Debates of April 7th, 2000

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during his speech the hon. member talked about the comparative tax regimes in Canada and the United States. I was not going to speak, but I need to raise with the House some facts of which the hon. member maybe is not aware.

He talked about a marginal rate of 46% in Canada for taxpayers with income between the levels of roughly $30,000 and $60,000. The member is quite right that there is a federal tax rate of 26%. Taking a notional average of 50%, being the provincial income tax rate on the federal amounts payable, it grosses that up by another 50% to about 39%. So 40% is a good estimate of the marginal tax rate. However, marginal is the rate paid on each additional dollar. For the person at that same level of income, his or her average tax would be much lower because the marginal rate on the first $30,000 was only 26%.

I raise this issue because the member said that the comparative in the U.S. was 26% for the same income range. He has fundamentally missed a large portion of the U.S. burden in two instances. The first is that he did not take into account that there is also a separate state tax return required to to be filed by people in the United States.

In Canada, except for in the province of Quebec, federal and provincial taxes are collected by the federal government. The hon. member's numbers for Canada reflect both the federal and provincial components. The hon. member's number for the U.S., the 26% figure, represents only the federal tax component. He has left out state taxes and he is in error. I wanted to be sure the hon. member knew that and that Canadians knew that the member was fundamentally wrong in his facts.

Second, the hon. member did not take into account that Canadians pay for their health care system through their taxes. In the United States that is not the case. In fact, the last time I visited the United States and talked to legislators there, the average cost for a family of four for health care was about $7,000 a year. This is an important reconciling item between the tax burdens in Canada and the U.S.

Finally, to wrap up, the hon. member talked about the Canada child tax benefit. He concluded that was not any increase in net take home pay. He is absolutely right because the Canada child tax benefit is not a taxable item. When it used to be the family allowance, it was included in the taxes. Exemptions were given for children and a bit of tax was paid on that benefit. When the whole system was taken outside the Income Tax Act, 80% of Canadian children received the Canada child tax benefit. It is not taxable and it does improve the amount of money in the pockets of Canadians.

I raise these three issues to demonstrate that the arguments the hon. member posed to the House and to all Canadians is underpinned by facts which are ultimately wrong.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have just seen a demonstration of the Liberal approach to dealing with facts. They throw up a smokescreen and try to undermine the facts I presented to the House. The member opposite accused me of misrepresenting the information in the marginal tax rates between Canada and the U.S.

I draw the member's attention to the fact that I was quoting from a CIBC-Wood Gundy report which very clearly stated a comparison of marginal tax rates of federal and provincial and states in the U.S. It has combined both the federal and the state tax rates. He stated that it did not do that, but it is exactly what the chart shows. If CIBC and Wood Gundy are misrepresenting the facts then maybe he would like to take it up with them. It clearly shows that the marginal tax rate between $30,000 and $60,000 for a Canadian is 40% and in the U.S. it is 26%.

This report accurately represents the state and the situation between Canada and the U.S. He has accused me that it has not. He should apologize. When we bring facts to the House, they try to undermine the facts—

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. The member has accused me of giving incorrect information.

[The Deputy Speaker]

We all have trouble sometimes with these kinds of allegations that fly around the House. The Speaker is cognizant of the fact that sometimes members disagree profoundly. For example, today during question period we heard the premise of a question disagreed with and the premise of the answer disagreed with on different occasions. This is not uncommon and we will have to sit here and listen to that kind of thing because members do sometimes disagree about facts. Their interpretations of them are different, or the views they take of them are different, or the facts they look at are selected and perhaps are not the same as the ones selected by someone on the other side.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

I appreciate that ruling. I offer to the member opposite that I would table the facts that I presented in the House and he could review them at his leisure because I am confident of what I have presented.

In his second point he was singing the praises of the Canada child tax benefit. Our budget solution 17, our proposed solution to the burden the government has put on taxpayers, is not to cut it or remove it in any way. Our proposals are consistent with what the finance committee has heard from Canadians from coast to coast, to give a universal tax deduction for children to every parent for which they do not need to keep receipts and all the rest.

The government approach is to take the money away from poor families, funnel it into the bureaucracy and a year later send cheques to the families after they have had to pay for groceries, shoes, clothes and everything else. A year later here comes the cheque from the big state.

C.D. Howe pointed out that of $1.40 that goes into the bureaucracy, a dollar in benefit comes out. Continuing to pour money into the child tax benefit program on and on has become a bureaucracy benefit more than it has become a child benefit. Why does the government not just do what Canadians have been saying to do: leave the money in the pockets of taxpayers by giving a basic tax deduction. If families need help beyond that, the child benefit can be there for that purpose. But why does the government not just stop taking it away so people will have it in their cheques in the month they earn it.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was asking a question about Stockwell Day earlier today. He is advocating a system where the federal government collects no taxes, none at all, and the provinces collect taxes and give a cheque once a year to the federal government. It was an idea rejected by the Americans in 1776. I wonder if our friend across the way endorses the vision of federalism in a country by Stockwell Day where the federal government collects no taxes, none at all, and the provinces do that and send a cheque to Ottawa.

