Bill C-613 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Access to Information Act (transparency)

This enactment amends the Parliament of Canada Act to require the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons to open its meetings, with certain exceptions, to the public. It also amends the Access to Information Act to modernize and clarify the purpose of the Act and to give the Information Commissioner the power to make compliance orders.

Parliament of Canada Act

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

moved that Bill C-613, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Access to Information Act (transparency), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak on Bill C-613—the transparency act—my private member’s bill offering concrete reforms to raise the bar on openness in government. Since the beginning of my leadership campaign, I have been talking about the need to improve the transparency of our institutions. I do believe that this is how we can restore a sense of trust in our democracy.

In my leadership campaign, I offered specific proposals on democratic reform: particularly, ending the practice of appointments of candidates by party leaders and, instead, holding open nominations; loosening the grip of the Prime Minister's Office on Parliament; working with all parties to consider electoral reform; banning partisan government advertising; and embracing evidence-based scrutiny.

After my election, our Liberal caucus also put forward the open Parliament plan, a tangible strategy to shine more light on what happens here on Parliament Hill. The plan called for more frequent and accessible reports of all parliamentarians' spending data, as well as mandatory performance audits of both Houses every three years by the Auditor General.

The open parliament plan called for the creation of public guidelines for more detailed audits, ending the secretive nature of the Board of Internal Economy, and the proactive disclosure of parliamentarians’ expenses at the standard of government ministers.

That announcement was not just about the ideas themselves; it was also about demonstrating a willingness to raise the bar on openness and transparency, and it was about working across the aisle to achieve results.

While it took a bit longer than we might have hoped, hon. members unanimously agreed to adopt the Liberal model and create a new system of proactive disclosure. It was a great example of how parliamentarians could work together.

It was also the Liberal Party that took steps to reduce partisanship and patronage in the Senate, by limiting membership in the national Liberal caucus to elected MPs only.

We are committed to instituting an open, transparent and non-partisan appointment process for that upper house. Taken together, these actions can end the partisan and patronage-based nature of the Senate, all without launching a new round of constitutional negotiations.

We are proud of what we have done so far, but there is more we can do. With this private member's bill, I wanted to offer an additional step in the continuing effort to raise the bar on openness and transparency, not just in Parliament but in government.

The transparency act would improve openness in government in two fundamental ways.

First, it significantly strengthens Canada’s access to information laws by mandating that government information is open by default.

Second, it achieves another goal in our open parliament plan by ending the secretive nature of the Board of Internal Economy.

Achieving a more open government makes sense for Canada. Governments around the world that embrace this concept have demonstrated new ways to reduce costs, spark entrepreneurial initiatives, and aid the public and private sectors in better serving citizens. After all, a country’s access to information system is at the heart of open government.

There is no doubt that our current access to information regime is outdated and needs to be updated to reflect governance and technologies in the 21st century. The world’s strongest access to information systems have been updated within the last five years. Ours is stuck in the 1980s.

As we know well, Canada's record on its access to information and privacy system has been criticized by the Information Commissioner, the press, researchers and independent experts. Proposals for reforming our access to information and privacy regime are certainly nothing new. Members from all parties in this place have advanced the need for reform, most recently the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

I would like to collaborate with all parliamentarians to implement the following reforms.

First, the transparency act would legislate that all government data and information would be open by default and would be available in user-friendly formats that would keep up with modern technologies.

Second, the act would require that only the initial $5.00 request be paid by Canadians, with no additional fees added on later.

Third, the Information Commissioner's mandate would be expanded so she herself could enforce information laws and ensure that government information would always open by default.

Fourth, the act would require a statutory review of our access to information laws within 90 days of this bill receiving royal assent and every five years thereafter. This would ensure that the regime would reflect modern technologies and would continue to serve Canadians.

The Information Commissioner herself has insisted that:

[r]eal improvement in the [access to information] system will only come from modernizing the Act—a long-overdue step that is crucial to advancing the cause of transparency and accountability in Canada.

I agree, and I know that many of us in this place do too.

As I have already addressed, the transparency act would also make the House of Commons’ Board of Internal Economy open by default.

