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.

[Caroline Maynard]

In terms of orders, I had recommended during the discussions surrounding former Bill C‑58 that a process for approving orders issued by my office be put in place. Under such a process, it would be enough to have an order of my office approved by the Federal Court for it to be respected in the same way as a court judgment. Such a process would be much easier than a mandamus application.

At the time, the government said that we didn't need a process like that because it was going to comply with the orders of the Office of the Commissioner, which had the force of law. We now have proof that this isn't exactly the case. I think a certification process would be enough for institutions not to want to be charged with contempt of court, if I can put it that way.

When it comes to penalties, people often ask us who should be punished when the department doesn't respond or doesn't comply with the act. I think it would be very difficult to establish a process that would sanction a public servant, director or deputy minister. I think it would be easier to establish within the department a performance evaluation process for responding to access to information requests. When it affects premiums and pay, it can have an impact.

[Taylor Paxton]

We have taken Bill C-58 and really implemented it within our department in the sense that we understand what we're being asked to do. Proactive disclosure is very important. We are working very hard to improve our compliance on proactive disclosure. There have been some instances where we have had to redirect ourselves on proactive disclosure, and we have done so quickly. We'll continue to do that work.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you very much.

Last, we talked very briefly about Bill C-58 Ms. Paxton, earlier we were making reference to your maybe wanting to clarify a few things for this committee.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thank you.

This is just a comment. We've had some talk in this round on Bill C-58, which this government brought in 2017, I think it was. The then commissioner described that law as a step backward, saying, “Rather than advancing access to information rights, Bill C-58 would instead result in a regression of existing rights.” She also said:

The government promised the bill would ensure the Act applies to the Prime Minister's and Ministers' Offices appropriately. It does not.

The government promised the bill would apply appropriately to administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts. It does not.

The government promised the bill would empower the Information Commissioner to order the release of government information. It does not.

Those are the comments of the then commissioner, that Bill C-58 was actually a step backward.

On that third point about order-making power, the government you serve is presently refusing to comply with an order of the Information Commissioner and is taking the Information Commissioner to court. What is the rationale for that? How does that address openness and transparency?

[Bill Matthews]

Maybe we'll have to come back to that.

I think I will avoid Bill C-58 specifically. One of our best friends on this is making data and information more open by default. In theory, you'll start publishing datasets, which we've been doing, just to make information more accessible to Canadians who are curious. Defence will always be challenged by what needs to be protected and what doesn't. It's a sensitive space.

Maybe in the next round we can turn to Taylor on Bill C-58 specifically.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you.

One of the critiques that municipalities had of our provincial government was that the legislation that governed us, MFIPPA, the municipal freedom of information process, hadn't been updated in 30 years. As referenced here today, our government worked on Bill C-58, which passed and updated the legislation. Up until that time, consecutive federal governments were seen as dinosaurs as it relates to access to information, whether it was from journalists, citizens or people in the workplace.

Can I get your thoughts on Bill C-58? How long does it take for a department to nail it down? You would have had to retrain. You had an old system that was in effect for decades. New legislation comes in and we're now changing the rules. How long does it take to right the ship in that regard as it relates to, in this instance, Bill C-58?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

All right.

I don't have very much time left. There's so much I could get to, but you mentioned Bill C-58 in your opening remarks. The Information Commissioner of the day called it a step backward. She said it actually took away some of the access to information that existed before Bill C-58. It was more than a broken promise; it was a reverse promise of the 2015 election.

You mentioned the order-making powers. Your government is presently refusing to comply with an order of the Information Commissioner and is taking the Information Commissioner to court. Is that openness and transparency at work?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'd like to thank this committee for its indulgence last week. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend last Wednesday, and I hope it was not too inconvenient for all to have to reschedule this for today.

Also, I would like to offer my condolences to Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman on the passing of her father. Her father was a well-known and greatly respected former police officer, as well as a parliamentarian. Certainly she's in our thoughts.

I am joined this morning at the table by the deputy minister, Bill Matthews, and Major-General Erick Simoneau, chief of staff, professional conduct and culture, who can provide information on the CAF grievance system and the transformation process, which is currently under way. I'm also joined by Brigadier-General Rob Holman, who is our judge advocate general. He'll be able to provide information on the framework of the grievance process, as well as the legal relationships with various independent actors involved in the military system. Finally, I'm joined by Taylor Paxton, our corporate secretary, who is responsible for the coordination and administration of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act for National Defence as well as for providing advice and guidance on the application of the acts themselves.

Our military and civilian staff are guided by several core tenets: They must be politically impartial and must be transparent and accountable first and foremost to Canadians. These tenets are fundamental to our democracy, and we will always work to improve our processes to ensure that we meet our obligations. That includes how we manage access to information and the various complaint mechanisms in place for our civilian and uniformed people alike.

If I may, I will begin with access to information. During fiscal year 2022-23, National Defence received 2,241 new ATI requests. Over that same period, they closed 2,242, with 61.73% of requests closed within the legislated timelines. Last year's rates represent an increase from last year and are part of a general upward trend.

Let's be clear. The Department of National Defence needs to do better, and our team is hard at work to ensure that this, in fact, happens. Despite the fact that DND and the CAF are two large, intertwined organizations that deal with highly sensitive information and are challenged by size and complexity, there is never an excuse for failing to meet our legal requirements. I didn't come here today to offer excuses.

DND and CAF have introduced new programs and initiatives to ensure that the new rules are being met and that the departmental processes are improving overall. These include moving to a paperless process to manage ATIPs and acquiring new software to speed up the processing of ATIP requests; reinforcing the requirements for senior leaders to ensure they are committed to compliance; and improving training required for all members of the defence team on their obligations.

DND must and will improve how it responds to ATIP requests, building upon recommendations from the 2022 “Access to Information Review” report to Parliament and the Information Commissioner's 2020 special report to Parliament, which focused specifically on National Defence.

Of the 2,242 requests that I mentioned earlier, staff provided a “no records exist” response in 593 of cases, or 26%. There are several different reasons why the department may provide a nil response such as this. For example, the retention period for a document may have passed, or the information is not tracked by the department. We all recognize that access to information is a right for all Canadians, and at the introduction of Bill C-58, our ATIP processes changed further to accommodate regulations around proactive disclosure and to respect additional powers granted to the Information Commissioner.

With respect to internal complaints mechanisms, just as all Canadians have a right to obtain information about their government, our employees have the right to hold their leadership accountable through comprehensive complaint mechanisms. These include the National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman's office, the CAF grievance process and the Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada. Similarly, CAF members can choose to submit sexual misconduct complaints through their chain of command or independently. Depending on the circumstances, this may include through the police of jurisdiction or the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

No matter which mechanism members are engaged with, they must know that their complaints will be taken seriously, that investigations will take place free of political influence and that their privacy rights will be respected at all times. For most matters, CAF members can personally make grievances to a commanding officer or designate, which is the initial authority. If they are not satisfied with the decision of the initial authority, they can then ask the chief of the defence staff or a delegate to reconsider their grievance as the final authority. At this point, the Military Grievances External Review Committee will often provide recommendations to assist the CDS in making the final decision.

Members of the defence team can also contact the National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman if they feel they have been treated unfairly and if they are looking for information or are uncertain about how to deal with an issue. The ombudsman's office forwards their findings to the appropriate DND or CAF authority.

The Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada is another oversight agency that operates at arm's length from the Government of Canada. The commission reviews and investigates complaints concerning military police conduct and investigates allegations of interference in military police investigations.

Each of these organizations comprises dedicated, hard-working officials committed to keeping our institutions accountable. It's critical that no interference from the government or senior leadership occur in these investigations.

Mr. Chair and committee members, we are working hard to improve our processes, while ensuring that these organizations remain at arm's length from senior leadership, including the implementation of CAF-wide grievance transformation efforts. We know we have work to do. We welcome any insights into this work and any proposed recommendations that may come from your review.

Thank you very much. I'll now happily answer your questions.

[Caroline Maynard]

As the Auditor General has said before in committee, Parliament sometimes grants us new powers, but there are costs associated with that. That is also true for Mr. Dufresne. For example, since the coming into force of former Bill C-58, I now have the authority to make orders and publish reports. However, that costs a lot of money and we also want to be able to meet the demand.

Right now, I have a backlog of 3,400 complaints, and I don't have the resources needed to investigate them. I would be delighted to be given additional temporary funding to conduct those investigations. On the other hand, I would also be prepared to give money back if the number of complaints that I have to deal with were to decrease. I think that sort of trade-off and accountability are important. If such were the case, we would not be required to extend the time frame for investigating complaints because of a lack of resources.