It is rather bizarre. I know a lot of Reformers are hanging their heads in shame. I wonder if he is part of that group.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the hon. member is taking an interest in the Canadian Alliance policy. He would be wise to study the policy of the Canadian Alliance because like many other Canadians the lights may come on for the member. Who knows. Let us not give up hope.

The member will not find the statements to which he is referring in the Canadian Alliance policy. Why did that person make those statements? Let us think about it. He is the treasurer of one of the brightest lights in the country, Alberta. He is so frustrated because he could do so much within the province of Alberta but it is the weight of the federal government that limits the success of that province, the same problem that Ontario is having. I would suggest if the hon. member asked that same question of the Treasurer of Ontario, he would probably share some of the same sentiments as Mr. Day because he is so frustrated that the problem is here, across the way. He is so frustrated that he is willing to lay down his high position in Alberta to run for the head of the Canadian Alliance to see if something can be done.

I would suggest that the hon. member study that policy and maybe some day the lights will come on for him as well.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-23, an act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.

[Some hon. members]

Shame, shame.

Access To Information Act

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

moved that Bill C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and to make amendments to others acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise and to speak to this, my private member's bill to reform the Access to Information Act. The bill has a very long history and it has been quite a struggle to get it to this point where it is being debated before the House.

I believe that Bill C-206 is legislation that has the potential of dramatically changing how government operates. Indeed, I believe Bill C-206, because of the new standards of transparency it would bring to government operations, could put Canada in the forefront of not only transparency, but in the forefront of the efficiency of the delivery of government services and, if you will, the spending of taxpayers' money.

The world has changed since the Access to Information Act was first introduced 17 years ago. It has changed in the sense that we now have the Internet, we now have different procedures of accounting and we now have the potential of putting documents that are generated by the government on the Internet for the entire world to see almost as soon as they are generated.

In order to take advantage of that potential we will have to modernize the Access to Information Act which, at the time it came in, was very, very good legislation, but over time has become more and more an instrument to retain government documents rather than to open government documents.

I became interested in this issue as soon as I became elected for the first time in 1993, and in 1994 and 1995 pressed the Department of Justice and the then justice minister to make reforms to the Access to Information Act.

Despite the various recommendations I made, those reforms were not forthcoming, and I soon came to realize that it was not the lack of will on the part of the justice minister of the day. The problem was that freedom of information, if you will, is something that affects every government ministry. Unfortunately, all government legislation emanates from the Department of Justice. That is not bad in itself, but the Department of Justice of course, because it is composed primarily of lawyers, would tend to opt for withholding information or protecting information rather than discovering ways of openness.

Moreover, I realized that in legislation like this it would be impossible to get consensus across all the government departments. Can hon. members imagine, even from the Department of Justice, trying to get the approval for various prospects of change in the Access to Information Act? We would have to consult every government ministry, and not only would we have to consult with the deputy ministers, we would have to consult the ministers themselves. So I realized that the real reason why there would be no progress in reforming the Access to Information Act was the simple reality that it was almost impossible to do it with the kind of consensus that the bureaucracies normally operate when they develop legislation. Therefore, I undertook to write it myself.

I hired legislative counsel and we sat down together in my office at my desk. Side by side we went through the existing legislation and made the changes.

There has been some criticism to the effect that legislation of this importance should not be developed from Private Members' Business. The argument is that this should be put out in a forum, debated, there should be committees struck and so on and so forth, and another consensus developed. Indeed the current access to information commissioner has suggested just that. I think the justice minister at one point in time suggested that perhaps there has to be another round table to examine the reforms to the current Access to Information Act.

In making the reforms that I did make that are in the bill, what I relied upon was the recommendations that emanated in the 1993-94 reports of the then information commissioner who had more than a decade with the act. He also derived his recommendations from another parliamentary committee that studied reforming the act.

In other words, the recommendations that we see in this bill, the changes, the amendments that we see in the bill before us are actually derived for the most part from 10 to 12 years of consultation with the stakeholders, by not only previous MPs but by the access to information commissioner of longstanding, Mr. John Grace.

What we find in this bill are things that are directly from the recommendations made by these groups. That involves, to summarize, things like opening up crown corporations because of course crown corporations use the taxpayers' money and they should be subject to the same amount of transparency as exists with government departments, opening up opinion polls and opening up, which is quite controversial, some of the contractual arrangements between third parties. There is a great concern that when the government enters into negotiations or bidding contracts with private enterprise, it is sometimes in the public interest to know the details of those various proposals.

One of the things that I introduced, as my own contribution to the bill, is that all government documents more than 30 years old should be automatically released unless there is a very apparent threat to national security or public safety. That actually conforms to something that was done not too long ago in the United States.

