John Finlay

[Youth Services Canada, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I understand there was news this morning concerning Youth Services Canada. Since this is the time of year when many students are seeking employment, could the Secretary of State for Training and Youth provide the House with some of the details of the important announcement?

[Terrorism, May 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, within every cloud there is a silver lining.

Over the past few weeks we have all been exposed to the realities of terrorism. The Oklahoma City tragedy has forced us to realize that terrorism can happen even in North America.

I am happy to say that two women in my riding did not just sit back in the wake of the bombing. Janice Koekebakker and Linda Mathews, nurses in Woodstock, Ontario, spent a week in Oklahoma City providing first aid treatment and consoling rescue workers. The city of Woodstock and the Woodstock Rotary Club should also be commended for helping to offset the expenses of these fine nurses.

The London Free Press wrote in its recent editorial honouring these two nurses: ``There are things all of us can do if we just decide to do them''. These women realized that there was something they could do and they were able to provide an important service in a difficult time.

I thank these women on behalf of all of us.

[Petitions, April 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition signed by 514 constituents. The petitioners call upon Parliament to oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or any other federal legislation which provides for the inclusion of the phrase "sexual orientation" or any other approval of homosexuality.

[Born To Read Day, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today is Born to Read Day.

Nearly two million school children in Canada from kindergarten to grade 3 will receive a free copy of "Born to Read", a how-to guide encouraging parents to spend more time reading with their children.

Writer and cartoonist Ben Wicks, realizing just how serious a reading problem Canada has and recognizing that literacy begins at home, decided to develop a book explaining to parents how they can help their children to love to read.

This project is a joint effort of some of Canada's largest corporations, federal and provincial governments and the five major literacy organizations in Canada.

Twenty-four per cent of Canadian adults are functionally illiterate. As a former educator, I find this statistic appalling. I am well aware of the benefits literacy provides and I thank Ben Wicks for the significant role he has played in addressing this problem and trying to do something about it.

[Alternative Fuels, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to congratulate a member of the other place.

The hon. Senator Colin Kenny has introduced Bill S-7, an act to accelerate the use of alternative fuels for internal combustion engines. This bill would see at least three-quarters of the 38,000 federal government vehicles switched to alternative fuels. Bill S-7 would generate estimated savings of $7 million per year and would serve as an important step in cleaning up our environment.

Bill S-7 is a positive addition to the recent announcements made by the government regarding federal support for the ethanol industry and the removal of MMT from gasoline. It is clear that positive environmental policy is being developed in both houses of Parliament.

My congratulations go out to the hon. senator and all those who are working to improve the environment in which we live. I will be happy to support Bill S-7 when it arrives in the House of Commons.

[Income Tax, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on March 10, 1994 I brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance the report that 20 Canadian millionaires had paid less than $100 each in income tax in 1991.

I believe that the number has increased each year since. Each and every Canadian has to pay his or her fair share of taxes. How can we as members of Parliament tell our constituents that they must pay their income taxes when they see wealthy Canadians taking advantage of tax loopholes?

If we are to fight the deficit on all fronts, I hope the Minister of Finance will take the opportunity available to him to close tax loopholes for the rich. We have to let the people of Canada know that one does not receive special tax privileges because of personal wealth.

[Oxford, February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister for success in forging new trading relationships with the far east, the Americas and eastern Europe.

My riding of Oxford has many industries that want to benefit from these new trading opportunities. This was demonstrated by representatives from many sectors of my ridings' economy, including food processing, agri-business, manufacturing and education who met with representatives of the Canada-Ukraine Chamber of Commerce this past December in Woodstock.

At this meeting business people learned about the developing Ukrainian economy and the opportunities it presents to Canadian business.

The attitude of the people present was one of confidence in the skills and products they had to offer and willingness to investigate joint ventures and exchanges.

I can assure the Prime Minister and this House that Oxford will be doing its part in creating new jobs and new opportunities for all Canadians through increased trade.

[Access To Information, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, everything to my hon. colleagues in the opposition, particularly in the third party, seems simple and very easily fixed. I suggest that this shows a lack of imagination and a lack of understanding of the complexity and sensitivity of much that we in government have to deal with.

My hon. colleague from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt leaves the impression that everything that is secret is somehow evil, that nothing which is personal or concerns individual Canadians is or should be confidential.

I would remind him that even public boards like boards of education and municipal councils at the local level deal with personnel, legal and property matters in camera and not in public.

However, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Red Deer for putting this motion forward at a time when Canadians are losing trust in their political institutions, or were. All of us must be active in finding ways to promote more open and accountable government.

However, in searching out these various ways to promote more open and accountable government, we must recognize that our institutions face a variety of other challenges equally important to Canadians.

For example, Canadians want government to cost less, to be more efficient and to operate in a more business like manner. In come cases it may be necessary to balance the value of openness with these other values.

Although I find the objectives behind this motion laudable I cannot support this motion for three reasons. First, we must be concerned about the impact this motion will have on the competitive position of crown corporations. I do not say the impact is great or small, merely that before adopting this motion I would want to hear directly from those crown corporations on this issue.