Today, parliamentarians are making decisions about the regulations that govern our own spending with insufficient public scrutiny. Our parliamentary system enables parliamentarians to govern themselves, but it must be done in the open.

I share the view of many that we need an open board and a system of oversight more similar to that in the upper house.

When inappropriate spending in the other place was examined, Canadians were better served by an oversight body that was accessible to the press and to the public. Like the upper house, the reforms included in this transparency act would provide the flexibility to go in camera when sensitive, personal or personnel matters are discussed.

However, in fairness to those who currently sit on the Board of Internal Economy, their discussions are now kept secret by law, a reality which has been affirmed to me in my consultations with parliamentary counsel. The statutory oath of secrecy can only be overcome with a legislative change, and the transparency act would offer that. It is time to change that law.

I believe that by bringing openness to board conversations, we can better serve Canadians. They have demanded more accountability, rightly so, and they will get more accountability.

It is with a positive spirit and optimism about its passing that I introduce the transparency act in the House of Commons. I consulted on this bill with Canadians across the country throughout the summer and fall. I have heard what Canadians think about the state of transparency and accountability within our government. It is abundantly clear to me that they have an appetite for change. Canadians are looking for a better, open and modern government.

The Liberal Party is genuinely committed to working with all parties to pass the transparency act in the House of Commons. Just as we did in achieving the proactive disclosure of parliamentary expenses, we want to achieve an all-party consensus to pass the transparency act. We are open to amendments, suggestions, and improvements, and we hope that members of all parties will engage in meaningful debate and questions on the bill that I have spoken on today.

The important reforms included in the transparency act are fully achievable. The fate of this bill is not in the hands of the government alone; it is also in the hands of individual members of Parliament from all parties. Together, we can make a difference and provide Canadians with an example of parliamentarians reaching across the aisle in pursuit of a common goal.

I am convinced that in the service of all Canadians, we can work together within Parliament to raise the bar on openness and transparency in our democracy.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader says that he favours transparency, and we should all favour transparency. That is why I stood in the House and voted in favour of union financial transparency, given that unions have access to an unfettered amount of money through mandatory union dues that are given to them through the force of law, and benefit from tax shelter dues at the same time.

It is also why I supported the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, which has allowed Canadians to find out that, in some instances, the leadership of certain bands has been taking enormous sums of money when the people on those reserves could have used that money for the basic needs and necessities of life.

If the hon. member is now taking a position in favour of transparency, will he rise today and announce that he has changed his mind and that he will extend that principle of transparency to support the First Nations Financial Transparency Act and union financial transparency?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I take it from the comments of the member opposite in support of transparency that he is supportive of these measures on transparency. Transparency is something to which we should aspire, and that is why first nations are indeed supportive of the move toward transparency. What they are not supportive of is imposed partisan attacks for political reasons from the top down.

This country has too long imposed on first nations its way of doing things. We need to build partnerships, and that is why I am committed to transparency for first nations built in partnership with them.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member will get much argument from the NDP with respect to the importance of transparency. On June 18, 2013, we wanted to pass a motion to unanimously propose to entrench independent oversight of parliamentary expenditures.

I would like to ask the leader of the Liberal Party this. Even the best possible reform of access to information, basically changing the rules, will never be sufficient if the people in power conspire to thwart the system. With respect to the Board of Internal Economy, what is substantial in his bill to ensure that those in power would not manipulate the system?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the Board of Internal Economy, the guarantee is that it is composed of members from all parties of the House, including the member's party, and it would require unanimous consent, so consent by his party as well, to go in camera. The fact is that open by default for the Board of Internal Economy can only be achieved through a change made to the Parliament of Canada Act. That is what we are proposing right now.

We are happy the New Democrats continue to support it, as they have all along.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating our leader for the courageous decisions he has already taken and for the courage of his convictions in putting forth this private member's bill.

I want to go back to something he alluded to at the very beginning of his remarks. He talked about expanding on two important measures: first, opening up a secretive Board of Internal Economy; and, second, opening up and making more transparent all government information when we live in a time of incredible modern technology. Access to information is critical.