One of the most dramatic changes in the legislation that is before the House now is the total elimination of schedule II. Schedule II in the old act is a list of exemptions. It started out with five or six when the act was first passed and it has since grown to 42 exemptions from the scrutiny by the Access to Information Act. One of my amendments eliminates that schedule II entirely.

What that means is that every piece of legislation, like the Income Tax Act or any other legislation that has a section protecting information, that section has to be subject to the test of the Access to Information Act, the changed Access to Information Act. When I came to examine how to change the act, one of the things I tried to do was to develop a theme that runs through the act that gives the public service guidance in what to open and what to close.

That theme is that information should be only withheld if there genuinely is a concern with respect to the national interest, public safety or public security. There is an injury test that runs right through the changes that we see before us.

This is all dramatic stuff. In making changes like that, I had to consider how I could possibly bring it forward. The tradition of freedom of information legislation around the world is that it is very difficult to get it through legislatures because there is so much self-interest by some government departments and by some ministers perhaps. It is always difficult to overcome the political hurdles to move this kind of legislation forward. Actually, the word is fear. While we all speak of transparency, while we all speak of openness, while we all love to speak about these words as politicians, in fact though, even we as MPs sometimes are fearful about seeing everything we do open to the public. I believe improperly so because in the end transparency is good for everyone. Nevertheless, there is fear.

My first problem to advance this as private member's legislation was how to force my own government, the cabinet and the executive branch of my party to take this legislation seriously, to not discard it and to not turn away from it.

Therefore, the very first amendment in Bill C-206 is to change the name from the Access to Information Act to the open government act. How can any politician turn his or her back on legislation that calls for transparency and puts transparency in the very title?

The next amendment establishes the theme which is in the interests of government efficiency so the people can see how taxpayer money is spent. The government should try to opt for openness wherever possible.

The default mode of the current Access to Information Act is to withhold. The default mode in my open government act is to disclose, the idea being if in doubt, the bureaucrat should release the information, not withhold it. This theme I hope runs right through it.

What is being called for is a change in cultural attitude in the bureaucracy and in the executive leadership of the government. We should be always thinking in terms of what we can disclose, not in terms of what we can withhold. Openness is a kind of contract. One cannot take the position that everything must be open because the government has to operate. The government has to have necessary secrets.

When I came to look at all these amendments, and I think there are some 42 amendments to the Access to Information Act, I tried to pay attention to the needs of government to function. I tried to make sure that the provisions as to why a document should be withheld were very, very clear. Consequently, members will see, for example, concepts like certain documents can be withheld if it is in the government's monetary interest or if it is in the interest of public safety or cabinet function. So it goes.

In the end, the government can pass whatever kind of legislation it wants, but if we do not have broad agreement from those who are going to be affected by the legislation, the legislation is not going to work.

I must tell you right at the outset that, while I enjoy tremendous support from the backbenchers here, there is no guarantee that the frontbenchers of my own side are in favour of this legislation. I am sure some are, I am sure some are not.

So the evolution of this bill is going to be the debate in this Chamber. Even more important, because it can be stretched out over a longer period and can be gotten into in greater depth, will be the time that this bill will spend in committee.

Just to go a little further, having presented the bill with all these changes and in particular the change to the open government act at first reading, I still had the dilemma of how to move it forward. Then, as chance would have it, there was a change in the standing orders to the effect that if one could get a hundred seconders to a private member's bill, that bill could bypass the lottery.

I think I am probably the first person to take advantage of the rule change and I did get a hundred seconders for the bill to bypass the lottery. Those seconders, I should say, were principally from my own side, of course, and as required by the rule change, from at least two opposition parties. At that time, the seconders were from the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois.

Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a doubt about the utility of that change in the standing orders, I can tell you that when I had those 100 signatures, then everyone paid attention to Bill C-206, which was then Bill C-264 but is Bill C-206 now.

Then I had representations coming from the bureaucracy. I had Statistics Canada wanting to visit to explain why it needed a special exemption. I had the justice department come forward to make some very, very helpful suggestions. I had representations from the privy council office. They wanted to get in on it as well.

The reason that I suddenly got this serious attention from the bureaucracy was that the 100 seconders meant that this bill had a very, very high chance of going forward.

I took advantage of the advice I got at that time, and it got me into trouble in the end, I have to say, but I did take advantage of it because some of the advice was very good in my eyes. I thought it would solve the problem of the debate, when the bill finally got to committee, being derailed toward avenues which were not constructive.

I will give an example of one of the changes that was proposed. In my original legislation, Bill C-264, at first reading I proposed opening up the House of Commons and the Senate; everything that you, Mr. Speaker, might have, financial records and that kind of thing. The justice department people pointed out to me that I probably stood a good chance of losing the entire support of all my backbench MPs because the way I phrased that particular clause would have opened up the private files of individual members.

