Bob Mills

[Petitions, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of 424 people in my riding. This is one of many petitions I have had on this subject.

These individuals pray that parliament take all measures necessary to ensure that the possession of child pornography remains a serious crime and that federal police forces be directed to give priority to enforcing the law for the protection of our children.

[Access To Information Act, May 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank all members who have spoken today, in particular the member for Wentworth—Burlington for his example. That example is probably what it is all about. While there are many things I would like to say in conclusion, I think that says it all. While the member was talking about the CBC, I could make exactly the same statements about the wheat board and other crown corporations in my constituency.

While working on this for some six years now, I discovered that the criteria for a crown corporation being subject to the Access to Information Act was not under the jurisdiction of the information commissioner or the justice department, but under the jurisdiction of the governor in council. In other words, the cabinet decides which crown corporations are subject to the Access to Information Act and which ones are not.

I do not believe that in a day when we pride ourselves on being democratic and when we pride ourselves on going around the world democratizing other countries, that it is acceptable to have our openness subject to the decision of just the cabinet. As we have more crown corporations because of government downsizing, it is time to open this up. Yes, we should protect competitiveness and those kinds of things, but that is a lame excuse for not having crown corporations open to the Access to Information Act.

In 1994 I was told by the then justice minister that this was about to be changed. I was not to worry. We would not have to work on access to information for more than another year and it would all be opened up. That has not happened. We are still waiting. Canadians are waiting. As we into the 21st century, I think it is critical that government open up and let people know what in fact their tax dollars are being spent on.

[Access To Information Act, May 4th, 1999]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the parliament and crown agencies should be subject to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to propose this very straightforward and simple motion. It is not votable but I believe that does not detract from the importance of this subject.

Since I have come to this place I have put forward several bills on access to information. I have been told by several ministers that it is a matter of a very short time and there will be some major reforms to the Access to Information Act.

In doing the research for my motion today I found a number of agencies that are not subject to access to information. For the benefit of the House it is fair to note that all new crown corporations being created are not subject to access to information.

This is not the first time I have spoken on this subject and I assume it probably will not be the last. I will continue to put forward private members' motions which try to address this problem.

Five times in the past six years individual members of the House have put forward motions which tried to address different parts of the deficiencies of the current legislation. My caucus colleagues from Wild Rose and Dauphin—Swan River, just to name a couple, have also put forward motions on this subject.

It is well known that on the opposition side of the House there are a great many people who feel the current legislation needs to be improved. In my case this motion simply carries on with some of the other areas I have identified as problems.

In 1982 the Access to Information Act was passed and the following year it was given royal assent. Some 17 years ago that piece of legislation was brought forward. At that time it was based on “the principle that government information should be available to the public”. It is a very straightforward and simple premise with which most Canadians and most parliamentarians hopefully would agree.

It is a very important principle and it is very important that we do not forget it. I do not think any one in opposition in the House could put up much of an argument in opposition to access to information. I do not think anyone in the House would not basically agree with an open style of government.

We have had many political documents over the course of the years which have bragged about the open style of government that was coming. Those who might be tempted to reject this kind of principle would probably be running the risk of a great deal of public rebuke in this regard.

All of this should be a non-partisan issue. The fact that we are spending taxpayers money and doing things in this place should be open totally to the scrutiny of people who pay the bills.

In a democracy such as ours government accountability is essential to the preservation of our freedoms and to the protection of the public interest as defined in many different ways.

Some might ask why this issue is so important and why I should be spending so much time and effort in questioning access to information. After all we have an information commissioner and the bureaucracy in place. Most Canadians probably assume that the main people who benefit are parliamentarians and journalists. That is not true. A growing number of Canadians are using access to information. It is certainly true that the media and parliamentarians use it as much as possible, but using this act can force the government to reveal information which parliament and other places cannot get hold of.

Members of the House, regardless of on which side of the aisle they sit, can use the act to discover, to unearth or to reveal what the government and the bureaucracy are doing behind the scenes.