However, he alluded to something very important, which I think is foundational to his intention here today. Could he help us understand how this would drive up confidence, confidence in government generally in the 21st century, and trust and confidence in our democratic institutions in Canada?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country are growing increasingly cynical about the good work that happens in the House. One of the ways of turning that cynicism around and drawing Canadians back into the process is to recognize that Canadians are now empowered with more knowledge and information about what is going on in the world around them than ever before.

The fact that they look to their representatives for leadership around that level of trust and openness and instead see a culture of secrecy and opaqueness is tremendously disconcerting to people who want to believe in our democratic processes. Therefore, when we talk a lot about the trust that people need to have in government, I understand, but the basic element we need to see more of is a government that demonstrates trust in the people.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide the government's response to Bill C-613, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Access to Information Act (transparency).

For many reasons, the government cannot support this bill, not least of which is because it includes a number of problematic amendments.

The proposed changes to the Access to Information Act, for example, would increase the required administration involved, and seldom does an increase in administration result in decreased costs or efficiencies to taxpayers. Our current system includes an independent Information Commissioner who reports directly to Parliament and who already has a strong mandate to investigate and resolve disputes concerning access requests.

This system has a very broad reach and includes nearly 200 federal institutions, including crown corporations like the CBC and Canada Post, and government funded foundations like the Canada Foundation for Innovation.

In 2012-13 alone, the system released nearly six million pages of information to Canadians, which is an increase of over a million and a half pages over the preceding year. During that same year, the government received and responded to nearly 54,000 access requests, which is more than in previous years.

This proves that Canada's access to information system is working well.

Under our Conservative government, Canadians are accessing more information from the government than ever before.

That is something all Canadians can be proud of.

The government is determined to ensure that Canadians continue to have access to government information and documents of all kinds. The government recognizes that accountability and transparency are an ongoing process.

We acknowledge that Canadians expect a high level of openness in government. We also understand that they expect to have more opportunities to participate in public affairs, particularly through the use of new and emerging technologies.

The government is committed to meeting these high expectations of Canadians, which is why we have continued to explore and implement new ways of giving Canadians access to government information. This includes our popular open data portal at data.gc.ca. This portal provides government data in machine-readable formats to enable citizens, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations the ability to leverage it in new, innovative, and value-added ways.

Our efforts also include the many measures we have taken to proactively disclose financial and human resources records of government institutions to the public. These include the disclosure of travel and hospitality expenses for selected government officials, contracts over $10,000, for instance, and the awarding of grants and contributions over $25,000, all of which can be found easily online.

By making this information readily available on departmental websites, Canadians and Parliament are better able to hold the government and public sector officials to account.

In short, we will continue to improve transparency and openness within government, but we will not do so by supporting the bill before us today.

The changes proposed by the member for Papineau ring hollow. After all, it was this member who accepted speaking fees from unions and then voted against union transparency legislation. It is also the member for Papineau who promises to repeal the First Nations Financial Transparency Act.

Recently, Barb Cote, a member of the Shuswap First Nations, thanked our government, stating:

The First Nations Transparency Act came in, and it actually showed what the previous council was doing—spending all our money on places that were not for the people.

This is the legislation that the member for Papineau will replace.

These, I would say, are not the actions of a champion of transparency.

The proposed changes in this legislation would lead to increased delays in response times to access for information requests and add cost pressures on government institutions.

As it stands, institutions are already required to document their deliberations and decisions on each request received under the act. Under our government, institutions are required to provide a detailed explanation every time they apply an exemption under the Access to Information Act. If requesters are not satisfied with the application of any exemptions, they may file a complaint with the Information Commissioner of Canada, who will examine the matter in detail. Also requiring the provision of detailed explanations every time an exemption is applied would add an unnecessary burden on the entire access to information program across the government.

The bill would also amend the Access to Information Act to eliminate all fees for access requests, except for the $5 application fee. This change would not show respect for the tax dollars of Canadians. As we all know, some individual access requests carry a large cost, given the high volume of records involved and the hours required to respond. So the government has the authority under the access to information regulations to charge an extra fee to reflect these costs. The government feels that it is quite reasonable to require a minor additional fee to process requests that consist of thousands of pages of material. I would add that federal institutions take a fair and judicious approach to charging these fees. This includes waiving or eliminating them. The vast majority of requests are fulfilled at no direct cost beyond the initial $5 application fee. In 2012-13, for example, this was the case for 99.5% of all cases. Again, 99.5% of these requests required no additional fee.