So one of the changes I made as a result was to eliminate that particular clause from the original version of the bill and transfer it, as you will see, into an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act, which basically applies, thereby, only to the financial records of the House of Commons and the Senate, but not to the private records of members of parliament.

That kind of change I thought was in my interests and in the interests of the House of Commons, to change if I could, by unanimous consent, which I brought forward in June of 1997, and I did get unanimous consent to make that change. There was another change with respect to cabinet confidences. I can explain that in further detail either now or at another time.

The change that caused all the controversy, which I did not think was a very important change at all, was a change that gave the government the clear option of withholding documents if they were planning documents pertaining to the possibility of the secession of a province.

Much to my surprise, the Reform Party challenged that particular change on a point of privilege and required me to get all my 100 signatures again. I did get those signatures, but the sad part of that challenge, and I think it is a basic misunderstanding, is that particular change only reflected what already exists. It reflects what exists in the Quebec freedom of information law, because the Quebec legislation has similar protections for that kind of thing.

I thought I was doing something that was a mild change, but unfortunately, I feel that it was misunderstood by the Reform Party and probably, to a certain degree, poisoned my relations—or this bill's relations—with the Bloc Quebecois.

I am hoping as the debate goes on that the Bloc Quebecois will see that this change did not materially affect the legislation, it is not unreasonable, and that they will come back onside and examine this bill, Bill C-206, for the merits it really has, because I would really like to see broad support, not just two parties or three parties, I would like to see all five parties in the House, the backbench MPs here and all the opposition MPs—reasonably all the opposition MPs—get behind this legislation and make whatever changes are necessary to make it workable.

There are problems in the legislation. It is not perfect. There are areas that have to be developed and examined in committee. There may be some questions about whether I went too far in my changes to cabinet confidences. There has been some concern about giving the department the power to refuse frivolous requests. That was a proposal from the access commissioner.

Some concern has been expressed about forcing people who constantly use the service to pay a certain portion. The people who use the access to information law, or the open government law, when they use it for private or personal gain, for profit, my bill provides that they receive a certain charge for service, whereas people who use the open government legislation in the public interest would be charged nothing at all. There would be no user fee whatsoever. These are things that have to be clarified and debated.

Probably one of the most contentious things that I would like to see the committee examine is the clause dealing with solicitor-client privilege. As recommended by the access to information commissioner, in my original version of this bill I eliminated the exemption for solicitor-client privilege. I put it back in the new version. I am not sure that was a good idea. This is what my colleagues have to examine.

I have tried to do something that I think is in the interests of all Canadians and in the interest of government. If this legislation goes through, with whatever amendments we agree upon, in the end we will have the best freedom of information legislation in the world. I have compared this with the freedom of information legislation in the United States and we would be miles ahead. If we are ahead, the government will be miles ahead because transparency leads to accountability and accountability leads to efficiency.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to Bill C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information Act.

I listened very carefully to the hon. member and I found his comments surprising. On the one hand we can appreciate the efforts of the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington, and on the other hand he clearly recognizes his government's dismal failure to provide timely and accurate responses to access to information requests. This weak Liberal government has an abysmal record when it comes to responding to ATI requests.

Last Tuesday the Canadian Alliance put forward a good and timely supply day motion. We asked for an order of the House that all departmental audit reports be tabled within 30 days of their completion and permanently referred to the appropriate standing committee. We asked that the audit reports since January 1, 1999 be tabled within 30 days after the adoption of our motion and that all audit reports requested under the Access to Information Act be tabled forthwith. We have since found out that the government has been less than forthcoming with respect to reporting and providing information to Canadians on how their tax dollars are spent.

Our supply day motion simply asked this weak, arrogant Liberal government to reaffirm its own regulations made by treasury board and the privy council. That day the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington spoke against our motion. I have mixed feelings. On the one hand the member wants to do something about the Access to Information Act to speed up the release of information, but on the other hand he spoke against our motion.

This bill was originally introduced as Bill C-268 on October 23, 1997. As we know, it is a votable bill.

The hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington received the necessary 100 signatures of MPs for the bill so that it could be given priority on the order paper. Opposition members on this side of the House signed the bill because we feel that the ATI stonewalling by his own government is an attack on democracy.

Opposition members will do anything to force this weak government to hand over information that the public wants to know, and in fact has a right to know. It is the information on the spending of our hard-earned tax dollars that the government tries to hide by delaying and refusing to respond to ATI requests.

In June 1998 the member got the unanimous consent of the House to change the text of the bill, and the bill was re-introduced as Bill C-206, which we are debating today. We knew that the 100 signatures would be allowed to continue to apply to the bill, even though the bill had changed, so the deputy whip of the official opposition objected to that by raising a question of privilege. The ruling on that question of privilege saw the bill dropped to the bottom on the order paper.

Then the bill needed to have another 100 signatures and, with the co-operation of his colleagues on the Liberal side, the member got those 100 signatures twice, which was amazing.