[Caroline Maynard]

Section 6.1 that Ms. Charette is referring to is a new section of the act, which allows any institution, not just the Privy Council, that receives a complaint or access request that it considers abusive or frivolous to ask me for permission not to respond to it. Such a request is legal and is part of the process put in place following the passage of former Bill C-58.

I can't speak to the request itself because we haven't responded to it yet. However, I can tell you that this process was put in place to prevent institutions from rejecting such requests on their own initiative. They have to ask the Information Commissioner for permission. The Office of the Commissioner then reviews the institution's request and the requester's request to see whether they comply with the wording of subsection 6.1(1).

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

When we look at Bill C‑58, which was tabled in 2017, we can see that the issue of lack of resources was already highlighted back then. That continues to this day.

When a government fails year after year to provide sufficient resources to the organization that should allow Canadians access to information, should well-informed citizens be interpreting that as proof of intent?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Okay. A recent report by The Globe and Mail found that B.C.'s access to information requests from media have dropped dramatically, by up to 80%, after they introduced their $10 fee per request. Do you believe that the $5 flat fee for requests introduced by C-58 is a step in the right direction?

[Dean Beeby]

Yes, she seemed to say Bill C-58 was the big improvement. Bill C-58 had some improvements. Order-making power was a half improvement. It also had some restrictions. It introduced for the first time the problem of frivolous and vexatious requests. Certain requests can be ignored. It wasn't all in favour of the user. Some of it was actually against the user.

[Dean Beeby]

Yes, I'd love to.

She was given so-called order-making power in Bill C-58 in 2019, but it wasn't what she had argued for. It was a watered-down version, so her orders do not have the same effect as a Federal Court judge's order.

A Federal Court judge's order cannot be ignored. There are sanctions that will be applied to people who ignore that order. In her case, there are no sanctions. It's simply that her order goes out, and it can be ignored or the institution can go to court. It has no power, impact or authority.

She argued against this watered-down power when Bill C-58 was being debated, but she didn't get it, so we now have this really weak system.

[Duff Conacher]

Thank you.

The Access to Information Act is misnamed. It really should be called the ”Guide to Keeping Information Secret that the Public has a Right to Know Act” because that's what it is. It is more loopholes than rules. As a result, the enforcement changes made by Bill C-58 can empower the commissioner only so much, because of the number of loopholes, exemptions and exclusions that can be claimed.

Stakeholders have made it very clear, including in the government's own consultation report released in December 2021, and all stakeholders have called for 10 key changes. I've listed 18 more detailed, comprehensive changes in our submission, and they all need to be made in order to have an actual Access to Information Act.

Rather than the committee's simply issuing a report—and I was happy to hear, in listening to—

[Dean Beeby, Journalist, As an Individual]

Thank you, committee members, for inviting me back as a witness as you wrap up your report on access to information.

Almost three years ago, the then Treasury Board president announced a review of access to information. Monsieur Duclos said in June 2020 that the review would focus on three things—the legislative framework, proactive publication and the administration of access to information. The minister said the review would also “seek the views of Indigenous Peoples on aspects of access to information that are important to them”.

I delivered a lengthy brief to the Treasury Board’s review team, proposing nine specific amendments to the legislation, because, after all, a review of the legislative framework was the very first thing on the minister’s list.

Last week I learned that my brief was a complete waste of time. The new Treasury Board president told the committee, “My current priority is to improve [the] administration of the existing law.” She resisted calls for amendments to the Access to Information Act, claiming that Bill C-58 had already done the job four years ago.

I felt duped. Many others who submitted legislative reforms must also feel duped.

Madame Fortier also said last week that halfway through the three-year review, Treasury Board realized that it needed to engage with indigenous people, and so asked for their input. Apparently, the minister and her officials did not get that June 2020 memo from Monsieur Duclos about the need to seek the views of indigenous people.

Once again, a government with no stomach for transparency has ragged the puck for three years. Now they promise a so-called action plan sometime in year number four.

An activist I know talks about something she calls the “cycle of denial”. She works to stop violence against women. Every police agency and government asks that her group supply evidence about the problem. She diligently puts together briefs and reports. Time passes. Agencies and governments with new leaders then ask for fresh evidence. The cycle of denial starts again. Nothing gets done.

The Treasury Board’s report on access to information last fall is the 17th such review since 1982—not a particularly insightful one, by the way—so we have our own cycle of denial in the transparency world. Nothing is getting done. That’s no accident. Governments always lose their appetite for openness one day after elections are held.

Your committee’s work is an opportunity to push back against foot-dragging by bureaucrats and ministers, to give voice to Canadians who dare ask how government is spending their money, and to help backbenchers get answers to questions that are routinely dismissed in Parliament. I hope your report will put important legislative amendments back on the table. They are as important to reform as administrative changes.

I'll be glad to take questions. Thank you.

[Ken Rubin, Investigative Researcher, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, for a minute I thought I was in a study session instead of a serious legislative committee, but I'm going to show you why you have to take things seriously.

Since I came to testify nearly six months ago, several detrimental changes to the right to information have occurred.

One is the refusal to call a public inquiry, given the lack of substantive public information on foreign influence on Canadian affairs in elections. Another roadblock is the government's accelerated use of artificial intelligence as part of its largest switch to data-driven decision-making operations, which the minister was hinting at. There is also mounting evidence of secrecy in government contract outsourcing. That comes with the comptroller general cautioning officials not to say or reveal much. New entities like the Canada growth fund are being set up largely outside the access to information regime. Public inquiries have made releases showing that dysfunctional and secretive cultures of the RCMP and National Defence are being allowed to flourish.

In addition, the new federal employee hybrid workplace scheme makes processing access requests more difficult and less of an essential service.

Finally, before the committee, it's very late and she didn't really get into the Treasury Board review, with no recommendations and no hope for any recommendations except some vague action plan. She only confirms that the government wants to impede and delay meaningful access reform. The truth is that Treasury Board has done incredible harm over four decades, making full disclosures impossible.

This committee must sanction Treasury Board for its inept, self-serving review and recommend that Parliament remove it from having a central role in access to government records. In its place, the committee should recommend that an arm's-length freedom of information agency be set up under a revised law to handle and promote public information disclosures. What is first required is that the right to information squarely and clearly should be seen as a guaranteed constitutional right falling under the freedom of information section of the charter.

A transformative right to know has to be immediate with full disclosure of health, safety, environmental and consumer data, with the same disclosures for decision-making records and financial transactions and accounts. That requires quick access without fees. Should officials not honour their obligations for documenting, servicing and disclosure but try all kinds of creative avoidance, they must be subject to stiff penalties.

The inclusion of broad coverage of agencies receiving or using public funds can no longer be ignored. What also has to come to an end is the broad array of exemptions and exclusions to access. Authorities have created myths about cabinet and bureaucratic operations and records being sacrosanct. This must change as places like New Zealand have shown it can.

The last time around in Bill C-58, what was created and what needs to be undone was a retreat from full disclosure through a two-tier system. It's a system in which sanitized summary data on permanent exclusions of ministers and the Prime Minister's Office was falsely sold as a so-called advance. Ottawa needs to drastically change from being a place of spin communications, closed-door meetings and gagging employees.

Canadians need a dramatic new way to access data and be able to participate in and know about Canadian government affairs.

This committee and its 28 or so recommendations can help lead the way. Let's hope so. The minister isn't going to do it for you.

Thank you.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I've filed a number of them, and 60% closed in 30 days is a pipe dream compared to my experience—to give you some context.

I'm glad you brought up Bill C-58. However, when hearing from witnesses, they had a very different experience and in fact outlined quite a few times how a few disclosures and reduced fees seem to be a way for the government to hide behind increased secrecy in their actions.

In light of all of that—and we've heard a lot of criticisms of Bill C-58—why are the criticisms about Bill C-58, which your government passed a number of years ago, not included in your report?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

Appearing before the committee on March 7, 2023, the Information Commissioner also stated that, although Bill C‑58 conferred the power to issue orders, those orders are not always respected because they are not the same as court orders.

Do you think it would be helpful to amend the Access to Information Act to make the Federal Court approve those orders in order to streamline the process?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you.

We have seen and heard that changes through Bill C-58, while improving transparency and openness in government, have changed the nature of requests.