This legislation would also expand the mandate of the Information Commissioner to include the power to order the release of information. This would fundamentally change the role of the Information Commissioner, whose office would then become a quasi-judicial body. This would be in addition to the Information Commissioner's current role as an ombudsperson, which works well given her strong powers to investigate and resolve disputes about access requests.

I would also note what former information commissioner John Reid had to say on this question. He told a parliamentary committee in 2005 the following:

There is no evidence that order powers would strengthen the right of access, speed up the process, or reduce the amount of secrecy. The experience of 22 years is that the ombudsman model works very well. Fewer than 1% of complaints end up before the courts.

That said, it would be much better to continue with the present situation where the commissioner can apply to the Federal Court when an institution refuses to follow one of her recommendations to release some records.

I would just like to talk about one last change proposed in this bill: the requirement for a parliamentary committee to review the Access to Information Act every five years. I just want to say that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is responsible for carrying out such reviews and reporting its findings. The committee has actually carried out 15 studies on access to information since 2006.

From a careful reading of this private member's bill, I see more costs and more administration being added to government. I also see the potential for more litigation and disagreement, which in turn would add costs and further slow the process.

I do welcome the proposal by the member for Papineau to improve the transparency of the Board of Internal Economy. However, as stated by the Clerk of the House and former Speakers, there will always be a need for the board to meet in camera.

I would therefore encourage all members of this place to join me in opposing Bill C-613.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise in the House to represent the people of Timmins—James Bay. But I also have to say that it is not an honour to participate night after night, day after day, in the Potemkin democracy of what we have become.

As part of the farce that we have in the House, we all stand up and call each other “the hon. member” this and “the hon. member” that. We have learned that it is very unparliamentary to say that anyone lies. I cannot do that, Mr. Speaker, as you would be outraged. However, it is perfectly acceptable to lie in the House. It just has to be said that something is government opinion and that it was how it was stated. We cannot call that out. That somehow is considered parliamentary, because it is based on a gentleman's code here. Of course, that is an old-fashioned, sexist term, but we do not actually have rules except those that are in place for the officers of Parliament, whose job it is to hold us to account. With the Conservative government, we see a concerted attack on the credibility of the officers of Parliament. They will stand up in the House and tell us how the Conservatives all care about access to information. It is a farce.

Canada was a world leader in access to information. Year after year under the Conservative government, we fall further and further behind. Guess where we are now? We are about number 56, which puts Honduras and Russia ahead of us. The Conservatives stand up here and talk about fighting for democracy, but when we have corrupt countries like Honduras, Nigeria, and Russia serving their citizens' access to information requests better than the Conservative government does, we know where we stand.

We then get the President of the Treasury Board, who is like a flim-flam artist at a country fair, saying “I am going to give you the big prize. Put your money down”. The big prize is a booby prize. It is data sets. It is open government. What was the great line that I heard? It was in “machine-readable formats”. My God. What the heck is a machine-readable format? Do we know that is? It is junk. What the Conservatives do is to give people junk, and meanwhile suppressing the evidence that counts.

The information that people need is about who made decisions, why the decisions were made, and who was in the room when the decisions were made. However, we know that ministers' offices are black holes of accountability. The Information Commissioner has spoken out on that time and time again, but it is not just that they have a black hole of accountability; they have set out to fully monkey-wrench the Information Commissioner, just like the ridiculous member for York Centre and his witch hunt against parliamentary officers for their supposed partisan activities.

What we have now is the Information Commissioner writing to the President of the Treasury Board, the man who I said earlier was like a flim-flam artist at a country fair. She is saying that without the proper funding, she is not going to be able to fulfill her mandate. That is what the Information Commissioner is telling us. There is a fundamental problem. The reason she does not have the funding to do her job is because she does not have the order-making powers. If she had the order-making powers, she would not have to go to court all the time.

