Debates of June 20th, 2006

International Bridges and Tunnels Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from June 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Public Health Agency of Canada Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to order made Monday, June 19, 2006, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-5.

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

Mr. Speaker, that worked so well, let us try it once more. I think if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote on the motion previously before the House to the motion presently before the House, with the Conservative members present voting yes.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal members in the House will be supporting this great Liberal bill and voting in favour of it.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Québécois will oppose this motion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members will be voting yes to this motion.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I vote in favour of this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #24

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 28 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-2, An Act providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability, as reported (with amendments) from the Legislative Committee on Bill C-2; and of the motions in Group No. 2.

Federal Accountability Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the member for Acadie—Bathurst want to raise a point of order?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Just before question period, I asked the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Motions Nos. 17 and 19 from Group No. 2.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the member for Acadie—Bathurst have the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Motions Nos. 17 and 19 from Group No. 2 that is now before the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Motions Nos. 17 and 19 are withdrawn.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the amendments in Group No. 2 and in particular to Motion No. 20. Motion No. 20 would delete proposed section 165.1, which includes the Canadian Wheat Board under the Access to Information Act.

On behalf of the official opposition, which has long defended and will continue to defend the Canadian Wheat Board, I would like to state that the Access to Information Act should not apply.

In fact, the original bill did not contain the reference to the Canadian Wheat Board, and for good reason. In drafting the legislation, justice officials recognized that the provisions of the bill did not apply to the Canadian Wheat Board.

The justice department official at the Bill C-2 legislative committee acknowledged that “the Canadian Wheat Board is not a crown corporation” like the agencies the bill was intended to cover. He said that “the Canadian Wheat Board is not a crown corporation within the meaning of section 83 of the Financial Administration Act...”. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture acknowledged that the government could not craft an amendment to include the Canadian Wheat Board, and that was the reason for its exclusion.

Unfortunately, the New Democratic Party member for Winnipeg Centre brought forward an amendment to include the Canadian Wheat Board, without consulting the Wheat Board and of course with the approval of government members on the committee. Government members knew they could not do this within the definition of agencies that the accountability act was trying to target, but they sat on their hands while the member for Winnipeg Centre did their bidding for them so that they can in fact undermine the Canadian Wheat Board and in the end possibly make it even less competitive.

It is my understanding that members of the New Democratic caucus have recognized their error and will more than likely support this amendment. If they claim to have any connection to western Canadian grain farmers, they will do so and state it publicly today.

The Canadian Wheat Board is not a crown corporation, unlike, for example, the Canadian Dairy Commission. The governance structure of the board has been changed, with two-thirds of the board of directors elected by farmers. The Canadian Wheat Board does not receive an appropriation from Parliament.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture has long been opposed to the Canadian Wheat Board and apparently is not enthusiastic about allowing farmers to determine, through the democratic process, the future of the board. In an interview with the Western Producer on April 20, 2006, the parliamentary secretary acknowledged the fact that the government could not find a way of including the Canadian Wheat Board in Bill C-2 and that its intention was to obtain that inclusion in order to try to find out internal administrative matters of the board.

That has been a point of contention of mine for years. I maintain, as I did in the discussion earlier today, that the Canadian Wheat Board has an audited annual report. Elections are held for the Wheat Board. The elected members hold district meetings at which farmers can question those directors. In that way, information certainly is made accessible to the farm community. The fact of the matter is that the Wheat Board is a democratic institution and that information is available.

For instance, if the motion of the member for Winnipeg Centre is left in without being amended, the Canadian Wheat Board could in fact find access to information being applied on its commercial interests. That would put it at a major disadvantage compared to the other companies it has to compete against, such Cargill Grain, Archer Daniels Midland, et cetera. It is interesting that the agency that works on behalf of farmers, even when it is the most open of organizations dealing in the international grain trade, would still have to provide more information than its competitors.

That would be prejudicial to farm interests. For that reason, I encourage all members to rethink this strategy of the member for Winnipeg Centre that wants to put the Wheat Board under access to information. I request all members to rethink that strategy and support this motion to delete that section so that the Canadian Wheat Board and the producers it represents are not put at a disadvantage under this accountability act.

