Debates of May 11th, 2000

Access To Information Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Haldimand—Victoria—Brock.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is Haliburton—Victoria—Brock. When you start dealing with the member for Wentworth—Burlington you will be talking about Ancaster, Dundas, Flamborough and Aldershot, so you will have to work on that.

There are a lot of things the House has to learn other than finding out where a member actually resides. Do not worry, the name of my riding will change shortly because Victoria has been changed to the City of the Kawartha Lakes. I will probably have to change that also because it does not exist. When I get around to running a survey in my next householder I will ask people what exactly they want the riding to be called.

Bill C-206 was introduced by my colleague from Wentworth—Burlington. As the member for Kings—Hants has noted, we sometimes disagree. Probably the only reason he does not heckle me is because I am on his side of the House.

Allowing private members' business, in general, to be debated in the House is something which I think the public does not quite understand. I think it should be pointed out that any debate or negotiating, or anything that is allowed in private members' business should be looked at very seriously. People should understand that private members do a great deal of research into what they feel is perhaps an injustice or perhaps is not. If something is being left out of legislation that affects the people on the street with whom we deal as backbench members of parliament, sometimes the only way to create debate is to bring a private member's bill forward. I compliment the member for Wentworth—Burlington for doing so.

First reading is an important stage because it introduces the bill to the House. That in itself allows members to read the bill and to discover the very thoughtful discussion that has gone into it, the commentary and the amendments that it would make to the act. After that it receives second reading and goes to committee. Then it comes back to the House for report stage and amendments, if necessary, and concurrence.

Many people do not realize that it takes a long time for that to happen. It takes a great deal of gumption on behalf of a member to follow it through and to try to deal with the various amendments from other members. Then third reading debate and a vote will send it on to the other place, or the Senate as it is known. That is the process.

We should keep in mind that there are, I think by design, 30 private member's bills on the order paper. The number is never less than that. As one is dealt with another is brought forward. I am not sure of the exact number that are actually waiting to get into that stream, but there are quite a few of them.

One of the subcommittees that I sit on is the one formed by the central Ontario caucus. We as group looked at ways to improve the way parliament works. That report is making its way through the system. It has some 24 recommendations. Some are doable. Some are not. Some will die from partisan politics, although we tried to make it extremely non-partisan. It deals entirely with backbench members of parliament.

One of the recommendations was Friday sittings. Some members have said that this is the only place that sits on Fridays in the world wherever there are parliaments, wherever there are democratic systems that work under the British model. If it is not in the government's interest to sit on Friday, I thought we could compromise and move Private Members' Business to Friday and make Friday a day when all Private Members' Business would be dealt with. Then members know exactly when it would be dealt with. We would not have to change the clock. This is the only place in the world where it is 6.05 p.m. and the Chair can declare that it is 6.10 p.m.

In any event certain things need some work around here and that may be one of them. A Friday sitting for Private Members' Business would highlight it and give it the precedence I believe it deserves in parliament. I would like to see us go ahead with that. We could allow for government bills to be introduced so that we would not lose a day and so on, but there would be no dilatory motions, no surprise votes, and private members would have a day of their own on Fridays.

That is one recommendation for improvement. When I come to the recommendations for improvement on Bill C-206 I notice that changing the act from the Access to Information Act to an act to allow for more open government would make perfect sense to the public and should make perfect sense to all of us. In fact the more open the government is, the more trustworthy it becomes.

We as politicians could actually move up the scale a little, which would be quite a change from some of the ways we are treated. In particular, we are in a more adversarial position with many members of parliament trying to find the party that they are in, some trying to find the party they are not in, and some working away at trying to carve out their niche. It is more confrontational. The agenda seems to move forward, whether it is the Bloc trying to bring its agenda forward by high profiling everything, whether it is the Canadian Alliance Party trying to bring its leadership debate to the front, or whether it is the Conservative Party trying to bring its leader to the front. There seems to be a spirit of less co-operation in this place.

This affects backbench members of parliament, no matter whether they are in the government or in the opposition, more than it affects members who sit on the frontbenches or those who hold positions in official opposition and have functions which give them things such as a parking spot. It would be nice to have some place to park our cars around here but this is not allowed. We would not have to bunk in with other people because we do not get enough money to cover our apartments. I do not know of a company in the world that would send some one to Ottawa and say that he or she has to bunk in with three or four people to afford to be here.

When we deal with an open government act, I believe the right to access to information is the right to democracy. I believe we as democratically elected politicians should allow the government to be more open. I see in the legislation a spirit of compromise. I see a spirit of change. I believe we all feel that this act needs to be changed.