The question is whether cabinet is hiding information so that it will not be released through ATI requests. We cannot understand, with the way this government is behaving, how it will withhold information when the hon. member is enlisting those members to sign his bill. The member, who is pursuing this bill because he could not get his cabinet buddies to listen to him, has now had the bill reinstated in its position of priority. Maybe the cabinet does not disapprove of the bill. We do not know. Maybe it is hiding behind the member's bill so that it does not have to take measures to strengthen our ATI legislation and system.

Canadians know that we cannot trust this government, and Canadians do not trust the Mulroney Tories either. Canadians now have an alternative in the Canadian Alliance and I am sure that we will test the waters at the next federal election.

The bill has a chequered past. It raises concerns and suspicions about who should change the ATI law. This weak Liberal government has lacked vision and now it should provide a transparent system for the changing of our ATI law. The ATI system needs to be kept up to date and constantly corrected with other housekeeping adjustments, but the Liberals do not want to do anything about it. “If the ATI system is broken, that is good. Don't fix it”. That is their attitude.

To break the suspense, the people of Surrey Central will not be supporting this bill. Instead, we urge the hon. Liberal member to visit or perhaps revisit his cabinet colleagues and tell them to get going on changes to the ATI.

There are about 40 changes to the ATI act proposed in this bill. For the information of the House and the people watching, the act is 18 years old. It needs to be modernized, redefined, refined and amended. The current information commissioner has expressed concern over amending this most public of our laws with a private member's bill. I wonder if the government is so weak that it cannot even fix it.

Today we have a lonely Liberal member of parliament trying to make up for his government's billion dollar boondoggle, corruption and mismanagement. This bill is in fact regressive. It limits the ability to access certain types of information and extends timeframes on access to certain information. Is the Liberal member of parliament unaware that his government lags behind, drags its feet and is late on the timeframe that already exists?

One of the most glaring drawbacks and concerns with the bill is that it proposes to exclude access to what it calls frivolous and abusive users of ATI. Who decides that? Who determines when too many ATI requests come from a certain specific source? Who decides what information is not important enough to send to Canadians? What criteria will cabinet apply to this provision in the bill?

Another thing is the fees. The bill proposes to charge a higher fee to those people who frequently use the ATI system. There are two standards here. This is so undemocratic that it is anti-democratic.

The government would be pleased if this bill passed. It could then control the ATI system, discriminate against certain users by monetarily penalizing them for the information they requested. Is this a new tax? The government loves to increase taxes because it thinks they are the best thing in the world.

The bill does not alter the government's ability to exempt and exclude certain files from access by specific sources. There is a section that allows the government to deny access if it would harm national unity. No wonder there were no amendments put forward by Bloc members. The revised bill also says that records injurious to the constitutional integrity of Canada can be kept secret for 30 years. That is the kind of information in the bill.

I would like to say that the people of Surrey Central and many members in the House cannot be fooled by this bill. We will not be supporting it.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to address Bill C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information Act.

The bill seeks to amend the act by defining more precisely what records held by the government are to be disclosed and by providing more severe penalties for those who would wilfully circumvent the intent of this legislation.

Before I proceed any further, the PC Party will support the bill at second reading with the hope that further improvement may be made at the committee stage.

As background, the Access to Information Act was adopted in 1982. The act gives Canadians a right to access to information held by federal government departments and its many agencies. It is an important tool for a number of reasons, not the least of which is maintaining public accountability within the federal government.

While the Access to Information Act is a useful and necessary tool that Canadians have at their disposal to ensure government transparency, it is clear to most of us that the Access to Information Act is an outdated piece of legislation. Dating back to the early 1980s, this act has yet to be revised to improve upon its current protections and to accommodate the changing needs and demands of changing times.

This has not been for lack of effort. It is important to note that a number of our colleagues have recognized the pressing need to revamp the act. As such they have proposed their own bills toward this end. One of these bills was brought forth by the member for Nanaimo—Alberni in 1998. As expected, it was voted down by the Liberal majority in the House.

Today we are presented with the most recent attempt to amend the Access to Information Act. I commend the member for Wentworth—Burlington for his initiative in this file. I am hopeful that his colleague will see the wisdom in allowing the bill to pass this stage.

My party has always favoured increased openness and transparency in government because openness and transparency combine to form one of the fundamental tenets of an effective representative government in Canada. They also serve to encourage faith and trust in government, something that is sorely missing from the Canadian political landscape today.

The Progressive Conservative Party is committed to the principles of openness and transparency and has continued to aggressively pursue all reasonable means by which to increase government accountability to Canadians. It was our current leader's government in 1979 that first introduced freedom of information legislation.

Bill C-206 addresses many of the concerns of the Progressive Conservative Party with regard to government transparency. The bill represents a positive step toward eliminating the kind of abusive government Canadians have witnessed under the present regime.