Can you elaborate on the changes of these requests and how they impact the ATI system overall?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Just to make sure that I clarify the remarks that I made at the end of the first round, Mr. Chair, Bill C-58 introduced legal requirements for proactive publications that apply to ministers and not to cabinet. I used the word “cabinet”, so I just wanted to make sure.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I believe that in C-58 we said that we'd review the legislation—

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

When we announced Bill C-58, we said that we would carry out a review of the act in five years. Part of that work is already under way, to see how we can make legislative changes. The most important thing to note at this point is the necessity of putting tools in place. The digital system plays a vital role in meeting the demand. As Ms. Luelo mentioned, in the past, records tended to be paper-based, but today, many records are available through Teams meetings, for instance, or are stored in databases. That means the data are not limited to paper records, so we are in the process of introducing administrative tools to enhance the system.

I hope that partly answers your question.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I only have about 30 seconds, if you could just comment on this. Bill C-58 was a start, and really the government is working on improving a system that has been increasingly backlogged for more than 30 years.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Yes. Thank you for your question.

Let's remind Canadians who are watching today that Bill C-58 was adopted by our government four years ago, and we are in a process of reviewing the act. Many of those decisions at the time gave more power to the Information Commissioner, and we were also able to eliminate all fees beyond a five-dollar application fee.

I would like to now turn to the fact that, since then, we've been putting a lot of effort into working on more administrative tools that we need to bring forward to reduce the burden and the load that we have seen increase over the years. For example, we now have the Open Government portal, which is really helpful in getting those requests done more quickly. As I said to a question earlier, we have also tried to give staff more tools by training them and by giving them more opportunities to manage.

Maybe I'll turn to Catherine to talk about the digital aspect, if we have time to do so.

[Caroline Maynard]

The change was made through Bill C-58 in 2019. The commissioner's authority was to issue recommendations to institutions. Now it has been changed. I can make recommendations, but I can also order disclosure or order that a certain time for disclosure be done.

The change is tremendous, because when we only made recommendations our office felt that it had to negotiate. For a long time, there was a lot of negotiating with institutions, because we were worried that the requester would not get what he or she was asking. We realized that it created long delays. We didn't have the power to really work with the institution and make it happen.

Now, with the order, we don't negotiate anymore. We ask for representations and we ask why they are late or why an exemption has been applied. If we don't agree, we agree to disagree and the order is issued. Now the institution has to respond to the order. It's a lot quicker and it's a lot more efficient.

[Caroline Maynard]

I have to say that, until 2019, my office could only make recommendations. That was, I think, the biggest issue with the system, because for years, complaints resulted in simply a recommendation. The institution could ignore it unless my office took them to court.

Now we are issuing orders, and if they don't agree with the orders, they have to take it to court. What I see, however, is that sometimes they don't say that they don't agree with it, but they don't do it. I don't have the authority to make sure that they comply with the order. Imagine.... They don't comply with the act, but they don't comply with the order as well.

This committee needs to look at providing a process by which the orders can be certified in court. Then you can go to the institutions with this order. It's something that is now in the bill for the Official Languages Act. They are changing the Commissioner of Official Languages' authority. They actually put a certification provision in there, and I think it's been done for the Privacy Commissioner as well.

It exists. It's something that is there. I asked for it for Bill C-58. It was not given to me. However, we do have the orders and we publish those, so that is something that is also very helpful.

[Caroline Maynard]

I'll say that Bill C-58 gave me the power to order institutions to issue disclosure and to meet some deadlines. Unfortunately, my orders are sometimes being ignored. I don't have a certification process to go to the Federal Court to make sure that these orders are seen as having the power of an order from a court. It is still better than recommendations; I can tell you that.

What we need are better training and more retention of the people who are doing this. We need to have better analysts, and we need to have an act that is modernized. The act was tabled four years ago, and it has not been changed much. Apart from my ordering power, the exemptions and exclusions have not been reviewed. There's also a lot to be done within the system. The report talks about information management and declassification programs. Those are huge issues within our government, but there doesn't seem to be concrete action on how to tackle these issues.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Commissioner, I'd like to get some of your feelings about what possible concrete actions could be, but in the two and a half minutes that I have here, I'd first like to ask this, specifically. The government seems to continue to defend Bill C-58, yet we often hear how that has not improved the system.

In about 30 seconds or so, could you expand on why Bill C-58 seems to be a continuing challenge to improving Canada's access to information system?

[Caroline Maynard]

The report speaks for itself. It's a good summary of all the issues that we're facing in the access system. They're issues that we've known about for years, issues that you've heard about from experts and issues that I've mentioned in my submissions. We knew about them before 2019, when Bill C-58 was tabled, so it's disappointing that there's no action plan. There's a lot of “should”. There are a lot of “opportunities”. I think the opportunity has been missed.

You heard submissions for two years when public consultations were held. Where are the recommendations? Usually, in a legislative review, you will have conclusions, recommendations and a plan of action. This is why I am disappointed today to speak in front of you. It's because of this report.

Secondly, there's no mention of access to information in any of the ministers' mandate letters, so I don't think transparency and access are key at this point. I have asked for additional funding for my office, which I think all of the access units should also get. The resources are lacking, and we're not seeing much going toward that either.

This is why I think this is not something to celebrate.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through you, I'd like to direct my attention to Mr. Tromp, if I may.

Mr. Tromp, I had an opportunity to skim through some of your book, and I'd like to note your comments about how the Harper government in 2006 had pledged to “provide a general public interest override for all exemptions”. It did not fulfill that promise. In a subsequent paragraph, you talk about the contemplation by the Conservative Party to look at ATI exemptions and put them to a “harms test", which also wasn't fulfilled.

You then go on, in chapter 8 of your book, to state that the Liberal Party kept its 2015 pledge to grant the Information Commissioner the power to order the release of government information under Bill C-58.

We see that in the Harper years, the media actually complained that they really didn't have a lot of contact with the Harper government in disclosures and discussions, and in 2015, the government came in with a promise to move forward in an open and transparent way, and you cite Bill C-58.

Where are we in the consideration of exemptions now? Have we moved ahead? We've heard the comments from Mr. Beeby about proactive disclosure and where it's not meeting this mark.

I'd like to have your thoughts on that, if I may.

[Dean Beeby]

The problem with proactive disclosure—as it sits in the law and Bill C-58, which changed the access act—is that it defines a very small number of documents, so-called ministerial documents, that are going to be released on the government's timetable, with no watchdog.

To me, proactive disclosure is a red herring. It's a way to divert our attention from fixing the main problem, which is the Access to Information Act's dysfunctionality.

On the issue of the immigration files, there's a big privacy issue, and I don't think proactive disclosure in that sense is possible. It has to be a client-to-client kind of disclosure.

I don't accept proactive disclosure as some kind of panacea for the system. It's not. It diverts our energies and attention from the big problem, which is a dysfunctional act.

[Andrea Conte]

In the short term, when we consider degrees of policy shift that are possible, the only remedy is through the courts. Whether it's through financial penalties that are leveraged on government officials and departments, whether it's through other kinds of means, there are currently no consequences if people do not comply.

For example, even with Bill C-58's order powers through the commissioner, there are government departments that are not complying with orders. There are government departments that are taking the commissioner to court over orders that the commissioner has issued. Why? Because—

[Prof. Mary Francoli]

Open government is really founded on the ideas of accountability, access to information and civic engagement. I would say that those are the three big things that underpin open government.

I think we have a lot of civic citizen participation opportunities. Things are changing, and I think there's been an effort to improve the way that citizens are engaged.

I think access to information is still the big one. In the first couple of action plans to the Open Government Partnership, there were more commitments made around access to information, but I think it's just such a difficult one to move forward. I think this alludes to some of the disappointment I mentioned earlier around Bill C-58. As well, it's hard for public servants to move forward and to get buy-in on change related to access to information. They kind of stopped being included in different commitments on access to information within the action plan.

For me anyway, access to information itself is the big principle of open government that we need to improve here in Canada.

[Prof. Mary Francoli]

I wouldn't say there is anything fundamentally negative, but I think it was a disappointment to people who are really heavily involved and invested in the access to information regime. So much is happening and there have just been so many studies that say the same thing. Again, it's not that there's a sort of unanimous solution, but there is a lot of commonality.

I think you are seeing it here already with the few witnesses you've had. It's kind of reaching saturation, in a way. There are a lot of the same things being said. Bill C-58 just didn't revolutionize the system in a way that a lot of people were really hoping it would.

It's not bad, just a bit of a letdown.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Through you, Mr. Chair, I want to thank Mr. White.