I trust that the majority of members will support this amendment on behalf of those who should really determine the future of the Canadian Wheat Board, namely, the farmers of western Canada themselves.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is also Motion No. 22, which is related to the motion on the Wheat Board but is about development and research. In view of the fact that the member is one of the more knowledgeable people in the House with regard to the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board and the importance of protecting the best interests of the farmers, he may want to provide his thoughts on that motion as well, as it relates to the same matter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the main resolution I was speaking to was certainly on the Canadian Wheat Board, because as justice officials have determined, it is not an agency. It is in fact more like a farm organization. Therefore, the whole intent of the accountability act is to go after agencies and government-related agencies in terms of requiring information under access to information.

In terms of the points raised on Motion No. 22, I would just say that unless the named agency, the International Development Research Centre, is a wholly and 100% owned subsidiary of some other government body, the Access to Information Act should not apply to it either, because the intent of the legislation, as I understand it, is just to apply to wholly owned agencies of the Government of Canada and government departments thereof.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the second group of amendments moved by our colleagues in this House. This main thrust of this second group is to amend pages 85 to 135 of Bill C-2. They refer primarily to the Access to Information Act.

There are a number of peculiarities in the amendments in the second group of amendments, moved variously by the NDP, the Conservatives and the Liberals. Those amendments cause some problems for the Bloc Québécois.

My colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert has very eloquently said that the Conservatives were going to make amendments to the Access to Information Act. After all, they had promised this during the election campaign. It appears on page 13 of their document entitled “Stand up for Canada”.

We are still a bit naïve, or maybe even simple; we believe promises and we think that sometimes they may be kept. We were carried away on a gust of goodwill, and we believed them and told ourselves that it would happen.

When they introduced Bill C-2, there was not the slightest interest or indication that they were intending to amend the Access to Information Act.

Then we told ourselves that it would very likely be up to the appropriate committee, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, to ensure that the statutory amendments promised by the Conservatives—and it is important to remember that—were brought forward.

To our great surprise, and especially to the great surprise of my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, the Conservatives did everything they could not to discuss a bill to improve the Access to Information Act, claiming that they did not have the time then and that they would work on Bill C-2, as if only one committee of the House could do any work.

That was when the NDP decided to get into bed with the Conservatives and agree to leave out the points that would have ensured that the Access to Information Act provided for genuine transparency.

I can imagine the annoyance I may cause my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, but I do not think it was because he wanted a plane ticket to go and see the Oilers’ sixth game in the Stanley Cup finals.

Let us look at the arguments the Conservatives are handing us for pushing Bill C-2 through with such excessive speed. They have told us that we have been talking about this bill for so long that we have no further need to hear witnesses, or experts, or anyone else.

We know that a perfect bill has fallen from the heavens into our laps. So we have heard about it for long enough that they can bulldoze their way through the process and the bill can be brought into force immediately.

These arguments could also apply to the Access to Information Act. It has been in effect for 23 years, since 1983. A number of committees have studied it. Recently, the Conservative members as well as all the other members on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics even rejected the suggestion of the previous Liberal justice minister to study it again.

On November 3, 2005, the committee unanimously approved the legislation proposed by the commissioner. They told the Liberals then that they had talked long enough and often enough about the Access to Information Act—as is the case with Bill C-2—and did not need any more studies. They said they were ready to pass it right away.

The Conservatives were so ready to act that they said on page 13 of their platform, and I quote:

A Conservative government will:

Implement the Information Commissioner’s recommendations on reform of the Access to Information Act.

One of the reasons why the public has little confidence in politicians is that they thumb their noses at the promises they make in their election platforms and programs.

The Conservatives can argue that it was not specific. They said that they would implement the Information Commissioner’s recommendations on reform of the Access to Information Act, but they did not say when.

People thought that they would do so quickly because they voted against a motion postponing the deadline. But now we are back at square one.

The NDP was in bed with the Conservatives, especially on that, but realized that things were going a bit too far. So they made a few amendments at the Legislative Committee on Bill C-2 to correct a few small parts of the Access to Information Act. We voted against.

In the eyes of the public, we, the bad guys from the Bloc Québécois, were against greater transparency. We were against reform of the Access to Information Act, almost against social progress itself, as the Minister of the Environment would say. So the evil sovereignists voted against the NDP’s amendments to the Access to Information Act.