This government's “business as usual” attitude and “behind closed doors” mentality have proven to be destructive on many counts. First, and most obvious, we saw that under the current Access to Information Act the Liberal government almost got away with what is perhaps the most scandalous abuse of government power recorded in the history of our country.

The Liberal government's billion dollar fiasco in HRDC not only points to the party's misuse and mismanagement of public funds, but it also uncovers innumerable counts of unethical use of taxpayers' dollars to buy electoral support. Were it not for a mistake on the part of HRDC in submitting a report to my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche, a mistake that we are all thankful he was able to catch, Canadians may not ever have learned of this devastating scandal.

Second, this “we know what is best for you” attitude has resulted in a further alienated, disgusted and cynical population at a time when the government should be doing its utmost to encourage interest in governmental affairs and at a time when public discourse is becoming increasingly distant from Canadians. We need to reverse the damage that the Liberal government has done to the morale of all Canadians and to their trust in the federal government and its agencies.

This is what we need to redress and this is precisely what Bill C-206 seeks to do. Bill C-206 aims to ensure that Canadians have access to the activities, decisions and, more importantly, actions of our governments. This is desirable and it is with enthusiasm that I support the principles and the basic tenets of Bill C-206.

I have a number of particular concerns with this bill that I will outline in brief. First, one of the most questionable parts of the bill seeks to prohibit access to information users who make, and I quote from the bill, “frivolous and abusive requests”.

While on the surface this may seem like a good idea, one that would ensure that users cannot take advantage of the information request mechanism, I am concerned because of the lack of definition as to how the acceptability or admissibility of a request for information would be gauged under this provision. This concerns me because of the subjectivity involved in evaluating requests for information.

I believe that I speak unopposed when I say that in the spirit of fairness and equity, objective measures are usually more favourable than subjective measures. Of course, we should strive for fairness and equity in everything we do. Perhaps we can consider this matter further at a later date should this bill reach the next stage of the process. For now, I am satisfied to have recorded this concern.

I realize that my time may be nearing an end, Mr. Speaker, which is why I will mention only one more concern with this bill. While the previous concern I cited was rather minimal, this one is gravely serious in comparison.

As I understand it, the intent of this legislation is to provide Canadians with increased access to the federal government and to its decision-makers. I support this and I cannot agree any more than I already have with this objective. However, I am concerned because in this bill's earlier life the member proposed a provision to include cabinet confidences, for instance, minutes of meetings, under the Access to Information Act. He proposed releasing them after 15 years. Now, in its revised form, Bill C-206 holds true to the position of the government that cabinet confidences may be excluded from the public domain for 20 years, not 15 as the member had originally intended.

If we are really going to commit to opening the government and to allowing Canadians greater access to decisions of government, then why not release cabinet confidences after 15 years? While I have yet to decide what time period would be most favourable for the release of these and other such documents, I do believe that this matter should be open to discussion and to careful consideration at committee.

Therefore, I will close by offering my support for Bill C-206 at second reading with the hope that my colleagues will allow the bill the proper scrutiny and discussion it merits in committee. Matters such as the ones I have discussed very briefly, the subjective matter of some of the bill's provisions, along with what I will simply call a question mark on the question of cabinet confidences warrant careful consideration at the committee level.

In principle the bill represents a strong step toward winning back the trust of Canadians. If my colleagues are genuine in claiming to want Canadians to trust the federal government again, if they really want Canadians to rediscover their faith in government, then they will allow the bill to proceed to the committee stage for intense scrutiny and close analysis of both its merits and shortcomings.

I urge the House to vote in favour of Bill C-206 at this stage. I have a supplemental in closing. I think it is important to outline some of the chronology of the Access to Information Act, where exactly it came from and what governments introduced it. It comes as no surprise to anyone in the House that the champion of the public right to access government information was the late Ged Baldwin, a Tory member of parliament from Peace River. The first government to introduce the access to information bill was that of the Right Hon. Joe Clark. The Liberal government is now afraid to strengthen the law or to modernize it.

Therefore, the members of the House must seize any opportunity to open up the law so it can be strengthened and modernized. The HRDC scandal is only one example of why we need to strengthen the law. We need to prevent ministers from manipulating the process. We need to use this bill as a starting point to work with the commissioner to ensure a strong law. The information commissioner stated in his last report and at the HRDC committee that the government's record system is in chaos. That is all the more reason why we need a strong access to information law to protect citizens and certainly to protect their dollars.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to participate in the debate on Bill C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information Act, by the member for Wentworth—Burlington.

I am very honoured to have seconded the bill as well. I have had the opportunity to work with members on both sides of the House on a variety of legislation. In this particular instance, however, it is indeed a particular honour to associate myself with the bill, Bill C-206, of the member for Wentworth—Burlington. The reason is that I know the member very well.

