Derek Lee

[Access To Information Act, May 11th, 2000]

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 Criminal Code, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we are enjoying the debate this afternoon on a subject that most Canadians regard as a top drawer issue; the way we deal with the criminal code offence of drinking and driving and causing death.

Would the hon. member accept that the bill is not about incarcerating more people? Rather, it is about articulating for Canadians that the offence we are dealing with, which it is so frequent now, killing as a result of drunk driving, has increased to the point where it is overshadowing all other serious offences. Canadians want that type of killing offence numbered among the most not just serious offences in the criminal code but the most serious among the offences involving the taking of life, whether wilful or not.

What this particular piece of legislation does is it moves up the range of sentencing. It does not increase the bottom range but it does increase the top range. By increasing the range, we effectively signal to the courts and the public that we regard this as among the most serious offences. That is the reason for the bill. It is not for the purpose of throwing more alcohol addicted drivers into prison. Would the hon. member accept that as the purpose of the bill?

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 11th, 2000]

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 102 will be answered today. .[Text]

Question No. 102—

[Health, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would there be a disposition in the House to return to tabling of documents to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade to table a government document?

[Government Response To Petitions, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions.

[Motions For Papers, May 10th, 2000]

I ask that the other Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[Motions For Papers, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the intention of the agricultural income disaster assistance program was to target assistance to those farmers in the greatest need. The federal government is confident that the principles of AIDA remain a sound basis on which to design a disaster program for agriculture. Therefore the government, and the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food in particular, has not produced any document on the inadequacies of the program.

I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.

[Motions For Papers, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-5 in the name of the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

Motion No. P-5

That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, e-mail, memos and correspondence within the Department of Agriculture involving an analysis of the inadequacies within the agriculture income disaster assistance, AIDA, program.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member quite properly is seeking a more prompt response to his question.

The answers to his questions are being prepared as I have indicated to him in the House. I understand some modifications have been made to initial drafts to the answers to take account of the realities of the background and perhaps some changes that have evolved. I must tell the hon. member that the answers to his questions are imminent.