This is the only time, as this is Private Members' Business, that I can speak against the government. If I were moved back any farther I would get into curtain burn. I cannot be moved back any farther so I am allowed to speak my mind on Private Members' Business.

The government does not support the bill for a couple of reasons, but it recognizes that the issues of access reform are controversial and complex. Those diversions of opinion are legitimate so Private Members' Business has been legitimized.

Mr. Speaker, either I have two minutes left or you are a Roman ordering five beer. I always try to inject a little humour into this place because sometimes it is very hard to find. Whenever I see a response that uses the word stakeholders, which I never learned until I came to Ottawa, and the phrase at the end of the day, I know the government is in trouble.

I know the bill has a good chance. I compliment the member for Wentworth—Burlington, soon to be Ancaster—Dundas—Flamboro—Aldershot, for his initiative in bringing it to our attention and highlighting the importance of Private Members' Business. It does move the agenda forward, although not necessarily on this particular day. However it will move the agenda forward and bring it to the forefront, which perhaps will cause the government to improve an act that needs improvement, as the member has so rightly pointed out.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on Bill C-206 as I have had some involvement in it in terms of how it got on the order of precedence and came up for debate.

Our party would not argue that there is a real need to review and make changes to the Access to Information Act to make it work better for members of parliament. Our recent experience with the human resources department and its non-compliance with the act gives us great concern about how the issue of access to information is being handled and how members can get the information they need in a timely manner.

The bill proposes some changes that might help. In my view, from the time I originally signed the bill until the bill was put on the order of precedence, it has been substantially softened to obtain the support of a sufficient number of backbench Liberals to get their signatures. That was too bad.

The original intent of the bill was to change the Access to Information Act to open up access to information from crown corporations and to information around the issue of Canadian unity. It was a pretty good change and was important to our members. That was reflected by the number of our members who signed and supported the bill. However, for whatever reasons the sponsor of the bill changed it and got into all the trouble about changing it after getting the 100 signatures.

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

You know that is not true.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

No, I do not think that. I think it is the absolute truth. Having got into this issue since sitting on a subcommittee of the procedure and House affairs committee, we are the midst of studying the entire process of 100 named sponsors of a bill. It is becoming more clear that the whole system of 100 names to force a bill on to the order of precedence is not working, probably never will and will have to be scrapped. Then we will have to go back to the traditional lottery draw on bills.

This process has been in place for some time now. This is the first bill that has ever been in the House under the process of the 100 signatures. There are nine other bills on the order of precedence with 100 signatures waiting to come on. The truth is that any member who wishes to have a private member's bill debated in the House statistically has a better chance of getting it drawn in the lottery and debated than he or she would by getting the 100 signatures. I am sure that the system will not work.

As many of our members said and as the member who sponsored the bill said, being one of the 100 signatories to the bill means nothing more than that we thought the issue should be debated in the House of Commons. If that is all it means, why would a member not sign any other member's bill to come to the House?

The intent of the 100 signature rule was that if there were extraordinary issues the government refused to deal with which the general public or opposition members felt warranted serious debate, there should be a process by which the bill could be brought to the House. That was the purpose of the 100 signature rule. If it means nothing more than a member signifying a willingness to debate the issue in the House by signing the bill then the process is not achieving the purpose everyone envisioned it might and should be scrapped.

I guess the subcommittee will make its recommendations and some time in the future the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will make its decision to either change it to make the process meaningful in some way or scrap it and go back to the lottery draw where a certain number of bills are drawn. Then, if we are lucky enough to have our bills drawn, we get to debate them. Probably that is the fairest system and probably why it evolved over the years.

I am surprised it does not appear that the government will support the bill in its present form even after the member softened the bill to get support of the government backbenchers and to get the 100 signatures. The member has been chirping away over there, but he has to remember that we have a $100 bet that this bill will actually be proclaimed into law. In fact, if the government is not supporting the bill, I think my money is a pretty sure thing.

Maybe the 100 or 113 people who supported and signed the bill were simply supporting the concept that there would be an extensive review of the Access to Information Act, with substantive changes made so that we could get information, particularly on crown corporations and other organizations that are arm's length from government, that is not now available through access to information.

I have heard from my constituents about some of their experiences dealing with access to information. Under the Access to Information Act a person can apply for information and remain anonymous even to the people from whom they are acquiring the information.

A small businessman in my riding got a notice from the information office that someone had applied for some very privileged information on his business, information that would have put him in a non-competitive position if it was released. He objected strongly to the release of that information but was told by the office of the information commissioner that it had overruled his objections and had released the information anyway. The office told him that it had no obligation to reveal the name of the person who was asking for that information and that if he objected he had access to the courts to protect himself.

