Bill C-58 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Access to Information Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the head of a government institution, with the approval of the Information Commissioner, to decline to act on a request for access to a record for various reasons;
(b) authorize the Information Commissioner to refuse to investigate or cease to investigate a complaint that is, in the Commissioner’s opinion, trivial, frivolous or vexatious or made in bad faith;
(c) clarify the powers of the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner to examine documents containing information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege or the professional secrecy of advocates and notaries or to litigation privilege in the course of their investigations and clarify that the disclosure by the head of a government institution to either of those Commissioners of such documents does not constitute a waiver of those privileges or that professional secrecy;
(d) authorize the Information Commissioner to make orders for the release of records or with respect to other matters relating to requesting or obtaining records and to publish any reports that he or she makes, including those that contain any orders he or she makes, and give parties the right to apply to the Federal Court for a review of the matter;
(e) create a new Part providing for the proactive publication of information or materials related to the Senate, the House of Commons, parliamentary entities, ministers’ offices, government institutions and institutions that support superior courts;
(f) require the designated Minister to undertake a review of the Act within one year after the day on which this enactment receives royal assent and every five years afterward;
(g) authorize government institutions to provide to other government institutions services related to requests for access to records; and
(h) expand the Governor in Council’s power to amend Schedule I to the Act and to retroactively validate amendments to that schedule.
It amends the Privacy Act to, among other things,
(a) create a new exception to the definition of “personal information” with respect to certain information regarding an individual who is a ministerial adviser or a member of a ministerial staff;
(b) authorize government institutions to provide to other government institutions services related to requests for personal information; and
(c) expand the Governor in Council’s power to amend the schedule to the Act and to retroactively validate amendments to that schedule.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Canada Evidence Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

Third Reading

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable can ask a brief question, and the answer will also have to be brief.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief, but it will not be easy, because I wanted to talk about the irony of today's situation.

It is quite ironic to be facing a time allocation motion for a bill that is supposed to improve openness and transparency. It is quite ironic, and this is not the first time it has happened. I must be very brief.

I would like my colleague, a seasoned parliamentarian, to tell me whether he has ever seen the government act this way in any of the many Parliaments he has been through.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the privilege of being here in the House of Commons for previous Parliaments.

What is certain is that, as my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable rightly said, whenever the government is in a tight spot and wants to ram a bill through, it cuts parliamentarians' speaking time. As my colleague so aptly put it, it is quite ironic for parliamentarians to be barred from speaking on a bill about transparency. It is unacceptable.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North will share the time I have to speak today.

As the member of Parliament for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, in Nova Scotia, my riding surrounds the two big cities of Halifax and Dartmouth. We find a very high percentage of veterans in my riding. Some 23% of vets are in Nova Scotia, the highest population per capita. We also have many seniors. The number of seniors increased in my riding by 33% between 2011 and 2016.

I would like to thank the President of the Treasury Board for his excellent leadership, not only in government but also as the cabinet minister for the province of Nova Scotia.

The bill is extremely important to Canadians. It would increase democracy. It would allow for much more public debate. People would have much more information. The accountability and transparency in the bill would continue to allow Canadians to understand better what is happening, why it is happening, and why decisions are taken. Those are key components of the bill.

This has been a long-awaited process. It has been 34 years since we have seen a major overhaul. Things have changed drastically. It has surprised me to hear in the last couple of days the Conservatives continue to say that it is not enough. In the last 10 years, they did not do anything about this. That is why the Conservatives are really good in opposition. They can complain about how they would do it if they were in power, and then once they are in power, they just do not do it. I guess their best place to be is in opposition.

Our government conducted over 320 different types of consultations to gather as much information as possible so we could bring a bill forward. We have to remember that this is a living document. This is not something that is going to sit for the next 34 years. This is going to allow us to review it next year and then every five years. That is how bills should be done to make sure that we are responding to the needs of Canadians and to changes in society.

Why do we have to make changes? We know that we have to be more accountable and more transparent. We, as a government, ran on that issue, but also, things have changed. We have been putting all kinds of documents on paper and storing them on shelves and in cabinets, and we have not been in a position to quickly respond in an efficient way. That has been a major issue.

The bill would add a very important piece, which is proactive publication. We would expand publication to be proactive so that people would have the information. That would save enormous time, because much of the publication would already be online, which is extremely important.