I see my Conservative friends stand up and say, “Oh my God, order-making powers. That is a very bad thing”. It is so bad that it was the number one promise in the Conservative election commitment in 2006 with regard to accountability. They said that they would give the Information Commissioner the power to release the order of information, and they lied to the Canadian people. They stood up on the issue of access to information and promised that they would reform the system. Instead, they sit there and fall on the backbenches, happily carrying on this farce that we are somehow an accountable democracy, when the access to information officer is telling us that the system is broken.

What does this mean? The fundamental principle of an accountable democracy is maximum privacy for citizens and maximum accountability and transparency by government. These guys flip it upside down: they want maximum transparency of their political enemies.

When we hear the Conservatives talk about accountability and access to information, we never hear them talk about their corrupt lobbyist insiders and friends. No, it is their big bad trio, including the corrupt Indian chiefs, they talk about. We heard that tonight, with their going after the first nations. The big bad union bosses are number two. Let us go after them, they say. Number three is the radical environmentalists. The Conservatives use the Canada Revenue Agency now, in a total corruption of government operations, to go after bird watchers because they threaten the interests of the tar sands. Meanwhile, their pals are getting away with whatever they want.

The Conservatives' idea of accountability is accountability toward their political enemies. That is what they do. They use the levers of government, misrepresent the use of Parliament and undermine the officers of Parliament. They go after people who are environmentalists, they go after fist nation people and use them as the big bogeymen, the bad chiefs, and they go after people in organized labour.

Meanwhile, the issue we are dealing with is the fact that they are suppressing information. There has been political interference. People will die of old age before they ever get any documents out of the government because it just keeps putting it off. The Conservatives think it is all funny until they are defeated by the Canadian people. It is a fundamental issue of arrogance and laziness.

Access to information should not be a partisan issue. Access to information is about accountability to the Canadian people. The Conservatives say time and time again “the Canadian people be damned”. This is about protecting themselves, protecting their ministers.

I will give an example. When the Conservatives lost the financial information on s half a million Canadians, did they give a darn about that financial information? No. They were worried about an incompetent minister, so they suppressed the information. They sat on it.

The first thing we learn when data has been compromised is we have to alert people because they could be subject to cyberfraud. We hear the Conservatives talk about cyberfraud all the time. However, they did not tell anybody because they were more concerned about protecting an incompetent minister. What we have along with this faux democracy are faux ministers. They are bobble heads. None of them take responsibility for what happens in their offices. They are protecting the decisions that are being made, that are being given to them in orders, and they are suppressing this information.

The Information Commissioner, a person who has enormous respect in our country, had to write to the Treasury Board president, the man who spent $50 million in border infrastructure money on pork-barrel projects in his riding and said that he had no documentation. That is the man who is supposed to represent access to information.

He will talk about open government, data sets and machine-readable formats. This man took $50 million from border infrastructure, blew it in his riding and said that he did not have a single document.

However, that was not true. The documents did exist. Under access to information, the Conservatives blocked the ability of the public to see those documents, however, we got those documents through the province and municipalities. We found out that the minister had come up with his own homemade forms. It was like the Muskoka minister saying to people to fill it out and they might get a free set of Muskoka steak knives at the end of it. If not, at least a sunken boat would be raised, they would get a lighthouse and a lake would built be in a place where there were a thousand lakes.

There used to be the day people who were that incompetent were fired. Not under the Conservatives. They get promoted if they can take that much money, if they can stand and tell Canadians they lost the paper, even though the papers exist everywhere in all those little municipalities and if they can get away with that. What does the Prime Minister think? He thinks that is the man he will put in charge of ensuring that all the other departments follow their paperwork. That is the man he picked, the Muskoka ShamWow salesman. Remember that? The guy did a television commercial selling cleaning products in China. This is their idea of how government is done.

When we talk about access to information, Canada was the world leader. Our parliamentary budget officers are the most respected people we have in our country, but the Conservatives attack them, ridicule them, and make farting jokes and laugh because they think it is funny. It is not funny. This is about the lifeblood of democracy.

The Conservatives can sit over there in their fake democracy and insult people, but the fact is they undermine the systems of accountability that hold them accountable. It is their corruption that Canadians are fed up with.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we need to look at this as an opportunity. Through the bill, we have a wonderful opportunity to send a very strong and powerful message to all Canadians. If we listened to our constituents on the issue of being open, transparent and accountable, if we consulted with them and put the bill before them, I truly believe the advice we would get from them would be that this bill was worthy of a yes vote. This is the type of legislation that could make a difference in a very real and tangible way on the issue of transparency and accountability.