A process where one has to hire a lawyer and go through a court to protect privileged information about one's business seems to be a strange process. This to me does not seem reasonable. People should be able to protect information about their business or at least be apprised of who is looking for that information and why when the office asks if they are willing to let that information go. It is very difficult to understand why anyone would let any information go when the content of the request is not known.

I believe there are some real problems for us as opposition members in getting information in a timely manner and within the rules. Our constituents also have major problems dealing with access to information and want some changes. Unfortunately I do not think the bill goes nearly far enough to solve those problems.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Access to Information Act came into force on July 1, 1983. At that time it was a revolutionary piece of legislation and represented a significant leap forward for the right to know.

By enacting the Access to Information Act, Canada joined a group of elite countries whose governments had opened their files to their citizens. Prior to the Access to Information Act, access to government information could be granted or denied according to the whim of the government official who responded.

However, after the coming into force of that legislation, Canadian citizens could not be denied access to information without proper justification. Parliament had established the principle that Canadians citizens and landed immigrants were entitled to have access to documents held by the government, subject only to specific and limited exceptions provided for in the act.

These exceptions were established after considerable thought in order to maintain a balance between the right of access to information and privacy, business secrets, national security and the need to maintain a climate of open communication for policy making purposes.

To further emphasize the commitment to openness, most of the exemptions contained in the act were made discretionary. There is no harm or injury to the interest protected by the exemption, then the institution is not prevented from releasing the information.

The Access to Information Act also provides applicants with an appeal process if some or all the information they have requested is denied or if they are unsatisfied with the processing of the request. Complaints may initially be made to an independent officer who reports directly to parliament, the information commissioner and then, if the applicant is still unsatisfied, to the federal court.

The Access to Information Act represented a major commitment to openness by the Government of Canada. Since then, most provinces have passed legislation providing access, to varying degrees, to government information.

This right to know embodied in legislation is one means of giving Canadians an insight into what their government is doing. It also enables citizens to access and use the information that their government holds on their behalf.

Canadians agree that the machinery of government has become more complex over time, its responsibilities are broader and its decisions have a direct impact on their lives. This is why it is important to be accountable to the population and to constantly ensure that the government systematically releases information on its activities.

It is therefore important to remember that the Access to Information Act was intended to supplement other traditional ways of making government information available to the public. I believe that the Access to Information Act has encouraged institutions to identify many categories of information that can be released without formal requests. Many institutions have, on their own initiative, placed useful information on their websites, in their libraries or in their reading rooms.

Since 1983 the environment in which the Government of Canada operates has changed. Technology has had a tremendous impact on the way government delivers programs and services to Canadian citizens, and on how information is collected, processed, and managed within the government.

Following these changes, some argued that the provisions of the Access to Information Act are now outdated and require a major update to take into account the new information technologies. Consequently, many individuals and interest groups propose changes touching on specific aspects of the act and some more general changes.

Parliamentarians are among those who want to change the act. While some members used the Access to Information Act to get government information, others introduced private members' bills to amend it.

For example, section 67.1 was the most recent amendment to the act. This section was added when Bill C-208 was proclaimed on March 25, 1999. This was a significant amendment to the act as it made it a criminal offence for any person to wilfully obstruct the right of access provided by the Access to Information Act.

Bill C-208 received all party support in the House, sending a clear message that all parties strongly support the concept of openness.

Another private member's bill is the bill we are debating today, Bill C-206 which was re-introduced by the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington. This bill proposes a variety of amendments to the Access to Information Act.

I believe this bill is a good start. The member is to be congratulated for his leadership on this important issue. He has demonstrated his commitment to the concept of openness by proposing 33 amendments to the act which he believes will improve the act and will increase that openness.

Nevertheless, while I commend my colleague in his efforts, I believe that before we vote on these significant amendments to the Access to Information Act, we must seek the views of all stakeholders who will be affected by them: Canadian citizens, the information commissioner, special groups, representatives of the media, government officials and so on. There are widely differing views as to the impact this bill would have on the Access to Information Act, and the consequences that would emerge from the it. In order to properly assess the contents of the bill we need to hear more, both from those who support the bill, or portions of it, and from those who oppose the bill.

All of these individuals or groups who use or have an interest in the Access to Information Act must have an opportunity to make representations or bring forward their own proposals to amend the act before we take any further steps.

We must open the discussion and invite all stakeholders to participate in the important debate concerning what adjustments are needed and how the objectives of the act can best be accomplished. While I am among those who support the overall thrust of the bill as laudable, there are a number of outstanding concerns on which there needs to be full and wide consultation.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make some comments on the private member's bill, Bill C-206. I appreciate the efforts made by the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington to look at access to information. I guess I am just a little jaded in my feelings on access to information and having any kind of legislation that allows the head of a government department or the Prime Minister to make a decision on whether information will be released.