Not only would we be going to all 240 departments, we would also include the Prime Minister's Office and the ministers' offices. That is a major change in this process we are bringing forward.

To show that we are a government that is very progressive, we have accepted up to 10 amendments, which have been integrated into the bill. I have not seen too many past governments, especially in the last 10 years, accept all kinds of amendments to make a bill better and to make sure it is a living bill so that we can make adjustments as needed.

Let us talk about the mandate letter as well. Before the bill was even spoken about, the mandate letter was already open and transparent. Who made that mandate letter public? It was our Liberal government, just as it was our government, 34 years ago, that brought in the act initially. There is a trend here that we should keep focused on.

We accepted amendments from colleagues on disclosure being 30 days or less. This would help make sure that requests came forward quickly and would reduce demand, because there has been a 13% increase yearly in the demands for information. That is major.

I would also like to talk about the Information Commissioner. We would give more power to the Information Commissioner than existed before. Again, we should keep in mind that this is a living document. We are going to make sure that we do it right as we move forward. We would give the Information Commissioner order-making powers to resolve various complaints so that she could look into the issues and provide feedback as to how to proceed.

We would also give the Information Commissioner the final word, so to speak, in denying requests. The department, by itself, could not deny requests. It would have to have written permission or approval from the commissioner. That would be a major change and shows that this bill is a progressive one that would allow us to continue to improve our open and transparent government.

The Information Commissioner would also be able to conduct a review to see if disclosures were complete, as they should be. In other words, there would be some consistency among departments. No department would be able to withhold information that was critical or important. Those changes are very important.

The mandatory reviews would occur at one year and five years, which is very progressive. It would ensure that we continue to do things right for Canadians.

Let us talk about the government and Liberal values, and let us not limit ourselves to the last two years. Liberal values have been crucial in building this great country. By that I mean that it was a Liberal government that brought in the national health care accord. We brought in the OAS way back when. We also brought in changes to the CPP last year, which the Conservative government could not do in 10 years. Are members surprised? I can tell them why. It is a very simple answer. The reason the Tories did not make changes in 10 years is that they never consulted with the provinces. If there is no consultation, there can definitely not be an accord on important issues.

It is also important to realize the transparency we have created. For appointments, such as senators, commissioners, and all kinds of appointments, any Canadian who feels that he or she qualifies can submit his or her name to be approved for various positions. That, by itself, is very transparent and open. We have opened up political financing and fundraising as well.

Let us talk about science. For 10 years, scientists were not allowed to share any opinions or factual information, but with our government, that has all changed, and Canadians are extremely satisfied with that.

In closing, I will say that this government is a progressive government. This government knows that it can and will do better. We are not afraid to take on all kinds of difficult challenges, because we are here for Canadians. This act is very important, but it is only a stepping stone. It is like a ladder. One does not start at the fifth step; it is one step at a time. We will meet the needs of Canadians, because we will be able to review the bill every five years and make the necessary adjustments for Canadians.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague, who waxed eloquent about the guidelines, mandate letters, and the increased accountability of the government. I will read from the mandate letter to the finance minister that was issued in November 2015, which states:

As Minister, you must ensure that you are aware of and fully compliant with the Conflict of Interest Act and Treasury Board policies and guidelines. You will be provided with a copy of Open and Accountable Government to assist you as you undertake your responsibilities. I ask that you carefully read it and ensure that your staff does so as well. I draw your attention in particular to the Ethical Guidelines set out in Annex A of that document, which apply to you and your staff.

Does my colleague believe that the mandate letters were worth the paper they were written on, when we see the kind of disregard that almost all the ministers have had for those mandate letters?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is an ironic question really, because the mandate letter the member is referring to does exist, and everyone in the House, as well as all other Canadians, knows what is in the mandate letters. However, when their prime minister gave his mandate letters to his ministers, peekaboo, no one knew what was in them, and so the ministers could do what they wanted to.

Second, the member made the point about the Ethics Commissioner. However, the Minister of Finance did exactly what everyone in this House did, all 338 members of Parliament. They were elected, they were consulted, they gave the information required, they received feedback from the Ethics Commissioner, and they followed that feedback. There was nothing different for the Minister of Finance from anyone else in the House.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to change the tone of the debate, if I may. My colleague has obviously carefully memorized his government's talking points. I congratulate him on saying his lines so eloquently.