In a recent speech the information commissioner noted that members of parliament are increasingly relying upon the current access law to help them with their responsibilities and parliamentary duties.

That seems to me perfectly understandable as the House is overwhelmed by the amount of business that it must conduct. The ability of its members to fulfil their duty to scrutinize legislation requires new tools. Debate and questions are simply no longer adequate.

Over the past 17 years access to information has become a crucial part of our democratic system. It has become an essential means of guaranteeing government accountability. A recent report released by Queen's University school of political studies has noted the tremendous increase in the requests targeting government ministries and agencies.

I do not want to list all these results but let me list a few examples. According to this study, between 1993 and 1998 the number of access requests directed at Health Canada increased by 72%; at national defence, by 74%; and at correctional service, by 79%.

These requests are not the work of crackpots who are simply trying to make the public service look bad. They do not represent a concerted effort to reveal dirt about government officials, corruption and such things. Instead the vast increase in requests simply reflects the growing complexity of government and the growing awareness among Canadians of the breadth and range of ongoing government activities.

The concept of ministerial accountability, a concept the government seems not always to like, has been supplemented by the Access to Information Act. What question period and ministerial inquiries cannot reveal might very well be discovered through an access to information request. That is an important addition to the system of government.

Recently on a television program a statement was made that Canada had one of the most secretive democracies in the world. I do not believe that comment should be used in a country like Canada and the reform of the Access to Information Act therefore becomes even more important.

Sir Francis Bacon once said that knowledge itself was power. That may be an old adage but not all wisdom is new wisdom. Access to information, to knowledge about government activities, is a means of preventing too great a concentration of power in the hands of anonymous and unaccountable public servants. It also means devolving power back to those from whom it is derived, the common people.

The Access to Information Act is currently inadequate. It does not meet the standards of open government which the Canadian people expect and deserve. The 1982 Access to Information Act states that “necessary exceptions to the right of access should be limited and specific”. This seems to be a relatively straightforward aim of this act.

I invite all hon. members to take time to read through the legislation to refresh their memories. Without going into detail, the current legislation permits exceptions to access in three basic areas: first, where national security might be threatened by the release of information; second, where the fairness of a judicial process might be prejudiced; and, third, where the release of information might reveal trade secrets or place Canadian business in an unfair situation vis-à-vis foreign firms.

These seem to be very reasonable restrictions. I think all of us would agree with them. They cannot be used as an argument against changing the access to information for crown corporations. There is an existing appeal process should someone disagree with the assessment by a department or government agency that access must be denied.

I could quote a number of legal representations but I am not a lawyer by training so I will forgo that. The 1984 decision of the federal court seems to make crystal clear how this should work and how exceptions and exemptions should be handled.

The people have a right to know and those who would deny it must explain themselves before the most appropriate authority. In other words, open government is more than a privilege. It is a basic principle of our political system in a modern Canada going into the 21st century.

This principle is not being properly respected by those whose duty it is to uphold it. According to one report, only about one-half of the 12,000 access to information requests filed annually are replied to within the statutory time limit of 30 days. This tardiness increases when the request comes from an opposition member of the House, and again statistics back that up.

I personally know that government departments seek to discover the identity of many of the people who file requests. That is also a violation of the existing law. I believe some of the ministers responsible for that should be held accountable in the House.

A few moments ago I cited some figures from a very recent Queen's University study on access to information. I will now cite others.

According to the study, the number of full disclosure responses provided by government ministries and agencies has shown an alarming decline in recent years. Despite all the controversy surrounding it and the current minister's micromanaging of access to information requests, the Department of National Defence has seen a decline of only 8.8% in full disclosures between 1993 and 1998. A decline in meeting access requests is not good, but 9% is not at all bad when compared with the worst offenders.

In the same period the privy council saw a decline of 40% in its disclosures. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency saw a decline of 39.4% and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, a decline of 22%. All these are declines in willingness to respond to access claims. At a time when we are asking for more accountability and more open government, obviously none of these should be declining in terms of responses to access to information claims.