My experience with access to information with government departments has not been a pleasant one. I find that whenever there is information that might embarrass or undermine the government's agenda, the department makes every effort to ensure that any information that is released is either highly blacked out, whited out or completely removed from the documentation that one receives.

I do not like the idea that someone can consider an access to information request to be frivolous. It may be frivolous to the people in the department or to an individual in a department but it is probably not frivolous to the person who is making the request. I cannot support the idea that a person in any government department can decide on his or her own that something seems to be frivolous, or that somebody seems to be asking for access to information more than somebody in a government department deems necessary, or that he or she personally does not think that the person requesting the information is acting on behalf of a group or organization.

Access to information should be very clear. When a citizen of Canada asks for information it should be provided to them. The gathering of the information is done using taxpayer dollars. The people who are overseeing the spending of taxpayer dollars are paid by taxpayer dollars. If an individual is concerned enough about an issue to ask the government for the information in order to do research, to support a position or for whatever reason, nothing should be blocking the flow of information.

I particularly do not want the head of some government department being able to say “I think that is frivolous. I think that may be a secret or an issue that we cannot release because of national security”.

I have found, in my research and in my position, that buying a case of toilet paper for a government department can be considered a national security. I do not want the head of any government department able to say that the request is frivolous or that it might be a danger to the welfare of the country if that information is released.

This legislation, although it is a private member's bill and it does reach into some of the corners, it is still basically protecting the government from having to release information that it does not want anybody to know.

All we have to do is look at the human resources department and the boondoggle of the waste of government money. That fact is it is through access requests that we get little tidbits of information which lead to other tidbits of information instead of getting full documents released, instead of getting audits released without access to information. A government can use any legislation that it wants to hide facts and information from embarrassing itself or from coming clean with Canadians.

With all due respect, I do not think think this legislation will make it any easier for people to get information from government departments that do not want that information released. It points out a number of areas that could be cleaned up, but on the whole it does not deal with completely opening up access to information for ordinary citizens.

What it does do is if an ordinary citizen is concerned about issues and digs deeper and deeper and asks for more and more requests, the citizen can be asked to pay more and more money for it. In other words, instead of a simple $5 fee it can be deemed that a request is frivolous, is of a personal nature or whatever and the individual will have to pay not only the cost but an extra 10%.

I do not think it is good enough. Either the government will come clean and release information or it will not. I am not convinced that this legislation will make it any better for Canadians to get access to information that the government would just as soon not share because it is trying to hide its mismanagement of government funds.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe not today but at some point I would like to have the opportunity to respond to the comments of the hon. member across the way with respect to the freedom of information act and how the government deals with it. For the time being I will confine myself to Bill C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information Act introduced by the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington.

I would like to acknowledge at the outset the tremendous amount of work involved in putting together a private member's bill as extensive as Bill C-206. It is evident that a great deal of thought and effort has gone into the preparation of the bill. The hon. member certainly deserves much recognition and appreciation for his hard work.

I would also like to point out that the government values openness and transparency. It recognizes the role of the Access to Information Act in ensuring that these values of openness and transparency animate every aspect of institutional behaviour, subject of course to certain restrictions that are intended to protect private and commercial information as an example.

The hon. member's bill was originally introduced in November 1997 as Bill C-264. It was reintroduced last fall as Bill C-206. It is an extensive bill that proposes a major reform of the Access to Information Act. It has opened a much needed discussion on the subject of access to information.

Since the bill was first introduced in 1997, government departments and agencies have had an opportunity to consider the proposed changes to the act that the bill contemplates. These government departments and agencies have some concerns about the impact the bill would have on third party information provided to the government by both individuals and businesses.

One of the proposals in Bill C-206 would result in the automatic disclosure of a wide variety of information that has been under the control of the government for 30 years. Many departments are concerned that the automatic disclosure of personal information that the government has held for 30 years could lead to an infringement of an individual's right to privacy under the charter.

While the bill does permit some exceptions against disclosure of information such as the safety of an individual, Bill C-206 does not recognize that in some circumstances individuals expect their confidentiality to be maintained. In fact they will have provided the government with their personal information with the expectation that government will keep that information confidential. Generally speaking, personal information should not be disclosed except for the purpose for which it was originally given to the government.

The privacy commissioner also has expressed grave concerns about the impact the bill would have on the privacy of individuals and on the confidentiality of personal information particularly with respect to the income tax returns of Canadians. Income tax returns by their very nature contain a lot of private and personal information that should continue to be protected. No one should want his or her income tax information to be accessible at any time.