I came to this place in 1993 with the member. I have watched his work, he has watched my work and we have collaborated on a number of things. I have great admiration for his work. He has been one of the champions of openness, transparency and accountability in this place. He has been a voice in the wilderness at times, calling out and seeking to find ways in which governments can demonstrate more fully that the principles of fairness and equity, of openness, transparency and accountability are hallmarks in all that we do in every aspect of our job.

It is only when Canadians believe that everything that we do in this place, every decision that we make, every action that we take is on behalf of Canadians and that we have nothing to fear and nothing to hide. In fact it is in our best interest that Canadians are better informed about what it costs to run a government, about the kinds of things that we invest and spend in, about the nature of the decisions and the rationale and the things that Canadians need to know so that they can continue to have confidence in their legislators and indeed in their government.

When we get information, I think it is human nature for us all to consider the source of the information. It is that source of the information that we look to for a degree of credibility. I feel so very strongly about this bill because of where it came from. It is a private member's bill. It comes from a member who has spent the better part of six years of his personal time and has even gone to the extent of hiring his own legislative counsel to assist him.

I have seen many private members' bills, many of which are a paragraph long with one or two clauses. This is probably the most comprehensive private member's bill I have seen in over six years. It touches one of the most important pieces of legislation we have in Canada. It boldly goes out and says that we have an act that is outdated, an act that needs to be not only updated but needs to reflect what Canadians have asked us to reflect in our legislation, which is the aspect of openness.

When we consider the very first amendment that the member proposed in this bill, it was to change the name of the bill from the Access to Information Act to the open government act. It is very significant that the member began on the right foot, that the whole intent and theme of this bill, the many pages and clauses, dealt with the openness of government.

It is a day we should celebrate because members of parliament can now stand in this place and say “We value the principles of openness, transparency and accountability. We know this is what Canadians have wanted. We know it is responding to the fundamental needs and rights of Canadians. This is the right thing to do”.

I contemplated making an amendment to this act because I thought that if I were to think of a member in this place who was reflective of the values of openness, transparency, accountability and of serving the people of Canada, it would be the member for Wentworth—Burlington. I would have proposed an amendment to change the name he is proposing, open government act, to the Bryden act. I believe the member has earned the reputation in this place to be recognized as someone who stands for the principles that he is articulating in this bill.

I give him credit and I want his constituents and Canadians to know that there is a member of parliament in this place who has dedicated at least six years of his work, in addition to all his responsibilities as a member of parliament, to an initiative that he feels very strongly about and is dedicated to.

On top of that, I recognize him further for the fact that he has come before us and placed this bill with some humility. We know there has been great difficulty getting this bill shaped and fashioned. I know the consultations he has had right across the House. He has even come here today, given a speech, and said that the bill is not perfect yet but that the bill belongs to the House.

He is asking the House to consider the bill, to consider his hard work and to send it to committee so we can have the very best experts look at each of the clauses and provisions so it can be, as stated in the member's closing remarks, the best Access to Information Act in the world. What a noble objective, to have the best Access to Information Act in the world. It is something to which Canada should aspire. It is something to which the member aspires. I believe there are many members in this place who share his values and his wish that we make this act a better act.

I know there will be some debate on it. I am surprised that some members have already declared that they will not support it. Some of the changes are very complex. It will take legal advice, legislative expertise and broad consultation with Canadians to ensure that we get it right. The member has asked us to please help him get it right, which is why we should send this to committee.

Let me give some examples. He wants to broaden the notion of openness. He states that very clearly in the second amendment. He is bringing in the whole concept of electronic data, which is not covered under the current act. That reason alone is enough for the act to be amended. There is no question in my mind that even if the members of this place decided that all the other changes proposed by the member were not ready for their time, this change is absolutely necessary.

We cannot deny the fact that we are in a global and electronic world. Information does have many forms now and we have to respond to realities. We cannot be followers. With this bill, we have an opportunity to be leaders.

In looking at these provisions, we should consider that they actually require prompt attention. The bill actually considers that a balance is needed between the need to know and personal information. It looks at so many different aspects that I could not possibly address them all.

While I was in my office last evening I had a conversation with the member because I wanted to inform myself a little more about some of the provisions. I was actually astounded at the number of ways in which we can improve this particular bill. I am sure that it is a bill which, if the member had not come up with it, the government itself would have tabled a bill to amend the Access to Information Act, in some cases to ensure that we would respond to some of the fundamental changes that have occurred in our society.

The Private Members' Business question troubles me from time to time. This bill, if it goes to committee and is enacted, will become a law of Canada, equal in all respects to other laws in terms of its force and its stature within the Statutes of Canada. However, the process that the member has had to go through, the time and the restrictions and the fact that we cannot even ask questions of the member in this place, shows that we have a second class process to deal with a first class bill. It is as valid as any other bill in this place.