However, does he think it is okay that the members of his party are the only ones applauding this bill? I am not talking about the opposition. The experts who have reviewed this bill, including the Information Commissioner, have come out very strongly against it. They believe that overall, the bill is a step backwards.

Does my colleague think it is okay that the Liberal Party is alone in praising this bill? Does he see nothing wrong with the fact that the Liberals are the only people in Canada who think this bill is a step forward?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to change the tone, then I should change it as well and say that the NDP has talked and talked, but I do not know how we could answer to everything they request, because they are never satisfied. If we go 75% of the way, they still say 25%. If we go 125% they still say we could have done 25% more. Listen carefully: This is a living document.

It is a living document that will allow for any necessary changes to be made. We are not going to change the world tomorrow, but we will make sure that when we review the legislation in the coming years, we will be able to better address the concerns of Canadians. We will then see the benefits of this change to Canadian society. Therefore, we will continue with our work.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just to underscore the hypocrisy of what we are hearing from the other side, I think the member eloquently put it that the irony here is that the opposition has an opportunity to criticize these mandate letters, as they have been doing throughout this debate, because of the fact the government is committed to being open and transparent.

Could the member comment on exactly how important that is, not just for us here today but also for the democratic institution we belong to?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, again, these are open and transparent mandate letters that every Canadian is aware of. The Prime Minister's Office has to divulge information and the ministers' offices have to divulge information, as do judges. Everyone is responsible to answer to government, and everyone is responsible to answer to society. This is what the bill would do. However, it is a living document, and we are going to continue to improve it.

We are not sitting back, as the Tories did for the last 10 years, and blindly refusing to do anything on this important file.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before resuming debate, I want to point out that earlier, when the President of the Treasury Board was speaking, his earpiece was very close to the microphone and we were getting feedback. We seem to be getting feedback again, but it seems to be of a different kind. Therefore, I will remind hon. members that we do have decorum in the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by reflecting on one of the questions that was posed as to why the Liberals want to push this forward, yet no one else inside the chamber sees its merit. It is like a flashback of sorts, because this is not the first time that has taken place in regard to this very same issue.

In looking at access to information, the minister responsible, the President of the Treasury Board, has pointed out how long ago it was that substantive changes were previously made to the act. We have to go back to the late 1970s. Ultimately the credit goes to Joe Clark, who introduced the legislation. Nonetheless, let us not confuse the Progressive Conservatives of 1979 with the Conservatives/Reformers of today because there is a substantial difference. There might be some members within that caucus, very few, who could relate to the Progressive Conservatives, but it is more of that Reform faction that is still there in a very real way. It was Pierre Elliott Trudeau then, who took idea of Joe Clark and put it into place, but no prime minister since Pierre Elliott Trudeau has taken on the task of looking at modernizing the legislation. Even though Stephen Harper in a campaign said he would reform the act, that never took place.

Let me focus on the flashback I referred to. When our current Prime Minister became leader of the Liberal Party, the members who served a few years back will recall that the leader of the Liberal Party said he believed in proactive disclosure and that the Liberal Party in third-party status wanted it to apply to all members and political parties inside the chamber. My colleagues will remember the reaction at the time. It was an outright no from the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party. We stood alone as the official opposition, and the government of the day said no to proactive disclosure, to the idea that was being promoted by the leader of the Liberal Party. A few months later, and even before that, the leader said that Liberal members of Parliament were expected to provide proactive disclosure of their expenses, of their members' office budgets, and the Liberal Party on its own moved in that direction.

To the credit of the former Conservative government, its members recognized there was merit to that. In fact, it was not that long afterward, a few months later, that the Conservatives said that they too would participate in proactive disclosure. I give them credit for recognizing that as something Canadians wanted to see. My friends, the New Democrats, on the other hand, fought it tooth and nail. They did not want anything to do with proactive disclosure. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, it was the Liberal Party that brought forward an opposition motion that obligated the NDP members to stand in their place and say it was a bad idea. Before that, it was behind the curtains that they were yelling, “no, no, no, bad idea, we do not want it”, saying no to unanimous leave inside the chamber. The New Democrats were almost embarrassed to support it, and ultimately because of that round of embarrassment, they came onside months later, probably closer to a full year later.