Statistics Canada has advised that it is extremely worried about the impact of Bill C-206 on its ability to maintain the confidentiality of information which Statistics Canada collects from individuals and businesses. For example the information collected by the Statistics Canada census on lifestyle and from pension managers is personal. The confidentiality of information provided by businesses is also put at risk as a result of the 30 year rule I mentioned earlier and as a result of the proposed repeal of section 24 which supports confidentiality clauses in other statutes.

Industry Canada has pointed out that the proposed changes to the act could have a chill effect on the information provided to the government by businesses. There would be no guarantee to businesses that their commercially sensitive information and trade secrets would be protected. This would make it difficult to administer regulatory schemes and government programs that rely on information supplied by businesses to the government.

Health Canada has also confirmed that the bill may cause a chill effect on drugs being sold in Canada. Drugs cannot be sold in Canada without a pharmaceutical company filing a new drug submission. The submission includes trade secrets. Businesses may be unwilling to risk their competitive position by filing new drug submissions in Canada if there is a risk that their trade secrets could be released to third parties. This I am sure will be a major cause of concern for Canadians.

The discussion prompted by Bill C-206 has highlighted how very complex and controversial access reform can be. In fact it may be possible to improve government openness and transparency through administrative reform. However, if the better choice is to reform the act in order to enhance openness and transparency in government, then major reform of the Access to Information Act such as that proposed in Bill C-206 should not be undertaken without first conducting broad public consultations that would allow all interested stakeholders to express their views.

This is a view that was expressed by the information commissioner when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights last November. The information commissioner stated that proposals for access reform should be informed by a variety of perspectives and that it would be preferable for consultations to be conducted on a broad scale allowing all stakeholders to have a say.

Let me conclude by reminding the House that Bill C-206 would make major changes to the Access to Information Act. Concerns are emerging from many quarters about the implications of the proposed changes. This raises an important question and a note of caution. Will the government be able to continue to protect personal information provided by individuals to the government for various purposes as well as confidential commercial information and trade secrets provided by businesses? Much consultation must be undertaken to effectively answer many of the outstanding questions and concerns.

Nevertheless I would like to once again congratulate the hon. member for his efforts in this area. I think it is extremely important. He has made a very significant contribution to the debate.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is my opportunity to speak on private members' business which is not a choice opportunity. The member for Wentworth—Burlington is a member I have watched and I find him sensible and thoughtful. I think sometimes he is a thorn in the government's side and I always chuckle when I see that.

I would start off by saying that access to information and opening up access to information as far as an opposition politician is concerned is just perfect. I am vigorously pro the process of opening up access to information.

I would like to mention a procedural concern with the bill. The member I hope will take this in the spirit that it is intended. There was a brand new process brought in where we could hasten private members' business and have 100 signatures. Some members of the alliance signed, having gone over the basic premise of the bill, and enthusiastically supported it.

There were some changes that were made to the bill. I believe that if the member had come openly to those who had signed and said, “These changes have been made. I believe that these improve the bill. Would you reassess it and take a look at it”, there would not have been the procedural harangue and kerfuffle that went with the bill. I think the hon. member would say that honestly.

I do not believe that the member did this with any negative feelings or with any bad motives, but it really would have helped the process. Because I supported the idea of 100 signatures on an important private member's bill, I would hate to see that lost to us because of this procedural concern.

The bill has been reintroduced with 100 signatures so that there still is support of at least 100 members and it is votable. This will be an opportunity to have a debate on an issue which I think is important.

Private members' business in general has been an interesting thing to me as a relatively novice politician. Not very many private members' bills get passed. There are significant hurdles. It has been interesting to watch the changes.

The voting has changed. The cabinet no longer votes first. Voting comes down the rows which gives those who do not have cabinet solidarity at mind a little bit more of an opportunity. I have seen a little bit of a change in attitude toward private members' business because of that.

I am always fascinated to listen to the various members speak to a bill that has some controversy to it. I will watch this process with interest.

Why am I so supportive of access to information opening up? I would like to go over a couple of examples in my own career here to talk about why it needs improvement.

I will go back to the tainted blood issue. I consider that issue one of the dark days. This is not a partisan comment because the government opposite was not the only government involved in it. There was a mixed accountability line or thread for the Red Cross, the Canadian Blood Agency and the federal and provincial governments. During the meetings that went on with tainted blood, and in their minutes, some very important decisions were made.