As someone who is a very strong advocate of mental health from a trauma-informed lens, I agree with you wholeheartedly that we need more of that in a whole-of-government approach in many of the things we do.

If you don't mind, I am going to switch to our other witness now, Ms. Francoli.

Thank you for joining us today and for the work that you do on open government and transparency.

In April 2017, you were part of an open letter to the Prime Minister, with many of your colleagues and organizations across the country, indicating that you wished for real change in access to information.

You commented on past witnesses, so you've been following what we've been doing in this study. Do you agree that some of the changes made in Bill C-58 in 2019 are a step in the right direction?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you for that.

Now, with reference to Bill C-58, it allowed proactive disclosure of many pieces of information—tens of thousands, in fact—that previously required access to information requests to obtain. Do you believe that this has helped at all to make government more open and transparent for Canadians?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

The system has changed quite significantly since those days. Since Bill C-58, we've eliminated all fees beyond a five dollar application fee, and there's a system of proactive disclosure for ministers' offices, ports and other government institutions.

Back in the days when I was at The Hamilton Spectator, we would get a summary of how much it would cost to fulfill our requests. Sometimes it was hundreds of thousands of dollars, and we would just drop it.

Would you say that with the changes this government has brought in, the government has become more open and transparent in some ways? Can you reflect on the changes since those days?

[Kirk LaPointe, Vice-President, Editorial, Glacier Media; Publisher and Editor-in-Chief, Business in Vancouver]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see Michael Wernick today.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to discuss access to information reform with you today. I'm Kirk LaPointe. I'm the publisher and editor-in-chief of Business in Vancouver, the business news outlet in British Columbia, and the vice-president of editorial for the Glacier Media chain of news outlets, the largest in western Canada. I also teach ethics and leadership in the journalism program as an adjunct professor at the University of British Columbia. Part of my role is instruction in freedom of information law, and it's also, of course, part of my duties as an editor.

My familiarity with ATIP dates back to my roles in the 1980s and 1990s in Ottawa, as bureau chief of the Canadian Press and a host on CBC News Network, then known as CBC Newsworld. I've advocated strong use of ATIP in news operations that I've run at CP, then at Southam News, the Hamilton Spectator, CTV News and the Vancouver Sun, now at Glacier Media. I personally have filed more than 3,000 requests, and newsrooms I've managed have filed well more than 15,000.

I approach ATIP not as an opportunity to scandalize the government of the day but as an important instrument for the public we serve to understand our history, the decision-making of those who serve us, and the inherent complexities, challenges and dilemmas of public administration. The work I've done has shed light on everything from cabinet discussions on the War Measures Act to value-for-money evaluations across a range of departmental programs to the expenses to operate our official residences and much more.

My lens has been what I subjectively consider the public interest, and my instrument has been a law that I believed would illuminate the operation of government. Until Bill C-58, that belief took several steps backward. Recent reforms to the law have made progress in recapturing some of the original spirit of the law as envisioned by Ged Baldwin, the Conservative MP I knew from my earlier days in the national capital, but there remains a very long road ahead to fulfill his vision.

Too often in its history, users of the law have been made to feel they are being done a favour to exercise their right to know. Delays and denials have stretched credulity. Too many public servants have seen their role as protecting bureaucracy and political masters. Technology now permits the footprint of history to be erased and overwritten. Significant investments in the vast apparatus of their own communications by successive governments, in a form of self-congratulatory vanity press, have far outweighed any investment in ATIP.

I have been assisted in my perspective in the last decade by running for municipal office here in Vancouver in the mayoralty race. It might surprise you that I've gained a fuller appreciation of the perspective of the politician and the public and media environment that correctly gives rise in the era of social media to a defensiveness and a guardedness, to a lack of candour and a lack of acknowledgement of errors in judgment or decisions that went awry. I think I can speak more knowledgeably about where you sit, what conditions you endure and how it might affect what you wish to share with the public. I can understand the fear that comes with any environment of extensive disclosure, because it comes with admitting mistakes. Of course, everyone makes mistakes. That's why there are erasers on pencils. Even the Pope has given up on the claim of infallibility.

I would hope that you would also understand my appeal to the bigger picture, because the defensive culture of communications is a prime contributor to the suspicion and cynicism in our political systems that can give rise to the most vulgar of our social media and to appallingly low voter turnouts and participation in political parties. In denying access to the critical pathology of public policy, to the process of decision-making, media must resort to picking at the bones instead of the meat, which in turn cheapens our craft and our image. A few reforms might address both.

My own modest reform recommendations for advancement of the law arise from many of the basic impediments I've experienced.

First, there has to be an investment in resources to limit the delays in responding to requests. If government professes to subscribe to openness, it should also tell the public how much it spends on its own promotional publicity and communications, and then link that spending to the spending on providing better access to information service.

Proactivity is an important ingredient, but Bill C-58 takes only baby steps. Any reform ought to require proactive disclosure of a range of information in government, including internally conducted departmental audits 30 days after their completion, while the paint is still fresh, to understand, in something approaching real time, whether programs are actually value for money.

A second proactive area would include the simultaneous release of records—studies, correspondence, research, advocacy—that prepared departments and their ministers for policy announcements or the introduction of legislation, with an exemption, of course, for Privy Council confidences. For that matter, all contracted services to government ought to be subjected to the act's purview.

It is time for the blackout period on Queen’s Privy Council records to be at the most 15 years instead of 20, as is the case in my own province of British Columbia—or even 10. The longest political reign in my lifetime—that of Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau—barely reached 15 years. Disclosure of minutes and records from their earliest date would rarely touch upon a sitting administration, but the relevance of information withers with time.

My last recommendation for this review would see this committee call out the abuses of the letter and the spirit of the law across the public service: the use of personal email or encrypted apps for government communication, oral briefings instead of written reports and the vesting of copyright with contractors to avoid disclosure, among many other things. Reforming this law can’t extend into these traits, but a recommendation of a review of public service law could curtail these chronic problems.

Thank you so much for your time. I am happy to answer any questions you might have.

[Kelly Acton, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Performance Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Good morning.

The Treasury Board Secretariat is the policy centre for access to information and privacy operations across government, providing everything from policy guidance and instituting legislative change, such as the recent changes to Bill C-58, and then on through to community development and support training and that kind of thing.

Access to Information

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this place. A number of months ago, I had the opportunity to ask a question about access to information in Canada, and it is directly related to a study that is ongoing before the ethics committee. The simple and only way that one can accurately describe the Liberal record on access to information is one of failure, full stop.

A comment was made the other day that bears repeating in this place: Everything under the current Liberal government is broken. I hear daily from constituents about the cost of living that is unmanageable. We have a host of new government programs that are being created almost weekly to fix a problem that the government and the Prime Minister, and their flawed ideology created.

The reality is that Canadians are hurting. It seems everything is broken, whether that be passports, ethics and accountability, or any host of other things that we can point to, including Canada's reputation on the world stage.

It leads me to the inevitable conclusion that the Liberals are good at one thing and that is politics. When it comes to governing, to serving Canadians and to doing what is in the best interests of our country, they have shown time and again that they are terrible at governing. The consequence of that is no more clear than it is in the access to information system. Starting in the 2015 campaign, the now Prime Minister tweeted out that it was time for a government without a new scandal every day. It is unbelievable how many new scandals seem to be piling up on that Prime Minister's plate.

When it comes to the promises the Liberals made about sunshine being the best disinfectant, they have created a culture of secrecy. We heard, more times at the ethics committee today than I would be able to reference in the time permitted here, that there is this culture of secrecy, even when the Liberals claim to have fixed it. They are good at politics, but they have failed on delivering, because they brought in what they said were solutions to all the problems through Bill C-58 in the 42nd Parliament. However, the experts agree that it simply made the situation worse. Again, the Liberals are great at politics, and we hear that each and every day through catchphrases, slogans and an incredible ability to turn the issues of the day into something that is not their fault.

For seven years it has been these Liberals stewarding this country. I suggest, on every metric I can think of, that our country is in a worse spot today than it was seven years ago. What is worse is that they often take credit for the good management that took place prior to that. It is the height of hypocrisy when we see the arrogance with which so many issues are approached and all the ways that our country and Canadians are hurting.

When it comes to the access to information system, the culture of secrecy has to stop because Canadians are losing faith in the institutions of government, which is at the very foundation of what a modern democracy needs to have.

