Bill Gilmour

[Petitions, April 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition contains 389 signatures.

The petitioners request that parliament allow Canadian citizens to vote directly in a national binding referendum on the restoration of the death penalty for first-degree murder convictions.

[Petitions, April 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Nanaimo—Alberni I have two petitions to present.

In the first petition the petitioners call upon parliament to withdraw Bill S-13 from the House of Commons and to resolve never to consider state sanctioned homicide on the grounds of health, age, illness, disability or any other dehabilitating infirmity whatsoever from this day on.

[Access To Information Act, April 2nd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on private member's Bill C-208 brought forward by the Liberal member for Brampton West—Mississauga.

Bill C-208 proposes to amend the Access to Information Act to provide sanctions against any person who improperly destroys or falsifies government records in an attempt to deny right of access of information under the act.

The Reform Party supports ensuring that the government is more open and accountable to the public. This bill would do that. It therefore has my support and the support of a great number of my colleagues.

The government has the responsibility to ensure that the affairs of government are open and above board. Canadians have a stake in government affairs and the actions of government must be open to public scrutiny. The wilful destruction of public documents clearly must be prevented. This can only be done with realistic sanctions, which is what this bill does.

Information collected for public purposes and paid for by the taxpayers belongs to the people. Canadians have a right to ensure that public documents are made available to Canadians under the requirements of the Access to Information Act.

Bill C-208 will help to ensure that the guarantee of public access to government documents is protected. Bill C-208 will hold government and public servants accountable for their actions when dealing with public documents. Bill C-208 will also serve as a deterrent to future recurrences of destruction of public documents as we witnessed during the Somalia affair.

Information commissioner John Grace investigated and found that allegations of document tampering or destructions at Transport Canada and national defence “proved to be well founded”.

Investigation also found document destruction by Health Canada in 1989 of the Canadian blood committee audio tapes and transcripts of all preceding meetings of the Canadian blood committee. The destruction was ordered and carried out so that records could not become subject to the Access to Information Act.

The commissioner concluded that the decision to destroy the records was motivated by concern about potential litigation and liability issues associated with tainted blood products. The commissioner found that the then executive director of the Canadian blood committee had custody and control of the records and probably knew there was a pending access to information request for the records.

According to the information commissioner, these “lamentable incidents of wilful actions taken by public officials for the purpose of suppressing information have been a wake-up call”.

The information commissioner has twice recommended: “There should be a specific offence in the access act for acts or omissions intended to thwart the rights set out in law. Moreover, those who commit this offence should be subject to greater sanctions than simply exposure of wrongdoing. At a minimum, the offence should carry a penalty of up to five years in prison. Such a penalty is in line with that imposed in section 122 of the Criminal Code for breach of trust by a public officer. The stakes are too high for simply a slap on the wrist”.

Also according to the information commissioner, the government has improperly destroyed or falsified government documents in many ways. These include altering records before release to an access request or without informing the requester of the changes and without invoking any exemptions under the act, or destroying original records so that the alterations would not be found out.

This bill makes good sense. It is filling a hole that currently exists within the Access to Information Act by allowing or specifying penalties for people who would wilfully destroy or alter public information so anyone having an access request would not get that information. I support this bill and I believe a number of people in the House will also support it.

This is one bill of four I am aware of that deal with the Access to Information Act. Bill C-216, the third hour on which will be in a couple of weeks, also deals with access to information. It deals with commissions and crown corporations such as the CBC and the wheat board that are now exempt from access to information.

The four bills come from all sides of the House dealing with access to information. This shows all parties are interested in having an Access to Information Act that works, that is accessible and covers all areas of government. We will see it happen in the votes over the next days and months in the House.

[Petitions, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners call upon Parliament to remove the GST from books, magazines and newspapers. They also ask the Prime Minister to carry out his party's repeated promise to remove the federal sales tax from reading materials.

[Petitions, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present two petitions from concerned citizens in my riding of Nanaimo—Alberni.

The first petition calls upon Parliament to support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention to set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

[The Senate, March 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, two days ago in the House the Deputy Prime Minister said: “The Senate is a partisan political body. It is organized along party lines. Why should the Prime Minister not appoint people who would support his party and the government program?” This is indeed quite an insight into the Liberal mindset.

Considering that the Deputy Prime Minister already considers the Senate to be a partisan body, will the Prime Minister explain to the House what the job description really is for a senator? Is it simply to be a Liberal?

[The Senate, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the Prime Minister has learned nothing from his past mistakes. He is going to make those same mistakes over and over again.

Even the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen's Privy Council admits that “we cannot boast of the most democratic Senate in the world”. At least one member on the government side recognizes that the Senate is undemocratic.

Apparently the Prime Minister has learned nothing from the Thompson and Fitzpatrick affairs. When will the Prime Minister allow Canadians to democratically elect their own senators?

[The Senate, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, finally after 30 years of absenteeism and chronic abuse of the system, Senator Andrew Thompson has resigned from the Senate.

Since 1993 the Prime Minister has made 28 patronage appointments to the Senate. With Thompson's leaving, we now have another Ontario vacancy.

Has the Prime Minister learned anything from the Thompson and Fitzpatrick scandals, or is he simply going to appoint another unelected and unaccountable Liberal hack to sit in the Senate?

[The Senate, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, our first vote on the budget, vote one of the estimates, establishes the operating budget for the Senate.

This year our unelected, unaccountable Senate has asked taxpayers for a 10% raise to increase its budget from $40 million to $44 million. Yet at the same time it refuses to account to Canadians on how it spends our money.

Last year when the House requested that the Senate account for its budget the Senate openly and defiantly refused to appear before this elected House to justify its budget.

Clearly the unelected Senate has demonstrated to Canadians once again that it has absolutely no accountability to the taxpaying public.

Accountability in the Senate can only be achieved in one way, by making our other house of Parliament democratically accountable to the people it is supposed to represent. This can only be done by electing, not appointing, our senators.

[The Senate, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the arrogance of the government has no bounds. It simply refuses to listen to Canadians.

How could any prime minister ignore what has gone on with Senator Thompson in his absenteeism? This Prime Minister did. How could any government ignore the wishes of Albertans who want to elect senators, not appoint them? This government is. How could the Prime Minister and the government so misread the mood of Canadians when it comes to Senate reform?