Judge Krever in his report said that the line of accountability was partly to blame. He was hampered in his investigations because some of the minutes and processes that were undertaken during that period of time were destroyed. They were destroyed on purpose. They were destroyed by individuals whom I felt had a public trust and they have gotten off scot-free. Their names were mentioned but there was no sanction or penalty for destroying public documents that would have and could have in my estimation made the process of compensation for those victims of hepatitis C much easier for the government to have undertaken.

In that regard, in this bill I see penalties for destroying documents. That is quite significantly appropriate.

How has access to information been handled on issues where I think individuals in the government have done things that are inappropriate? Not so long ago I remember some documents surfacing that showed expense accounts were not being used properly by a minister of the government. Although one could look through the whiteout and find enough information to make suppositions, the whiteout was like a blizzard. Skiers who have gotten into a whiteout cannot see where the crowd is or where their feet are. They are disoriented. The whiteout process used on those access to information requests reminded me of skiing in a whiteout, a blizzard in the snow. There is an indication for me that access to information was not working properly.

Finally on HRDC, there was an audit that had been available to government department resources which I feel was not released publicly. Audits are public information, and with an access to information request, suddenly, that audit was made available. I presume that it would have been hard to hide. It contained some information which makes grants and contributions, that process of government activity, unsavoury. We have spent a lot of time in the House in the last three or four months on that issue. Looking back, we can find similar audits with similar complaints made for a long period of time.

Access to information requests on this same subject are now being held up. Departments are saying that the requests are too voluminous. There is a 30 day point in time when that information is supposed to be provided, but it is not being provided in that time.

Given those three examples, I say that the ATI does need improvement.

What does this bill do for white-out? I do not see anything. I am not sure what I would do about white-out. I will listen to the debate. I think that white-out, somehow, could be improved in this whole process.

One other improvement I would like to see would be an expansion to include crown corporations with regard to access to information. The member says that it is in this legislation. I have not found it in a form that I could say I am completely comfortable with, but I know the member would not mislead me, so I will presume that an expansion to include crown corporations is in the bill.

As a principle, open and accountable government is strongly supported. In practice, does this bill move us far enough down that road? I will listen to the balance of the debate.

I am pleased to compliment the member opposite for doing what I think is an excellent job regarding private members' business. I will be supporting or not supporting this bill, according to some of the concerns and comments I have just made.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will accept that we will not get a thorough discussion of any element of the bill in three minutes, but I certainly do want to put my views on the record.

I want to recognize the huge effort and investment undertaken by the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington in drafting this bill and bringing it to the House as an item under Private Members' Business. Some members have noted the procedural difficulties and challenges faced by the hon. member as he brought his bill forward. He has succeeded in overcoming those difficulties and has presented a bill of great importance and complexity for us to consider in Private Members' Business.

It is worthwhile pointing out that this bill was not drafted over months and months by a government department in consultation with other government departments. It was essentially put together by the hon. member himself, in consultation with a number of parties inside the loop. The bill reflects difficulties perceived in the process used for obtaining information from the government.

This government as well as previous governments have accepted the importance of access to information and freedom of information. That template was put in place 10 or 20 years ago and is working reasonably well in achieving the intended purposes, but there are some discontinuities, some obstacles and some ways in which we could make it better.

Reference was made to the penalty sections for destroying documents. I recall the House adopting another private member's bill about two years ago which did put in place penalty sections for destroying documents under this statute. The hon. member's bill recapitulates them and streamlines them.

Someone mentioned that the government may or may not be supporting the bill. I point out for the record that the government refrains, conspicuously refrains, from indicating support or non-support for private members' initiatives and generally leaves matters to members in the House of Commons. That does not mean that government ministers do not, from time to time, indicate preferences and create documents for guidance.

I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating that my three minutes is up. Let me end by congratulating the hon. member for this huge initiative. There will be further debate on the subject.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

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

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to my question of February 24 to the Minister of Natural Resources on the issue of energy costs.

In February gasoline, diesel and home heating fuel prices skyrocketed to record levels for two reasons: OPEC cut back oil production, and a bitterly cold winter in the northeast U.S. hiked the demand for crude just at the minute it reached over $30 U.S. per barrel.

Canada is a net exporter of oil. That means we produce more oil than we consume and, therefore, we export the difference. These reasons which were given to us back in February, which are now still affecting our price of energy, are very unacceptable. There is no information which can prove that is driving up the prices. I think it is a result of unjustified price increases by oil companies.

Canadians were badly hurt by the resulting record price increase, in particular those on the east coast and truckers who already struggle with very thin cost margins.

I raised this issue many times in the House to almost nothing but blank stares from the Liberal government. It was as if the Liberals were completely unaware that Canadians were hurting, completely oblivious that Canadians were hopping mad. This is another example of how little the Liberal government is in touch with Canadians.