[Ken Rubin]

It's a statutory provision that was even decimated further by Bill C-58. It's not part of the Constitution Act. Until we get that, we're lost. We will never.... The powers that be—the corporations, the law enforcement agencies, the bureaucrats and the politicians—will not allow this, even though Parliament and MPs right here have problems getting information and should realize that their rights are being screwed around with too.

[Duff Conacher]

Yes.

Bill C-58 ignored this committee's unanimous June 2016 report. It ignored all the other stakeholders. The information commissioners have documented in their annual reports very clearly that things are worse than they have been in the past.

I challenge you, as committee members, to work together and put forward a private member's bill. Ignore your leaders if they're saying they don't want to do this, because the June 2016 unanimous report didn't work to foster key changes.

I challenge all of you to work together, put out a unanimous report, and then put a private member's bill together. Jointly all support it and challenge the rest of your colleagues to vote against it and vote for excessive government secrecy and denial of the public's right to know.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Cutler, do you see anything more open and transparent in government since we've had Bill C-58?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

I'd like to go back to Bill C-58, which allowed proactive disclosure of lots of information from this government. I'm wondering—I guess from all three of you—if you think this helped to make government more open and transparent in any way.

Mr. Rubin, you can start.

[Ken Rubin]

Bill C-58 destroyed the access act because it hived off, as a phony proactive measure, the Prime Minister's records, ministers' records and a host of other things.

[Duff Conacher]

Bill C-58 was a step backwards in some ways. It certainly didn't keep the 2015 promises of the Liberals to make government information “open by default”, which is a direct quote from the Liberals' 2015 platform. The commissioner now has power to make orders, but it's not strong enough. You need power and a requirement for minimum penalties if they violate the law: That's going to change the whole incentive to comply right away. That's a key change.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Okay. Just to follow up, I have a few thoughts, and then one more important question that I want to ask.

Mr. Conacher, are there any thoughts on Bill C-58 that you'd like to share with the committee?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

—for a lot of news organizations, so you dropped the whole thing.

This government also brought in Bill C-58, which gave the Information Commissioner the power to make binding orders related to access to information, the release of government records, time extensions, the language of access and the format of disclosed information.

Can you comment on that legislation and what sort of impact it's had on the system?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Bill C-58 allowed departments to reject ATIP requests with your permission. I see in the report that you received 36 requests and approved just two. Why were just the two approved, and was there a massive spike in requests for rejection last year?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Commissioner Maynard, for joining us today.

I want to focus for a few minutes on Bill C-58. The last time the recommendations were made in Parliament, this bill was supposed to correct some of the problems we saw. It's been three years since that bill was implemented and changes were made to the ATIP system.

Has that helped or hindered your work and the work of the Privacy Commissioner?

[Caroline Maynard]

Totally.

We definitely needed more people and resources with respect to the new authorities with Bill C-58. Some of the money you see in the increase comes from that.

We requested additional funding for four years in a row through a submission to Treasury Board. That was given to us on a temporary basis for three years, but finally I got it on a permanent basis two years ago. That's definitely helpful because with temporary funding, all you can do is hire people and let them go at the end of the year. There is no retention possibility. Now we have a more permanent base, but as I said earlier, it's already not enough, unfortunately.

[Caroline Maynard]

At the time, I did agree that it was not enough, but we did make a lot of changes. Unfortunately, on Bill C-58, there was not a lot of consultation when it was first tabled.

If you look at the first draft of Bill C-58 and what was actually passed, there were a lot of changes, and those changes were actually very helpful for my office and for the system as well. It was a good start.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

I've gone way longer than I had intended, but I have a specific question just really quickly.

Your predecessor actually described Bill C-58 in quite a remarkable meeting that took place at this committee and suggested that it was a step backward, not forward. Do you agree with her?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you, Commissioner Maynard, for being with us today.

Through Bill C-58, passed during the previous Parliament, the Information Commissioner was given unprecedented new responsibilities and authorities, including the power to order institutions to release records at the end of an investigation when the commissioner found that the complaint was well founded. The commissioner now is also able to issue such orders on new complaints that cannot satisfactorily be resolved through informal resolution mechanisms that you also have in place.

Can you tell us how this is helpful to you and how it has improved your work and maybe even helped with the issue of delays in rendering decisions?

[Caroline Maynard]

If you compare the legislation itself, there is a group that does an evaluation of the legislation in all the countries every year. Canada finished 52nd in 2018 and 50th last year so I guess the changes we have made with Bill C-58 brought us back by two ranks, but this is only looking at what the legislation allows. It's not evaluating how it's being applied in practice.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Let me follow up on that, then. How do we make our ATIP laws with more teeth? I know Bill C-58, in the 42nd Parliament.... We actually looked at it in this committee. It took us a step backward. We've heard, for example, DND hiding items from ATIP that involved Admiral Norman. We've heard the Information Commissioner just put the current government over the rails about the RCMP not providing information in a timely fashion.

What do we have to put in to actually bring in this change of culture that is perhaps pushed by the regulations?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much.

On May 28, 2020, the president wrote to his cabinet colleagues, encouraging ministers to proactively publish as much information as possible related to COVID-19 and reminding them of the importance of ensuring best practices in information management. The government has committed to making information related to COVID-19 and the government's response proactively available online, using the open government portal. The portal will host open data related to the applications received and processed under the Canada emergency response benefit. As stated, “All public servants are expected to manage, secure and document information according to legislative requirements and [TBS] policies, whether working on-site, or remotely, and regardless of the tools we use.” As well, “We continue to provide guidance to organizations on information management and security. We recently released guidance and a toolkit to guide employees in managing government information when working remotely.”

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, we are committed to openness and transparency. We've made reports like the departmental results report more transparent, enshrined the principle of “open by default” and modernized and strengthened the Access to Information Act. We are committed to upholding the importance of the act. Redactions to requested documents are done with the right to know at the forefront and in keeping with our legislation.

As a last point, I would note that the purpose of the legislation was updated by Bill C-58 to reflect the important role it plays in our democracy. Section 2 of the act states that its purpose “is to enhance the accountability and transparency of federal institutions in order to promote an open and democratic society and to enable public debate on the conduct of those institutions.” Those are the principles at the forefront when the act is administered.

Mr. Chair, that ends the last of my two speeches. I think it importantly reflects the commitment of our government to transparency and openness. I think it was reflected not only in the commitment on the political side; I think we also saw that translated through our bureaucrats, as evidenced, again, through what Mr. Fraser took us through today in terms of the transmittal letters as well as the exceptions that he made. We have a very clear idea that the access to privacy and the availability of data during this COVID crisis are taken very seriously by our civil servants and by our government. We believe it's important for us to continue to be transparent and accountable every step of the way.

I think I will pass the baton. I think there are other colleagues who would really like to speak.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak, Mr. Chair.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate my colleague raising that point. I know you were riveted and you were listening, but I wasn't talking about the issues with the act. I was saying how we've been improving it, making sure that it's kept up to date, that it's relevant and that it continues with the principle of maximum transparency and accountability to all Canadians.

Canadians expect their government to stay ahead of the digital game and make its information accessible to them. With new technology and capability comes the expectation that organizations offer their products and services online. The goal is to make the information and the data held by the government even more accessible to Canadians. With changes to the legislation and accompanying policy changes, we are now getting more government information and data into the hands of our citizens, who can use it to participate in democratic debate, hold the government to account and spur innovation in society.

We've introduced many measures over the years to do just that. In 2017, just three years ago, the annual departmental results report was tabled in a new, more transparent format. As this committee knows, these reports provide an important insight into departments' program achievements against measurable indicators. This made these reports more useful and transparent for parliamentarians.

Another example is InfoBase. It pulls data from annual reports to provide online snapshots of what one department or the entire government has done during the fiscal year. Providing all of this information isn't useful if it's not readily accessible in various formats. Canadians expect to have government information delivered to their electronic devices and at their fingertips when they need it.

In May of 2016, the President of the Treasury Board issued an interim directive that enshrined the principle of “open by default”. The interim directive told government that institutions have to make themselves open by default as their guiding principle when it comes to making government information available to the public. This principle applies to provision of information to Canadians, and most importantly today, to parliamentarians, including through motions for the production of papers, such as the order that prompts our debate today.

In 2017, with Bill C-58, we moved forward to improve the Access to Information Act. The bill was introduced in the summer of 2017 and was reviewed in the House and Senate committees. It also received valuable input from several stakeholders, including the Information Commissioner; the Privacy Commissioner; representatives of indigenous organizations, who provided important insights into their need to access records of important historical and archival value; and legal experts and journalists, who shared their unique experiences and explained the importance of the legislation to their work.