The information commissioner recently stated that “many public servants have simply decided that when it comes to the access law illegal behaviour is the norm”. Make no mistake, refusing access is quite clearly against the spirit and the letter of the law of the land.

Perhaps some day we will learn why the Minister of National Defence needs to supervise the response to each access to information request of his department. He personally must approve every one of them that comes into his office before access is given. Does he think we will find out that the troops are not combat capable? Does he think that the Canadian people might be shocked at the information about the decline that has occurred?

I suppose the wheat board is one thing I will not have time to talk about, but many of my constituents are upset that they, the shareholders, cannot have access to the board, the salaries and the information. They would be happy to get it even from last year or the year before.

A lot of reforms are needed to the Access to Information Act. Canadians are asking for them and I do not understand why the government has not brought forward the reforms it promised in 1994.

[Rocky Elementary Students, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, every few weeks the House acknowledges the presence of distinguished visitors in the gallery. It is only right and proper that we do so.

Today I would like to draw the attention of members to a special group of visitors which is in our gallery. Today a group of students from Rocky Elementary School in Rocky Mountain House, Alberta, from my riding, are here watching us. They are part of a French immersion class on a field trip to Montreal, Ottawa and Quebec City.

They may not be prime ministers, cabinet ministers, mayors or public officials, at least not yet, but they do represent something just as important. They are just a small portion of this country's future. It is for them that we are working here today and ultimately our success or failure will most clearly impact upon them.

I know that all members share this sense of responsibility. And I know also that this House will join me in welcoming these students to Ottawa, Parliament Hill and the House of Commons.

[Kosovo, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, the United States and Russia are the members of the contact group. Canada is not part of that group.

Is it this government's policy to simply say “your wishes are our command” whenever we are asked to send troops into the field?

[Kosovo, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Chernomyrdin mission is focusing efforts on Belgrade and the most prominent members of NATO. Canada is not a member of that contact group but of course will be the first to send troops if a peace is negotiated.

Does it not bother the Prime Minister that we have so little input into policies that directly affect Canadians?

[Václav Havel, April 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the House has heard many great and eloquent speeches in its time. Few have been delivered with the moral authority we heard this morning.

Václav Havel is a very special individual. His conscience called on him to suffer the trials of being a dissident. A sense of duty demanded that he assume the highest political office in his country. However, the greatest contribution he has made is to warn us that evil can only triumph when good people look away.

Winston Churchill once said that the greatest virtue was courage. The life of the man who spoke to us today is a model of courage and is a great legacy to his country.

As a member of parliament, I was also pleased to hear an echo of many values that the Reform Party stands for and why I am here. I was especially moved by his demands that we recognize that the individual, regardless of status or wealth, is more important than the state.

I know the House will join me in expressing our profound admiration to Havel the man, and our respect to the President of the Czech Republic.

[Kosovo, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing this doublespeak about what they mean by embargoes and what they mean by all of these things. The bottom line is that we are asking the Russians to give us a hand in finding a peace settlement for Kosovo. The question is obvious. What are we offering to the Russians? What sort of hand are we offering when we are not prepared to break from these terms? How can we possibly negotiate?

[Kosovo, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to an earlier question the foreign affairs minister said that he did not understand where “no compromise” had come from. Let me quote from the NATO communiqué of this weekend to which his government agreed: “There can be no compromise on these conditions”, referring to the five NATO conditions.

How can this minister go over to Moscow to negotiate when he is not prepared to have any compromise, which is what it says in black and white on this statement?

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, all of us are disgusted by the ethnic cleansing which has gone on. If we look at the history of that area, we will find that ethnic cleansing has been going on for an awful long time by one group or another.

I do not believe it is fair to demonize just one side in this case. There are many issues here and we do not have time to discuss all of them. We need to find out how to get those sides together. We have the same aims as everybody else, to get the Kosovars back to Kosovo and find some way of making that work.

Ethnic cleansing is not acceptable, but as I mentioned in a speech a few weeks ago, it is going on in 21 countries as far as I can determine.