I guess that is what happens when we give cabinet ministers a government car and a government driver. They have no idea what the price of gas is any more.

Meanwhile, south of the border, the U.S. administration was convening energy summits in the northeast with refineries, trucking associations, suppliers, consumer groups and industrial users. President Clinton said that his administration found the problem “deeply troubling” and was monitoring it daily. He announced a 17 point plan to help consumers, truckers and business people get through the crisis. He defended his economy and dispatched his energy secretary, Bill Richardson, to meet with OPEC ministers around the world.

By the way, a New York Times story some weeks later pointed out that Bill Richardson, the energy secretary I mentioned, earned very high marks for his decisive action on this file and is now a leading contender for the vice-presidential candidacy on the Democratic ticket. This is a lesson on how to listen to people and take their concerns seriously, one the Liberals could learn a lot from.

Back in Canada, the provinces and territories were not having much more luck with the government than we in the opposition were, as it turns out. They tried to convince the federal government that it was only reasonable, if it was going to conduct a credible study on gasoline retailing, to do it with someone other than just the integrated oil companies. They finally agreed to go in on a study with the federal government, but then the feds let the contract out and it wound up going to the same contractor that the big oil companies use, M. J. Ervin, so half of the provinces, plus the independent gas retailers pulled out again.

This was the moment at which I put my question to the Minister of Natural Resources. Would he finally call an energy summit of affected parties to consider urgent assistance measures and consider some long term preventive measures to ensure such price spikes and supply problems do not threaten our economy again?

The minister indicated that he would canvass his provincial colleagues. I would like to know tonight what the result of that canvass was, fully three months after the question.

Moreover, the federal government has subsequently announced a new study of the oil industry. Initially I thought that if it contributed some independent data and had some real teeth, it might be worthwhile in terms of contributing to the debate, but then I learned that the price tag was $750,000. That is outrageous, since the study is going back to the same consulting firm which the big oil companies use, M. J. Ervin, which the provinces and the independent gas retailers raised concerns about previously and rejected.

Most of the cost is not going to research. Most of it, 60%, is going to public relations. I quote from the terms of reference for the study: “A highly structured/facilitated session of only invited stakeholders to conduct a dialogue on the intransigence of the public's perception on gas prices”. They are going to Calgary, Toronto and Montreal. They should go to Whitehorse, Regina and St. John's, Newfoundland instead and let the doors be open wide.

The entire premise of the study by the Conference Board is that the issue has been studied to death but the public just does not understand the research.

In summary, I think we have a different problem in this country. First, the refineries have a monopoly. Second, the Liberals rely on the integrated oil companies for campaign contributions. Third, the public is paying higher prices at the pump now when crude is at $26 a barrel than it was during the gulf war when crude hit $35 U.S. a barrel. What is the answer?

[John Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. member's previous suggestion, the issue of petroleum product pricing is a regular agenda item at the federal-provincial-territorial meetings of energy ministers. Natural Resources Canada officials also maintain an ongoing consultation with their provincial colleagues on issues relating to petroleum product markets.

The increases in crude oil prices are the result of increasing world oil demand, due largely to economic recovery in Asia and production restraint by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, also know as OPEC.

OPEC members agreed to increase production at the OPEC ministerial meeting in March. This should ease some of the pressures, although not entirely, due to the demand for fuel and the status of inventories.

The inventory situation is one that should improve somewhat over the year. Reduced inventory levels throughout North America since last summer have kept prices high on spot markets. However, in the early part of 2000 the increased demand for distillates, diesel and furnace oil resulted in price spikes to record levels in certain centres in Canada.

This situation was the result of additional heating demand due to frigid weather and the North American and European refineries purchasing large volumes of low sulphur distillate on the spot market to conform to environmental regulations that became effective January 1, 2000.

The federal and provincial governments have some shared responsibilities in relation to crude oil and petroleum product pricing. Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia are the only two provinces which currently regulate retail gasoline prices. The provincial governments are responsible for the regulation of retail pricing. The federal government has the authority for competition law and policy and for international and interprovincial trade.

When the federal government regulated crude oil prices during the 1970s and 1980s it was in response to very large and persistent price increases. Under the western accord of 1985 the governments of Canada, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia agreed that domestic crude oil prices should be deregulated.

The best option before us is to continue to defend primary reliance upon competitive markets to set prices, even as we work with other members of the International Energy Agency to promote oil market stability.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 24, I raised the issue of the importation of plutonium based MOX fuel from United States and Russia.