The bill provided Canadians with easier access to a huge amount of government information. The government is now legally required to proactively publish a broad range of information to a predictable schedule without the need for anyone to make an information request. This law applies to 240 government departments, agencies, and Crown corporations. It also applies to the political side, including the Prime Minister and the ministers' offices, senators, members of Parliament, institutions that support Parliament and administrative institutions that support the courts.

For the first time the bill put in law the proactive publication of travel and hospitality expenses for ministers, their staff and senior officials across government; contracts over $10,000; all service contracts for MPs and senators; grants and contributions over $25,000; mandate letters and revised mandate letters, which would have to be published within 30 days of being issued; briefing packages for new ministers and deputy ministers; lists of briefing notes from ministers and deputy ministers; and briefing binders used for question period and parliamentary committee appearances. Making all this information available to Canadians on a predictable schedule leads to better public understanding of how government functions in establishing a strong foundation for greater citizen participation in government.

At the same time, we introduced changes to the request-based side of the system. Bill C-58 eliminated all fees for access to information requests, apart from the $5 administrative fee. As well, Canadians can also request the original documents that are proactively released to validate the information that has been published.

Mr. Chair, the bill has also provided the Information Commissioner with greater powers to oversee the access to information system. Specifically, the commissioner now has order-making powers. The role of the commissioner has gone from an ombudsperson to an authority with the legislative ability to make binding orders for the release of government records. I would say that this is an excellent move. I think it ensures much more transparency and accountability.

In addition to advancing our commitment to being open by default, we have also invested tools to make processing information requests more efficient and allowed federal institutions that have the same minister to share the request processing services for greater efficiency.

The Access to Information Act strikes a balance between the right of Canadians to access information and the need to withhold certain types of information to protect other important values such as privacy, confidentiality of information provided to the government and national security.

Bill C-58 introduced other measures to improve the system. Both the former information commissioner and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics at the time recognized that requests made in bad faith can gum up the system. Requesters may, for a variety of reasons, use the right to request information to achieve goals that may not be consistent with the spirit of the act. Though the number of these types of vexatious requests is estimated to be quite small, the effort and cost involved in responding to them can put a significant strain on the system.

There is a fundamental issue at stake here. Such requests defeat the underlying purpose of the act, which is to give Canadians access to the information they need to participate in public policy decision-making and to hold their government to account. By tying up government resources, these requests interfere with an institution's ability to respond to other requests and to do important work.

As a remedy, Bill C-58 gave government institutions the ability to decline to act on such requests after receiving approval from the Information Commissioner to do so. Amendments were made to the legislation to clarify the circumstances in which this can happen. For example, institutions would not be able to decline to act on a request solely on the basis that the requester didn't provide a specific subject matter, type of record and period or date for the record sought.

As I mentioned a minute ago, Mr. Chair, the Information Commissioner would need to give her or his approval before an institution could decline to act on a vexatious or bad-faith request. This provides assurance to Canadians that legitimate requests will not be declined, and indeed this authority has been used rarely since Bill C-58 came into force.

The bill also ensures that the Access to Information Act remains relevant in an ever-changing world. It included a provision that required that the act be reviewed every five years, with the first review to begin within one year of the bill receiving royal assent. This review was launched just this June. This will ensure that the act never again becomes as outdated as it has before.

Mr. Chair, I'm getting almost to the conclusion. I know that while many people would like me to go on for another 20 pages, I am getting towards the end. I want to just spend one moment first discussing the realities of access to information, writ large, during the pandemic.

The government remains committed to managing information securely and effectively in accordance with its sensitivity, while ensuring transparency, openness and accountability to Canadians. On April 29, 2020, TBS published guidance on information management practices while working remotely for all public servants. This guidance is intended to reinforce employees' awareness of their collective responsibility to document decisions of business value and to ensure that government information is managed securely and effectively with respect to legislative and policy requirements, including the requirements of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

On May 28—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I really appreciated the health break; that was very helpful.

Before I go on to a couple of prepared texts, I just want to address a couple of things that were raised by my colleagues. I know that Mr. Poilievre pops up once in a while to raise points of order and say that we should start pre-budget consultations. I just want to remind everyone, because I think when we get so tired we tend to forget things, that as soon as we came back as the finance committee on October 8, the very first thing we did was to introduce a motion. That was me, and I introduced a motion for us to begin our pre-budget consultations. Unfortunately, it was interrupted by a point of privilege that Mr. Poilievre put on the table, and that is what has led us to where we are right now. I think it's important for us to state that.

I also want to remind everyone that we started this meeting with an opportunity for everybody to unanimously approve moving right to pre-budget consultations, or at least a motion on that, so that we could have our clerk and her team get started on booking some of our witnesses. Then it was brought back again by my colleague Mr. Fraser. So that's twice. I want to make sure that anybody who arrived late knows that. There is nothing more that we want to do than what the finance committee should be doing at this point in time, which is engaging in pre-budget consultations.

I also want to address a point that was mentioned earlier by one of our Conservative colleagues, namely about the Prime Minister trying to push for an election. There is absolutely zero desire to do so. We know Canadians don't want one. I will also say to you that we're going through an unprecedented pandemic, and I don't care how many times we have to say that, because I think sometimes, when we're in a little bit of a bubble and we to talking for hours, we forget that we are living in unprecedented times during this health and economic crisis.

We've spent over $300 billion have introduced almost 80 programs. We had a very serious speech from the throne laying out a vision and a plan on how we want to proceed. Given that we're in a pandemic, time is of the essence. We want to use this time only to continue to support Canadians, to get workers back to work, to continue to support our small businesses, and to continue to build a foundation of our economy and keep all Canadians safe moving forward.

I join not only with the Prime Minister but also with my Liberal colleagues of the governing party in saying that we want to govern. In fact, I want to do the impossible and make politics the art of the possible, so that we can find a way to maybe withdraw this motion before us and move right to pre-budget consultations and get busy on hearing some ideas.

I know that 793 submissions have been submitted to us, and we know that there are lots of amazing ideas out there, and I think we're all looking to find a way to get there. This might not be exciting for everyone, but I do think it's important, as we're still talking to the subamendment to the amendment of the motion that Mr. Poilievre moved in response to my original motion on starting our pre-budget consultations.

I will talk a little bit more about how and why we redact, including more particularities and details. I want to make sure that we have as good an understanding as possible of the acts and the principles guiding the redactions done by our excellent, highly skilled, independent civil servants.

With that, Mr. Chair, thank you again for giving me the opportunity to provide some more information about the disclosure and production of government documents regarding the Canada student service grant in response to the request by the Standing Committee on Finance.

First, I want to reiterate that I know that this government is committed to the principle of being open by default. In fact, it was this principle that guided the government's response to the request for production of papers by the committee.

Let's be clear, the government has disclosed large amounts of documentation on the matter we are discussing today. I think we heard my colleague Mr. Fraser painstakingly go through a lot of the details, not only on what was submitted but also on what was redacted and why it was redacted.

Indeed, as the media has reported, the government has disclosed almost 6,000 pages to the finance committee. I know that these were from a number of different departments, as we have spelled out a number of times. Within those departments, officials worked very hard to provide the most information possible within the time frame allowed by the finance committee to respond, while also ensuring that cabinet confidentiality and privacy concerns where applicable were respected.

I think it's important to note as well that it was important to produce the documents. It was something that the finance committee had agreed to. I believe our civil servants did their utmost to ensure full transparency and accountability. I also want to acknowledge that it also took the time of our civil servants, who have been working around the clock during this pandemic, to come up with some of the almost 80 programs I was talking about. I just want to say a huge thanks to them. I know they've been working double time. We always say they're working around the clock, but I would say they're working double around the clock. I know that in addition to producing these types of documents, they've been trying to come up with creative ideas in terms of programs and providing all the support that we very much have been introducing. This has taken a lot of their time, and I want to acknowledge that. Additionally, I will note that most of our civil servants did this remotely to respect public health and safety rules and to ensure their ongoing safety during the pandemic.

Protecting cabinet confidence is very important to our system of government. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that cabinet confidentiality is essential to good government: “The process of democratic governance works best when Cabinet members charged with government policy and decision-making are free to express themselves around the Cabinet table unreservedly.” The committee's motion stipulated that cabinet confidences be excluded from the package, but in keeping with the public disclosures of related information by members of the cabinet, the government did not redact considerable information that was cabinet confidence, and indeed provided it to the committee. I really laud our civil servants for following through on the principle of transparency and accountability. I think it is extraordinarily important, not only to our government and not only during this extraordinary time, when we're spending an extraordinary amount of money. I really laud them for doing their utmost to ensure that the most information gets out.