When my colleague on the New Democrat benches across the way talks about the government not having the support of the official opposition or the NDP for the bill, I would point out that we did not have their support back then either. The Conservatives saw the light a little sooner than the New Democrats. The New Democrats saw the light after being shoved into it.

What we are debating today is further proactive disclosure to include not only members of Parliament but also the Prime Minister's Office, ministers' offices, and other independent offices. Why would the NDP, in particular, but the Conservatives also, not recognize the true value of what is proposed in this legislation? I can understand the unholy alliance that has taken place, especially during question period and on certain issues, between the New Democrats and the Conservatives, but I do not quite understand why they persist in saying that this is bad legislation. Access to information has not been modernized for decades. As my colleague from the Atlantic coast pointed out, not only will this legislation be changed today, but within the legislation we also have a review clause. Therefore, by passing this legislation, we would be mandating in law that the legislation be reviewed periodically so that we do not have a 30-year gap between the times that we look at ways to improve access to information.

Another aspect worthy of note is how we are empowering and enabling the commissioner to require and request reports or comments on specific issues that have been brought to his or her attention by members of the House and others. I would argue that is a significant and positive achievement. I would have thought that members would easily support this expansion of the commissioner's ability to require comments.

Many of those who are listening to or following the debate might ask what proactive disclosure is. Often, there are individuals who want to try to draw out more regular information from government. We have seen that with governments of all political stripes. Proactive disclosure is one of the ways we can deal with the many different types of questions being asked of the commissioner or the departments in the first place. As opposed to requests having to come in, the information would automatically be made available. This service will better facilitate the flow of information. It will ensure that there is a higher sense of accountability and transparency in government. Members should not be surprised by this. Not only did the leader of the Liberal Party initiate the debate on transparency and accountability through proactive disclosure, but we even talked about enhancing it more in the last federal election. That is exactly what we have done. For example, we require that mandate letters and revised mandate letters to ministers be incorporated. Some might ask why we would do that. It is because this Prime Minister has made that information public. There is great value in that. For the first time, the public has access to what the Prime Minister is mandating ministers do within their departments and what some of those expectations are. The briefing packages to ministers are also being considered for proactive disclosure.

There is a list of things that are eligible and will be incorporated under proactive disclosure. There is a litany of things that I believe clearly demonstrate that this Prime Minister wants to and is prepared to bring in legislation to ensure we are more transparent, accountable, and that future governments would also have to live within this legislative framework. I believe this is a very strong positive.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of proactive disclosure or mandate letters, clearly all of this is empty rhetoric when it comes from the Liberal Party. I read a brief excerpt from the mandate letter to the Minister of Finance, and I point out that it talks about this being an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law. He was going beyond in saying that the actions he takes not only have to be according to the letter of the law but they must bear up under the most intense public scrutiny. Earlier my colleague referred to a living document. He referred to the mandate letters. Well, the mandate letters certainly appear to be dead.

If the minister followed all the guidelines, as has been charged by all my colleagues, why, if that is so, was the minister charged on two separate occasions by the Ethics Commissioner? He was fined. Also, why did he take two years to disclose the ownership of a public villa in France and disclose a private numbered company held in Alberta? That seems incongruent to me.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the relevant part first. The member quoted from a mandate letter. We know that Stephen Harper never made mandate letters public. We now have a Prime Minister who has made mandate letters public because Canadians have a right to know what those priorities are for the government of the day. Further to that, within this legislation, it would obligate future prime ministers to do likewise, ensuring more transparency and accountability. That is the relevance to the legislation that we are debating today.

In regard to his assertions, it is all part of the whole character assassination of the Minister of Finance. If the opposition wants to continue down that line, that is up to them. We will continue to work hard serving Canada's middle class, those aspiring to be a part of it, and those individuals who are having a difficult time, by bringing in good sound public policy that has helped to generate literally hundreds of thousands of jobs.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I seriously doubt that Canadians or Quebeckers are still listening to this debate, which is only fuelling the cynicism we often find in politics. However, we are currently debating a very important bill that deals with access to information. It is becoming more and more obvious that this government is all talk and no action.

For example, the new Bill C-58 introduces a new loophole that will allow any minister to decline to act on a request if he or she deems that it is too general, that it will seriously interfere with the government's activities, or that it was made in bad faith.

Here we have one of the dozens of statements of principle that are in this bill but have no real application.

My question is very simple: how does the government intend to guarantee that the rules are interpreted in the same way by all ministers?