At the Moscow summit, in 1996, the Prime Minister unilaterally undertook to allow this dangerous product into Canada. The issue having been referred to it, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs tabled, in December 1998, a unanimous report that clearly stated:

The Committee recommends that the Government reject the idea of burning MOX fuel in Canada because this option is totally unfeasible—

Yet, this committee was constituted of a majority of Liberal members, that is, the hon. member for Chatham—Kent Essex, the hon. member for Scarborough Centre, the hon. member for Brampton West—Mississauga, the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale, the hon. member for Halton, the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, the hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant and the hon. member for Brampton Centre.

Early last fall, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited held public consultations, but for only 28 days. It is important to note that these consultations were not on the principle of the importation of plutonium but only on the route that the Russian and American shipments would follow.

In the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited report tabled on November 4, 1999, it was decided that the American MOX would be carried by truck and the Russian MOX by ship.

However, on January 10, the federal government changed unilaterally its initial plan and decided to import American MOX by air four days later.

The minister will not have me believe that Transport Canada had the time to assess this new plan in only four days, to make sure that the process was consistent with the regulations of the Atomic Energy Control Board, the regulations concerning the packaging of radioactive materials, the regulations of the International Civil Aviation Organization and the regulations of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.

I would point out that the transportation of plutonium by air is illegal in the United States. Moreover, in a January 1999 report on the Parallex project, that is the plutonium importation project, the American Department of Energy said the following:

It is considered to be more dangerous to transport plutonium by air than by land, because accident risks are higher.

It is indecent for the natural resources minister to candidly declare in the House that this danger is non-existent north of the 49th parallel.

The American position is clear on this issue: no plutonium container is safe enough to withstand a plane crash. According to them, the 4H BUF containers used by Transport Canada last January could not withstand an impact at more than 30 miles an hour or a fire of more than 15 minutes.

The fact that the plans for the transportation of MOX fuel were changed unilaterally is a slap in the face of democracy. The minister should recognize that the importation of MOX fuel is a national issue affecting all Canadians and Quebecers.

The government tells us that this is done in support of international nuclear disarmament. However, the government should consider the fact that 50% to 66% of the initial mass of MOX fuel will remain in the form of waste. Therefore, it will no longer be a world problem, but a strictly Canadian problem. I doubt that the Americans and the Russians will agree to take back their waste.

Obviously, the Minister of Natural Resources never took the people's concerns into account in this matter. The 149 resolutions from municipalities and RCMs located along the St. Lawrence River opposing the project to import plutonium should bring the government to give in on this issue, as should the 96% negative comments from the general public.

It is unacceptable for the government not to ask the people if they approve of importing plutonium.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the import of the MOX fuel test sample from the United States to Canada and the helicopter flight in Canada, I want to assure hon. members that the shipment complied with all Canadian legal and regulatory requirements. The shipment complied with the Atomic Energy Control Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, the Transportation and Packaging of Radioactive Materials Regulations, the requirements under the International Civil Aviation Organization, and the standards set by International Atomic Energy Agency.

The MOX test sample shipments are safe. The trace amount of radiation is so small that it poses no significant risk to health, safety or the environment. The fuel is in a stable, solid, ceramic form inside a sealed zirconium alloy element and transported in a container. As I stated earlier, it meets Canadian and international standards. It is not soluble and cannot spill, ignite or explode. It is not a powder that can be inhaled. The transport of the fuel samples is subject to all the requirements of Canada's regulatory system, which fully protects public health, safety and the environment.

The MOX fuel test shipment from the United States was safely transported to Chalk River Laboratories on January 14, 2000. The U.S. Department of Energy has clearly stated that this is a one time shipment of a small quantity of used mixed oxide nuclear fuel to Canada.

The mixed oxide fuel, MOX, test project is part of an international non-proliferation initiative to find a safe and secure manner to render surplus Russian and American weapons grade plutonium inaccessible for future use in nuclear weapons.

The plutonium that has been declared surplus by the U.S. and Russia already exists and will continue to present a real proliferation danger until it can be reduced to a form that cannot be readily used for weapons purposes. The use of MOX fuel in a nuclear reactor is one of the methods by which the plutonium can be rendered effectively inaccessible for weapons.

Canada has agreed, in principle, to consider the use of MOX fuel in Canada as part of its contribution to international disarmament initiatives. The Government of Canada believes that Canadians share a common desire to create a safe and secure world for future generations and are prepared to take appropriate action, provided that public health, safety and the environment are not compromised in the process.

In conclusion, I must stress that undertaking this test does not oblige Canada to agree to the large scale use of MOX fuel in Candu power plants in the future. Should any such program be proposed at some point in the future, stringent conditions will apply, including full public participation prior to entering into the program.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 7.05 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.05 p.m.)