The government applied the same principled approach to release as much information as deemed possible as it related to solicitor-client privilege and personal information. I think we heard numerous times Mr. Fraser during this session, and Mr. Gerretsen during the last session, as well as my colleague Mr. Fragiskatos during the last session, explain or give examples of all the items we had to exclude due to personal information and solicitor-client privilege.

The package provided in response to the order by this committee builds upon the Government of Canada's ongoing commitment to uphold the principle of “open by default”. It can be seen in the context of the proactive disclosure regime and amendments to the Access to Information Act. That said, there is as well the need to strike the proper balance between the fundamental values of openness and transparency and other obligations the government has to Canada and Canadians, such as national security or the protection of personal information.

I would like to say a few words about the Access to Information Act. Many of us are familiar with it, but I think it's important in relation to this subamendment for me to speak a little more specifically to it. I say so because the that act has helped us frame the approach to the response to the committee. The act creates an enforceable right of access to records under the control of a government institution in accordance with the following principles. The first one is that government information should be available to the public. The second one is that necessary exceptions to the right of access should be limited and specific. The third one is that decisions on disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government. It applies to all institutions listed in schedule I of the Access to Information Act and all parent Crown organizations and wholly owned subsidiaries of such corporations within the meaning of section 83 of the Financial Administration Act.

The act provides this right of access for Canadian citizens and permanent residents “within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act”. Further, the Access to Information Act extension order number one extends this right to include all individuals and all corporations present in Canada.

That said, there are necessary limitations on access to records, which exist as exemptions and inclusions. There are a number of these kinds of restrictions. I would like to highlight a few to give you a sense of the care and the balance struck by the act, between optimizing openness and transparency, on the one hand, and safeguarding individuals, companies and legitimate commercial and competitive interests, on the other.

One such class of limitation is “Information obtained in confidence”. For instance, the act provides for the following:

the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record...that contains information that was obtained in confidence from (a) the government of a foreign state or an institution thereof; (b) an international organization of states or an institution thereof”.

Examples include the United Nations, NATO and the International Monetary Fund. Examples of international organizations of states include UNICEF and the World Health Organization, which are agencies of the United Nations.

The third bullet on this point reads:

(c) the government of a province or an institution thereof

This includes the governments of the provinces and the three territories, and their ministries, departments and agencies. The fourth point reads:

(d) a municipal or regional government established by or pursuant to an Act of the legislature of a province or an institution of such a government

The last point on this particular section reads:

(e) an aboriginal government.

For this exemption to apply, the information must have been obtained in confidence.

There is also an exception covering federal-provincial affairs, which applies, for example, to the following information:

(a) on federal-provincial consultations or deliberations; or (b) on strategy or tactics adopted or to be adopted by the Government of Canada relating to the conduct of federal-provincial affairs.

To invoke this exemption, a government institution should be convinced that disclosure of specific information “could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the conduct” by the federal government of federal-provincial affairs.

Another area of exemption deals with international affairs, defence and national security. An access to information request may be denied if disclosure could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the following: the conduct of international affairs—this includes not only state-to-state affairs but also commercial, cultural or scientific links established by citizens with counterparts in other countries—or the defence of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada. An allied state is one with which Canada has concluded formal alliances or treaties, while an associate state is a state with which Canada may be linked for trade or other purposes outside the scope of a formal alliance. Last is the detection, prevention or suppression of subversive or hostile activities. This exemption protects specific types of information pertaining to the security of Canada.

Another exemption applies to law enforcement, investigations and security of penal institutions. We actually have this particular exemption because we're aiming to protect a number of items.

The first is effective law enforcement, including criminal law enforcement. We want to protect the integrity and effectiveness of other types of investigative activities, for example, ordinary administrative investigations under an act of Parliament, investigations in regulatory areas, and investigations of air accidents.

Last is the security of penal institutions and an exemption providing protection of “information that could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of an offence”. For example, a government institution may refuse to disclose the security plans or other information about the vulnerable aspects of federal government buildings and other installations that would be of strategic importance in civil emergencies or in time of war.

The act also restricts third party information including but not limited to trade secrets; confidential financial, commercial, scientific or technical information; and information used for emergency management plans. For example, the head of a government institution must refuse to disclose any record containing trade secrets to third parties. This restriction applies as well to confidential financial, commercial, scientific or technical information.

Another class of restrictions set out in the act is what are known as exclusions. This refers, for example, to published material or material available for purchase by the public. It also refers to library or museum material preserved solely for public reference or exhibition purposes. It also refers to material placed in Library and Archives Canada, the National Gallery of Canada, the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Canadian Museum of Nature, the National Museum of Science and Technology, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, or the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21, by or on behalf of persons or organizations other than government institutions.

The process of democratic governance works best when cabinet members charged with government policy and decision-making are free to express themselves around the cabinet table unreservedly.

Exclusions also apply to certain records of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, also fondly referred to by many as the CBC. The act, for example, removes information relating to journalistic, creative and programming activities held by the CBC from the coverage of the act. It protects information about journalistic sources, as well as the creative and programming independence of CBC.

In addition, Mr. Chair, you'll be interested to hear that certain records of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited are also considered exclusions. The act creates an exclusion for any information under the control of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited other than information relating to its general administration or its operation of any nuclear facility within the meaning of section 2 of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, subject to regulation by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The purpose of this exclusion is to ensure protection of information related to research and commercial activities of the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.

Distinct from the act there are also well confidences of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that cabinet confidentiality is essential to good government. In the Babcock v. Canada decision, meaning the attorney general, in 2002 SSC 57, at paragraph 16, the court explained the reason for this. It said, “The process of democratic governance works best when cabinet members charged with government policy and decision-making are free to express themselves around the Cabinet table unreservedly.” Yet it also stated that “'Council' means the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, committees of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, Cabinet and committees of Cabinet.” It included all of those. The committees of cabinet include standing committees, ad hoc committees and any other committees of ministers. In addition, meetings or discussions between ministers can result in the creation of records that are cabinet confidences, providing the discussions concern the making of government decisions or the formulation of government policy.

The act also defines cabinet confidences by way of a list of seven types of documents. The list is not exhaustive, but provides examples of records considered to be cabinet confidences. It includes the following. The first is memoranda presenting proposals to cabinet. The second is discussion papers. The third is agenda and records of cabinet deliberations or decisions, records of communications between ministers on policy-making and government decisions, records to brief ministers on cabinet matters, draft legislation and records containing information about confidences.

Mr. Chair, there are also protections for the economic interests of the Government of Canada. There is a discretionary exemption based on a class test that aims to protect proprietary information of the Government of Canada. Exemption may include information that is patentable or that the government may want to license. For this exemption to apply, the record must contain the following: trade secrets or financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that belongs to the Government of Canada or a government institution that has substantial value or is reasonably likely to have substantial value.

Another exemption, Mr. Chair, applies to contractual or other negotiations of a government institution. This is intended to protect a government institution's ability to negotiate effectively with other parties.

Mr. Chair, let me underline the fact that the act protects not just the security of organizations but also the safety of individuals. A government institution may refuse access to information if it has reasonable grounds to expect that the disclosure of information would threaten the safety of an individual. This could be information that either directly or indirectly reveals the identity, home address or other identifier of such an individual, and I think we heard multiple examples from Mr. Fraser today of that being the exact case. In addition, personal information is also protected, and that absolutely makes sense as well.

In this case, section 19 of the act strikes “a balance between the right of the public to access information in records under the control of a government institution and the right of each individual to his or her privacy. It incorporates by reference sections 3 and 8 of the Privacy Act, which are essential for the interpretation and application of this exemption.”

The Access to Information Manual states:

The Privacy Act defines “personal information” as “information about an identifiable individual that is recorded in any form”. This definition is broad and contains examples of personal information. Information not specifically mentioned in the list but clearly covered by the broad definition, such as information related to an identifiable individual's income, DNA, body sample, sexual preference or political inclination, is to be considered personal information.

In the Privacy Act, however, you might be interested to know, Mr. Chair, that the definition of personal information excludes “specific types of information, normally considered personal information, from the meaning of the term when a request is made under the Access to Information Act.” This would include information about “the current or past positions or functions of a government employee or officer, services performed by an individual contracted by a government institution, a discretionary benefit of a financial nature conferred on an individual or an individual who has been dead for more than 20 years.”