Second, in times of fiscal restraint we must stop and ask what will this motion cost the taxpayers? How will those costs be paid? The fact is that processing access requests requires an access to information bureaucracy and costs money.

The third reason I cannot support this motion is that it fails to distinguish between different kinds of crown agencies and different institutions of Parliament.

The motion is too broadly worded and as such disagrees with the findings of the 1986 parliamentary committee report "Open and Shut" and with the most recent report of the information commissioner.

Returning to my first reason for opposing this motion, I am not convinced it has struck the proper balance between the competing values of open and accountable government on the one hand and smaller, more efficient government on the other.

The motion asks that crown agencies be subject to the scrutiny of the Access to Information Act. There are presently more than 130 crown agencies subject to the act. I assume that the hon. member means by crown agencies those crown agencies not yet subject to the act. In particular, I assume he is referring at least in part to crown corporations.

It is with respect, particularly to crown corporations, that the balance between efficient, competitive business like crown agencies and open, accountable enterprises becomes most important.

The basic question is whether crown corporations which have mandates to operate in a business like fashion, sometimes in competition with the private sector, should have to work under different rules than their competitors. If you believe that crown corporations should act like businesses, why would you impose a different set of rules on them?

If you believe crown corporations should not be competing with the private sector at all, that is a completely different question. Subjecting crown corporations to the scrutiny of the Access to Information Act will not terminate the crown corporations if that is your goal. It will simply make them less competitive, more expensive and less efficient.

I would not want to make a decision on the motion before the House until I know more about the implications. I am not prepared to support the motion at this time.

Another reason why I do not support this motion is that we do not have enough information about what the potential cost to the taxpayer will be. The fact is processing access requests costs taxpayers money. The most recent report of the information commissioner says that the annual cost of processing access requests is $20 million and that the current fees are not designed to recover costs, but merely to deter trivial requests.

Adding institutions to be covered by the Access to Information Act is saying that the government needs to spend more money. Where will this money come from? How much will it cost? Whatever it costs we know that it is a cost that private business does not have to incur and therefore will make crown corporations less competitive, at least to the extent of the cost of processing access requests.

I do not say that the cost of processing access requests cannot be justified. The information commissioner says that $20 million is a bargain for such an essential tool of public accountability. He may be right. All I am saying is that we should not adopt motions based on good intentions without first asking the basic questions of how much will it cost and who will pay.

Also, I am reluctant to support this motion because of the report of the parliamentary committee that examined the Access to Information Act in 1986. Its report is called "Open and Shut". That committee considered a broad range of entities which might be made subject to the Access to Information Act. It concluded that it would not be appropriate for all crown agencies to be made subject to the act. It thought a definition of crown corporation should be developed and should be limited to corporations in which the crown has a controlling interest and which provide goods or services to the public on a commercial basis. It thought there should be special exemptions for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, mentioned significantly by my hon. colleague, in relation to program material.

With respect to Parliament, the parliamentary committee was of the view that the offices of senators and members of the House of Commons should be excluded from scrutiny of the act. It said the relationship between such elected and appointed officials and the electorate is sometimes described as akin to solicitor-client privilege, and parliamentary privilege is involved. Therefore, the committee suggests their continued exclusion from the scope of the act.

The committee thought that the Access to Information Act should not apply to the judicial branch of government and therefore not to the Federal Court, tax court, Supreme Court of Canada. Perhaps surprisingly, the committee thought the act should apply to administrative tribunals which perform quasi-judicial functions.

The committee recognized that the federal government is involved in joint ventures with others, notably the provinces, and in those cases thought it would be best if there were negotiations with the provinces before making such joint ventures subject to the Access to Information Act.

Here we have a parliamentary committee that studied the issues very carefully.

The considered conclusion was that it would go too far to include all crown agencies and at least in the case of the CBC it saw merit in examining the special circumstances of crown corporations that would become subject to the act. It saw merit in excluding courts, MPs' offices and federal-provincial joint organizations.

I am not prepared to say that parliamentary committee was wrong in making these judgments. I think it goes too far to say in a sweeping statement that all of Parliament and all crown agencies should be subject to the Access to Information Act.

In conclusion, I support a comprehensive, careful review of the Access to Information Act and I will support amendments aimed at improving access to government information. I may well support extending the application of the Access to Information Act to crown agencies not yet covered by the act, but I cannot in all conscience support a motion that fails to distinguish between various kinds of crown agencies that might make the correspondence I receive from my constituents automatically subject to the act and that is voted on without hearing from executives of crown agencies not presently subject to the act.

I think the better approach is to take the Minister of Justice at his word that it is time for a review of the Access to Information Act. Let him draw upon all of the expertise we can acquire and use the full parliamentary procedures, including committee hearings, to produce the best set of amendments possible.

[Petitions, December 5th, 1994]

The second petition, Madam Speaker, is from 156 constituents. They request Parliament to ban lap dancing as understood, as such activity poses a potential fatal health risk. It may be compared to prostitution.

Exotic dancers may have to lap dance against their will or lose their chosen profession. Lap dancing devalues the essential worth and dignity of all people.

[Petitions, December 5th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is my duty to present two petitions from citizens of Oxford.

The first one is signed by 25 petitioners and requests that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to legalize, normalize or indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.