Our rule was relatively simple. We adopted a point of view at the beginning of the consideration of Bill C-2 during the hearings and we still have the same point of view. If it is important, as the Conservatives wrote on page 13 of their platform, and as the NDP already voted in committee, we want the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to study quickly, appropriately and correctly a reform of the Access to Information Act.

When the vehicle is not running properly, we are not in favour of changing a few small parts. We are not in favour of correcting a few small imperfections when what is involved is correcting the bill, as the Conservatives promised they would do in the last election campaign.

Tinkering is not for us. We leave that up to the others. What we want is an amendment like the one passed by the committee in November 2005, as promised by the Conservatives in the last election, as proposed by my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert and as rejected by the members of his committee, where we wanted to amend and correct this part of the act.

People will hear someone crying wolf and will be told the Bloc was opposed to that part. I think I have shown as clearly as possible the reasons why we were opposed to the little patches made here and there. What we want is to amend the Access to Information Act.

Still, since nothing is all good or all bad, I have to point out the contribution of Motion No. 14 by my friend and colleague from Acadie—Bathurst. He would have liked me to say Motion No. 15. So Motion No. 14 reads as follows:

That Bill C-2, in Clause 146, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 31 on page 118 with the following:

In this clause, it is acknowledged that the Auditor General of Canada must keep secret any records required for an investigation. That was provided for ahead of time. However, something was forgotten. I do not know how this occurred. It was very fast, but no one remembered to also include the Commissioner of Official Languages among these exceptions. Thanks to good cooperation with my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, we agreed together that the NDP would table this amendment, which includes the Commissioner of Official Languages among the officers of the House exempted from making public any documentation linked to an investigation.

In conclusion, I will say that I have filed two complaints with the Commissioner of Official Languages, which were deemed admissible. When the Commissioner does her investigation and hears public servants or other people, these people confide under cover of anonymity. If these people knew that everything they say was then going to become accessible to the public under the Access to Information Act, all the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages would be undermined.

We acknowledge that this is really a good idea, a good thing, that this legislative amendment should be included in the second group of amendments. We are going to support this motion.

We are very concerned about the reform of the Access to Information Act. We hope that the Conservatives will change their position on this.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 14 is of particular interest. At first blush I thought it simply deleted paragraph 16.1(1) and folded the Auditor General into the second clause as subparagraph (d) and then renumbered these matters. However, I am not sure if it is exactly that clear. The new paragraph in the bill, as reported back from the committee, says that the head of one of the government institutions listed shall not refuse under certain circumstances. There are exceptions.

I see that the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner shall not refuse but I am not exactly sure where the Auditor General comes in here. Are there exceptions for the Auditor General? If it is the member's view that the Auditor General does not have some exceptions, I would question that.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the bill as it is currently worded, on page 118, we read as follows:

16.1 (1) The Auditor General of Canada shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information that was obtained or created by or on behalf of the Auditor General of Canada in the course of an investigation, examination or audit conducted by...the Auditor General of Canada.

This clause enabled the Auditor General to keep evidence confidential in order to conclude an investigation. The Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner both said they agreed that the evidence could be disclosed after the investigation had been concluded and the report released. This was not a problem for them.

After a few communications, officials with the office of the Official Languages Commissioner told us that they were afraid—I am sure, legitimately so—of what would happen after the report was released.

For example, I filed a complaint against the Treasury Board and a complaint against National Defence. These complaints were allowed. During the three-year investigation, the Official Languages Commissioner and her professional staff must have asked questions of officials, soldiers or public servants.

Today, three years later, after the report became official, a reporter or an ordinary citizen could use the Access to Information Act to gain access to the information that went into the report. A number of officials would likely be uncomfortable in that case, and if they had known, they would not have said everything they told the Official Languages Commissioner in confidence.

I therefore applaud and commend the NDP amendment, which would give the Official Languages Commissioner the same powers as the Auditor General.

I hope I have answered the question from my friend from Mississauga South.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment as well as a question for my colleague from Repentigny. First, I would like to congratulate him on his excellent presentation. It is clear that he is very familiar with the issue.

Why does he think this Conservative government wants to move so quickly to adopt this bill? We know what happened in committee. Witnesses were paraded through in quick succession and the clause by clause study was completed in record time. In fact, I think that the whole process of enacting this bill will take place in record time.

Can my colleague from Repentigny tell me why the government wants to push Bill C-2 through so quickly?