When our leader presented the bill, he indicated it was a bill that would get the debate going, hoping that it would go to committee and that we would be open to ideas, thoughts and possible amendments. The initial response by the government was to deny. That is unfortunate.

If we read what the government member said, he referenced one aspect of the legislation. There was no comment on the Board of Internal Economy. We are talking about 2014, yet there is a law in place that says the board has to meet in camera. There is a need to change the law, yet the government's response was to ignore that aspect of the legislation. How would the Conservatives' constituents respond to that? Where is the government's need to listen to what good ideas come forward from the House of Commons?

This is not the first time we have seen an effort by the leader of the Liberal Party to bring forward an idea that has made a difference. We should remember proactive disclosure. I was sitting here when the leader brought forward the idea and sought unanimous consent of the House to move forward on proactive disclosure. The result was, no. There were parties in the House that did not want to go toward proactive disclosure. We persisted. The leader of the Liberal Party indicated that the Liberal caucus would have to abide by proactive disclosure. We were prepared to demonstrate leadership on this issue because we understood that Canadians' expectations were that much higher. We wanted to raise the bar. We wanted to show that we were prepared to be more transparent and accountable.

When we brought forward the proactive disclosure and the Liberal members acted on it, it was only a couple of months later that the Conservative Party joined in with us. I applaud them for recognizing a good idea. It took a few more months and ultimately an opposition day, but we were able to eventually gain support from the New Democratic Party. It is because of that building of consensus that we were able to pass a motion that ultimately led to change.

Everyone inside the chamber has the opportunity to vote for transparency and accountability. If we recognize the value of government data, then surely to goodness we recognize how important it is that the citizens of Canada have a right to gain that access. Bill C-613 would enable Canadians from coast to coast to coast more access, by default, to government data.

What is wrong with that? If the members have some ideas or have some concerns, at least they could vote for the bill to go to committee and raise it there. If they think they can improve upon the legislation, then they should bring forward amendments. I would suggest their constituents would agree with that thought.

What about the Board of Internal Economy? It would appear that we do have the support of at least two political entities on that issue. I am not sure where the government sits on it because the government member never commented on that aspect of the legislation.

Does the Conservative government or the PMO believe that we should still have a law in place in the year of 2014 that says we need to have in camera meetings, that it would be against the law to do anything otherwise?

I would like to think that if provided the opportunity to change that law, the government would recognize the benefits of it and allow for that to happen. I will be listening to future Conservative speakers who speak to the bill. I would challenge members to provide comment on that aspect also. Do members not see the value of it?

Going back to the access to information, it is very important to recognize that the Information Commissioner herself insists that the real improvements in the access to information system will only come from the modernization of the act, which is a long overdue step that is crucial to advancing the cause of transparency and accountability in Canada.

The leader of the Liberal Party indicated how long it has been since we have had real substantial changes. What we see in Bill C-163 is an opportunity for us to send a very strong message, and it is a part of the open Parliament plan that we have talked about for months now. It takes into consideration a number of bold, new initiatives that would make, and have made, a difference. This is just another step in the right direction that I believe Canadians would be very happy to see take place.

My concern is that, through the PMO or some selected members of the Conservative caucus, the Conservatives will not see the merits of the legislation before us. That would be most tragic, because, as I pointed out at the beginning of my comments, we need to recognize the importance of government data and the importance of Canadians having access to that necessary information, which is being stored within government data banks. There is a litany of reasons as to why this should take place.

The previous speaker talked about other countries. However, in recent years, Canada has not done well in terms of protecting the interests of access to information of government data. We continue to drop in the world ranking, and there is so much more we could do to improve upon that.

One of the most significant things we can do is vote in favour of this proposed legislation to go to committee. As it was indicated at the very beginning by my leader, we are in search of getting that all-party consensus. We were able to accomplish that on issues like proactive disclosure, and this is yet another step that would make a difference.