I will conclude by again congratulating the member for Wentworth—Burlington for his hard work, his insight and his representation of what many members would like to have brought forward themselves. He has given us a tool, an instrument to work with. I believe it is an excellent starting point. I know the member is anxious to work with all members of the House to make sure that we do have the best Access to Information Act in the world.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla to speak to Bill C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information Act.

I believe strongly that transparency in government is a laudable goal. Unfortunately, I do not think this bill does exactly what the member intended it to do.

A few years ago, in the 35th parliament, I introduced a bill in the House, Bill C-263, which was an act to change the Financial Administration Act that would bring into the Financial Administration Act the seven crown corporations that are exempt from following the rules of the FAA. We saw at that time that the government was not interested at all in the transparency and openness of that particular bill, as it failed in Private Members' Business as well.

When the Access to Information Act was first implemented 18 years ago, it was an important step toward the development of our democracy. It actually allowed Canadian citizens the opportunity to legally compel the federal government to provide them with information; not that the federal government has ever complied with this. I am sure every member in the House can testify to the fact that trying to obtain information from the government is and extremely difficult and frustrating exercise.

For instance, I recently placed an access to information request before the human resources department for information on grants and contributions in the riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla. I was expecting to receive the information that I had requested through the act, but instead of the information, I received an invoice from human resources. Human resources officials asked me for $11,713.80 to cover searching fees. That is the kind of freedom of information that we have in this country.

Human resources officials calculated they would need almost 1,200 hours at $10 an hour to find the files on grants and contributions that I had requested. One would think if the government was in charge of managing grants and contributions, information would be easily accessible and available to a member of parliament, but it was not. This is a strong indication of gross mismanagement by the minister of this department.

When I heard that the member for Wentworth—Burlington had reintroduced his private member's bill amending the information act, I assumed that the member wanted to tackle some serious impediments Canadians have in getting information from the federal government. After reviewing this bill, I must tell the House that I was very surprised and extremely disappointed to see what this bill actually proposes.

To me, this looks like a government bill by stealth because the intent of this bill is to make it actually more difficult for Canadians to get information from the federal government. Bill C-206 proposes 40 substantial amendments that alter the nature of the current bill in a regressive manner. The information commissioner has expressed his concern over the extent of what the member is trying to accomplish. My concerns with the key proposals in this bill are as follows.

Bill C-206 proposes to exclude access to what it calls frivolous and abusive users of ATI. This is an extraordinary amendment to legislation dealing with openness. I think Canadians want to know who is going to decide which frequent user requests are frivolous. Will the government itself do this?

Many MPs are frequent users because they rely on ATI to acquire real information from the federal government. From what I can see, this bill is the Liberal government's attempt to block information to opposition MPs through proxy. Furthermore, this supposed private member's initiative intends to control users further by charging frequent users higher fees, something I recently experienced. Now the government wants to charge fees higher than $11,000 to a member of parliament who is doing the work constituents have asked him or her to do. This is absolutely outrageous.

The intent of access to information legislation is to allow Canadians an opportunity to acquire information from an overly secretive federal government. Many individuals are forced to frequently request information because departments attempt to exclude information from their request. The only way they can receive the information is to reframe the wording of the request, then resubmit it.

A further restriction found in this bill is a section that gives the government the ability to deny access to information that could damage national unity. It also includes a section that allows the government to withhold records injurious to the constitutional integrity of Canada for 30 years.

To make matters worse, this bill proposes to include cabinet confidences such as minutes of meetings to be excluded from public access for a time period of 20 years. It also broadens the definition of what constitutes a cabinet confidence, making it more difficult for Canadian citizens, in this case historians and political scientists, from accessing the information they need for their work.

Further, the member for Wentworth—Burlington has reinforced the access to information exemption enjoyed by crown corporations such as the Export Development Corporation, Canada Post and Atomic Energy. Sections like this make it clear that this is a Liberal government bill in disguise. The member for Wentworth—Burlington should be ashamed for acting as a surrogate for a bill that has the Prime Minister and the Privy Council written all over it.

The sole intent of Bill C-206 is to impede the rightful and legal access Canadians have to information from the federal government. Many would argue that the current legislation governing ATI is too restrictive. The Liberal government exploits every roadblock available and even bends the current law to the breaking point to ensure Canadians do not get information they have requested.

We need to look no further than the Somalia inquiry to see how the government manipulates the current law to deny Canadians access to information.

Less than 5% of private members' bills pass the House. Most are rejected by the Liberal government, which takes private members' best points as its own and writes its own bills.

The Liberals want what is in Bill C-206, but do not want to claim ownership because they do not want Canadians to know that they initiated legislation which would deny Canadians the right to federal government information. Canadians should be aware that this is a bill written by the privy council and disguised under the name of the member for Wentworth—Burlington.

It is my prediction that this bill will be one of the few private members' bills that passes this House, simply because of the majority on the Liberal side.

When the effects of this bill are felt, do not thank the member for Wentworth—Burlington, thank our Prime Minister.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

It being 2.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)