Post is doing, or is critical of them, they seem to want to cover up.

In one specific area we have had a lot of complaints from the private sector with regard to the Canada Post courier business. Canada Post operates one of the largest courier businesses in the country. It is a puzzling how we say to the courier businesses that would like to go into the stamp-mail delivery business that they cannot do that. Yet we protect Canada Post in its business and let it go into the courier business in direct competition with them.

Canada Post is not supposed to cross-subsidize, using profits from its stamp-mail business, a protected business, to subidize the cost of running its courier business. It says that it does not have to give access to information on that or have the auditor general go into that. In its financial statement is a statement by the auditor that says it meets all of the requirements to show it did not subsidize its business.

There are two problems with that. The first problem is that the statement only comes about as a result of information supplied to the auditor by the Canada Post Corporation. Right away that leaves one to wonder what kind of information it might happen to choose to deliver to the auditor.

The second problem is there is still a question of what exactly is a cross-subsidy. Most businesses have only a small portion of business expenses that are not related to a specific expense. When Canada Post came out with its latest annual financial statement for the year it indicated that almost half of all its expenses were not directly accounted to a particular department. That leaves a whole pile of money, some 40% of all its expenditures, that have not been related to a specific expenditure.

If we take the profit that its courier business is reputed to have made and we weigh that against the expense of those profits and allow the same ratio, instead of making $50 million it would have lost something in excess of that.

It really is necessary that we have access to books for this purpose to allow a proper review even by the auditor general which currently they are protected from.

It seems this government has a responsibility to the public to ensure things are being run appropriately. The Canadian public is captain of Canada Post. Because of its monopolistic situation people have no alternative. Some may send e-mail, some may send faxes, but when something has to be physically delivered through the mail and people want to do it with a stamped mail service, which they should be entitled to in this or any other country, they should be able to ensure that it is being done effectively and that it is being done on a cost efficient basis. We have absolutely no way to tell this whatsoever.

The government will ask why we are complaining because at least Canada Post is not subsidized right now. Maybe not, but it has sure been subsidized to a pretty penny in the past. It still owes a tremendous amount of money to the government, hence the Canadian taxpayer.

We have to question the price of the stamp at any given time because sooner or later Canada Post will come to the Canadian public with an increase to the price of a postage stamp. Is it justifiable? We only have the word of Canada Post because we are not allowed to look at its books to see if realistic and effective costs justify the increase in that postage rate.

I ask that all members of the House start questioning why they may not support this bill. The Liberal member who just spoke is not going to support this bill and it really puzzles me why a member of the government, not just a member of the House, would stand up in this place, look the Canadian public in the eye by way of the television camera and say “I will not support your having access to information about how we spend your tax dollars”.

It is absolutely bizarre that a member of government would do such a thing because we are not elected to rule people, we are elected to represent people. We take that very seriously on this side of the House. I certainly hope the hon. member does as well. I am sure that was her intention when she ran for Parliament and I am sure that is her intention as she goes about her day to day business. When she says she will not support all these crown corporations that are able to operate with impunity, without accountability through public scrutiny, it raises a question as to exactly what her motivation is.

All other parties in this House are supporting this bill. As NDP members said, even as much as it galls them to support something Reform came out with, they have to admit this is a good bill. When it starts crossing party lines that broadly I hope the government will endorse it as well.

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That Bill C-321, an act to amend the Immigration Act, be deemed to have received second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member for Cambridge have the unanimous consent of the House to put this motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is no consent.

The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 2 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.00 p.m.)