I challenge all members to read through the legislation to get a better understanding of the issue of the government data bank and having access to information. I challenge members to vote in favour of this bill going to committee so Canada can improve upon our access laws and end the law on in camera meetings of the Board of Internal Economy.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to talk about the bill. It is this government that actually has led the way with openness and transparency since we were elected in 2006. It gives me a great opportunity, as I rise to speak on the bill, to talk about some of the initiatives this government is undertaking to make government more open and accountable to the people of this country.

We understand that Canada has always been a world leader with respect to openness. Our first laws with respect to access to information were enacted in 1983, and this government has brought forward a number of other initiatives since that time to make it even more open and accountable to Canadians.

When we talk about the bill, there are many reasons why I will be voting against this piece of legislation. Not the least of these has to be that I look at the sponsor of the bill and wonder if I can trust that what he has put down on paper is something he believes in and would actually undertake to bring forward if he ever had the chance to be on this side of the House.

We know that, when Liberals were in power, they never did any of the things that are talked about in the bill, but I look specifically at the credibility and look back at some of the issues that the member championed or refused to champion. We know that the member has accepted speaking fees from unions and then voted against the union accountability act. We know that this government brought in a financial accountability act, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, which Canadians supported, which our first nation partners for the most part supported, because it opened what was a very secretive and closed dimension of our first nations funding.

We know the member for Papineau said, if he got the opportunity to be elected and sit on this side of the House, that he would remove that transparency that Canadians think is so important and that we on this side of the House also think is important. When I look at that, I wonder about the member's commitment to transparency.

I look also at some of the recent undertakings of the Liberal Party when it comes to openness. We know that the leader of the Liberal Party talked about nominations and said that the Liberals would have open and transparent nominations. That is a process that clearly is not being followed in the Liberal Party. We know that in Ottawa—Orléans there was a former contestant for the leadership, who ran against the current leader of the Liberal Party. His major crime is that he actually outsold the preferred candidate of the Liberal leader when it comes to memberships. He was probably going to win the nomination, so the commitment to openness and transparency did not last very long and it went out the door.

When I look at this legislation, I see it was announced last June, when the member talked about bringing the bill forward. The Liberal Party members said that over the summer months they would reach out to and talk to Canadians about it. What did they do? They talked to Canadians through their website. How did they do it through their website? On the website people could comment on the Liberal bill as long as, when they did so, they added their email, name, age, date of birth, language, and aboriginal ancestry. Once people added all of that information and sent it to the Liberal Party, then they could make a comment on whether they thought the bill was appropriate or suggest changes.

That is the type of outreach the Liberals did, and people probably received a fundraising letter right afterward. Therefore, when it comes to openness and transparency, I am little troubled by what the Liberal Party does and what it says.

In his speech, the member for Winnipeg North talked about proactive disclosure. He said the Liberals wanted to lead the way on proactive disclosure, but we know that the Liberals say one thing and do something completely different. We know that it was actually Conservative members and senators who provided proactive disclosure in a very timely fashion.

It was a rather awkward situation for the Liberal leader last June, when he introduced this bill and had a press conference about it. It was noticed by the reporters that the Liberals had, at that point, not provided proactive disclosure and identified their expenses. I will read a couple of things from the report. The Liberal House leader said that they were struggling with the work that was involved putting these expenses online. The Liberal House leader went on to say, “In my view, it’s as timely as we can make it...”.

The Liberals never said how quickly the expenses would be posted online. However, the last round posted for the final quarter of 2013 was made a month and a half after the disclosure. In this case, they were two and a half months late with the disclosure. This is another example of how the Liberals say one thing and do something completely different. They are all about openness and transparency, as long as no one asks them to prove that they are for openness and transparency.

We know that, in their time in office, the Liberals did just the opposite of what they constantly say. That is the Liberal hallmark. We know that. We know that the Liberals will say one thing. If they think the NDP is going to trouble them at the campaign, they will try to steal NDP ideas. They know we are constantly going to be bringing forward ideas, and I guess it is unfortunate for Canadians that the Liberals do not steal our ideas of putting money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadian taxpayers. We know they do not do that, because they tend to want to tax and spend more. We do just the opposite.

When we look at some of the things that the Conservative government has brought forward, we see that one of the first things was the accountability act. The accountability act brought in a number of things for openness and accountability. Some of these things, such as the Commissioner of Lobbying, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, are all things we brought forward after 13 years of Liberal secrecy and mismanagement of a number of different files. That culminated in the sponsorship scandal, which rightly outraged Canadians. There was a culture of secrecy in the former Liberal government, and we put an end to that with our accountability act back in 2006.

There are a number of other things we have done. We championed proactive disclosure. Expenses are more available. Contracts are put online for people to see. There are a number of other different disclosure mechanisms. The President of the Treasury Board has provided an open government program, which allows people to access a number of different files and data sets of the government and to use them.

We understand that when we provide access to information, it is actually a positive thing. The reason it is positive is that it gives Canadians access to information. It gives them access to the information that will allow them to understand what the government is doing and why it is doing it. When we look at all the things the Conservative government has done, we can see that, when it comes to openness and accountability, it actually does what it says, unlike the Liberals, who time and time again have said one thing and done something different.

When I look at this bill and some of the changes that are being suggested for the Board of Internal Economy, I have no problem. However, there is a whole host of other things that are completely wrong about this bill and that Canadians would find offensive. When we look at how this bill was drafted and how the Liberals, and this particular Liberal leader, have fashioned this debate, we can only conclude that it is another cynical and really immature attempt to score cheap political points on something that is very serious.

When we compare it to what this government has done with respect to openness and transparency, we can see the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. I think Canadians understand that this is the only government that will continue to protect them, their pocketbooks. The Conservatives will continue to make government open for all Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate, there are four minutes left this evening for the hon. member for Victoria.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to rise on this important initiative in the spirit of non-partisan debate, which is something Canadians expect when we are talking about fundamental reform to our parliamentary institutions. We are talking about two things in this bill: reforms to the Board of Internal Economy and reforms to the Access to Information Act.

In the very short time I have, I am going to comment mostly on the second order of problems involving the Access to Information Act. I am delighted to see that this bill incorporates something that had been promised before by the government and not delivered, and that is the need for independent ability for a court to order the disclosure of records. That is the best part of this bill, and one that I strongly support.

Indeed, Bill C-567, introduced by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, would have done just that. Perhaps members will agree with me how ironic that bill was, because it was an effort to simply and only address those things left out of the Conservative government's accountability promises. Members will recall that 52 measures were promised by the Conservatives to increase ethics and accountability of the government, and the first thing the Conservatives said they would do when elected was to strengthen the Access to Information Act. When it all came out, their famous Federal Accountability Act contained a grand total of one of the eight open-government measures that they promised in the Federal Accountability Act. What the member for Winnipeg Centre did was simply present those things the government said it would do but did not do.

Perhaps I, as a new member, was relatively naive. I thought that all we were doing was asking the government to do what it promised in an election campaign. I am sad to report that the Conservatives spoke against that bill. However, at least one principle in this accountability legislation before us tonight was in that bill, which we completely and strongly endorse, and that is the ability for an information commissioner to order the disclosure of a record if it comes within the proper rules, even if the government wishes that not to occur.

An access bill, in any jurisdiction, must have three things: first, a statement of the right to openness, which is the default, as the member for Papineaunoted; the second critical thing, a list of exceptions to that rule, which would be narrow, that being the intent at least; and third, the ability for an independent officer to be essentially the umpire in the game and say that government should not withhold a particular record, that it should be disclosed. Those are the guts of meaningful access legislation. This bill would do that, and that is one measure, therefore, that we would strongly support.

The Conservative government has made fun of legislation of this sort in the past, and that is wrong. Mr. Crosbie, who was the first justice minister to live under an access act, said that this is merely a tool for “mischief-makers” whose objective “in the vast majority of instances” is to embarrass political leaders and titillate the public. That is not an access to information act.

It is a quasi-constitutional requirement, according to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is part of our legislative regime to ensure that the Government of Canada is held to account. This bill would go some measure toward that. It needs to go a lot further, and we hope that, when we get it into committee, we can improve it for all Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

Pursuant to Standing Order 37, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-608 under private members' business.

The House resumed from November 18, 2014, consideration of the motion that Bill C-613, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Access to Information Act (transparency), be read the second time and referred to a committee.