The exclusions...reflect the fact that there is certain information about government employees, persons performing services under contract for a government institution, and discretionary benefits which, barring other considerations, the public has a right to know.

In addition, the act “provides that the head of a government institution may disclose any record that contains personal information if the individual to whom it relates consents to the disclosure, the information is publicly available or the disclosure is in accordance with section 8 of the Privacy Act.”

Mr. Chair, in conclusion, I say all this because, in compiling our submission in response to the committee, we took great care, for example, to obtain the consent to disclose certain personal information for relevant exempt staff referenced in the material. I should note as well that no material was withheld on the basis of national security, which the motion had indicated should be excluded. I would add as well that this exclusion was not pertinent.

On the matter of cabinet confidences, it bears repeating that considerable information on the Canada student service grant that was a cabinet confidence was provided to this committee. This was in keeping with the overarching objective of “open by default” and supporting the work of the committee.

Any redactions to requested documents were done with all due consideration for how to best respond to the committee's order, balanced with the understood need for protection of certain information, as I've outlined. We understand that government information belongs to the people and should be open by default. It's why we updated the Access to Information Act: to make it easier for citizens to get information and to publish more information up front more than ever.

The act balances openness with another value we feel strongly about, which is the protection of important democratic values. That means safeguarding Canadians' personal information and such important principles as cabinet confidence and judicial independence. Getting this balance right is fundamental to ensuring a healthy, functioning democracy.

That was prepared by some very kind colleagues who wanted to make sure that as we're talking about this subamendment, we have a much clearer understanding of the acts and the principles and the values that are behind how we redact certain things and are behind the examples that Mr. Fraser painstakingly took our committee through earlier this evening. I think it was important for us to make sure that was understood and read into the record.

Mr. Chair, I do have some more information. I know that people were riveted by my first speech, so I have some additional information that I'm happy to talk a little bit more about. I want to talk a little bit more about some additional principles that are consistent with the “open by default” principle I spoke to a little bit in my previous speech. I have an additional one that I want to talk about.

The reason “open by default” is important is that it aligns with the provision of documents by the government, as requested by this committee in our last session. As discussed earlier, we largely talked about the issue of redactions. We talked about why they were done. We disclosed the letters by deputy ministers that Mr. Fraser read in relation to the logic behind redacting certain documents. I think it was important for us to hear that and to have it on the record.

To that point, there was the committee's motion stipulating that cabinet confidences be excluded from the package. I also want to talk about that. We did spend quite a bit of time talking about the fact that we should have some exclusion around cabinet confidences. I know I talked a little bit about that, so I don't want to go through that again, but I do want to talk about how we have spent some time in terms of strengthening the Access to Information Act. We did that because we wanted to be consistent with ensuring the maximum amount of transparency and accountability. I think the best practice is to always keep the Access to Information Act up to date and current to meet with our values and principles of openness and transparency.

I'd like to note that while we introduced several measures since 2015 to improve the act, I think it would be helpful to provide some context, as prescribed in the act, for why and when certain information cannot be disclosed by the government, as those principles guide the government in its production of documents for parliamentary committees. Certain limitations on access to records exist in the form of exemptions and exclusions. Some exemptions are discretionary, while others are mandatory.

The act states that the head of the government institution “shall refuse to disclose” records when it relates to certain criteria. These mandatory exceptions can relate to information obtained in confidence, obtained via some law enforcement action and security, obtained through third party information, and/or obtained through personal information. With regard to personal information, the act strikes a balance between the right of the public to access information records under the control of a government institution and the right of each individual to his or her privacy.

Discretionary exemptions relate to information that the head of the government institution may refuse to disclose.

Excluded information relates to information where the act does not apply. Examples include published information and cabinet confidential information. "Confidences of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada (Cabinet confidences)" states:

In order to reach final decisions, ministers must be able to express their views freely during the discussions held in cabinet. To allow for the exchange of views to be disclosed publicly would result in the erosion of the collective responsibility of ministers. As a result, the collective decision-making process has traditionally been protected by the rule of confidentiality, which upholds the principle of collective responsibility and enables ministers to engage in full and frank discussions necessary for the effective functioning of a Cabinet system.

Now, to preserve this rule of confidentiality, subsection 69(1) of the Access to Information Act provides that the act “does not apply to confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada”. The act also strikes a balance between the right of the public to access information and records under the control of a government institution and the right of each individual to his or her privacy. As you can see, there are many reasons that some information cannot be disclosed under the Access to Information Act. These are limited and specific exceptions to the general rule of openness.

That said, as mentioned earlier with respect to redactions in documents provided for this order, considerable information that would normally be redacted through these processes should not be redacted and was provided to the committee. This was in keeping with the public disclosure of information on this matter made by members of cabinet through consent obtained to disclose certain personal information and the above-referenced limited waiver of solicitor-client privilege. Indeed, as I stated earlier, the government has undertaken several initiatives to strengthen transparency.

I think it would be helpful to provide an overview of our rigorous access to information system.

As this committee knows, access to information has been a staple of Canadian democracy for over 35 years. Since then, both parliamentarians and Canadians have come to regard the right to government information as quasi-constitutional in nature. In many ways, it has become part of our culture and important for our democracy.

This hasn't always been the case. Canadians didn't have this right in 1867, at the time of Confederation. In fact, up until post-World War II, most governments around the world operated without any general law permitting access to information, nor did they function with any general law restricting the collection, use and disclosure of information that could affect the privacy of individuals. During World War II, the Canadian government expanded, and so did the amount of information we collected. As a result, it was rightly perceived that access to such information was required to ensure democratic and accountable government. On the privacy side, it also came to be understood that information collected by the government about individuals should be treated as confidential.

In the early 1970s, the federal government took steps in that direction when it began to study both the right of access and privacy. It wasn't until the early 1980s that the government introduced comprehensive legislation addressing both issues. That bill, which contained both the present Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, became law on July 1, 1983. Its principles reflect the right of access that we have today. These principles are that government information should be available to the public, that necessary exemptions to the right of access should be limited and specific, and that there should be appropriate independent oversight of the decisions on the disclosure of government information.

Before Bill C-58, the Access to Information Act had not been substantially updated in 34 years. When the act first became law in 1983, there was no Internet. Information was locked away in steel filing cabinets. The first mobile phone had just come onto the market. They were those really big clunky things that were really heavy to carry around and put up against your ear. We know that a 34-year-old access to information system was not equipped for the sheer volume of information and the lightning speed of today's communication. The old system was seriously outdated and served neither government nor Canadians efficiently.

The size of government has also grown. Its information holdings have increased since the act was implemented in 1983, and so too have the number of information requests that the government receives every single year, or probably every single day at this point.

Canadians expect their government to stay ahead of the digital game and make its information accessible to them. With new technology and capability comes the expectation that organizations offer their products and services online. The goal is to make the information and the data held by the government even more accessible to Canadians. Through changes to the legislation and accompanying policy changes, we are now getting more government information and data into the hands of our citizens, who can use it—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Chair, we thank the public servants. It's the Liberals who have a problem with accountability.

There are reports that ministerial staff have indicated that submitted ATIPs will simply not be followed up on. This is not only a stunning lack of transparency but also a contravention of the act. It's illegal and goes against a government bill, Bill C-58.

Has the minister issued a directive, or has the TBS issued direction to its department, regarding how essential it is to ensure that ATIP requests are fulfilled?

[Caroline Maynard]

Under Bill C-58, there's a part 2 now, about proactive disclosure. What they've done is codified, basically, the policy that existed before on proactive disclosure. It is also applied to a number of new institutions, including the ministers' offices, the Senate, judges—

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

Thank you for being here. Your role is vital to our democracy. My former colleague Pat Martin used to say that access to information was the oxygen and lifeblood of the democratic process. With every government that comes in, including this latest one, its first promise is open government. Then the first thing they do, when they realize that open government means that people can ask questions about bad decisions, is to start to try to find all manner of ways not to have open government.

There are a number of tricks. Cabinet confidence, I think, is section 23. No, that's solicitor-client confidence; that's the second one. There's solicitor-client confidence, cabinet confidence, and then the great black hole of ministerial offices. That used to drive the former commissioner, Madame Legault, crazy, how it could be that anything that goes on in a minister's office had to be protected from the public finding out. That's where all the decisions are made.

Under Bill C-58, did any of that change?

[Stephen Zaluski]

I wouldn't be singling them out by name, but I think the idea of reporting more globally was consistent with what the government had done in Bill C-58 in terms of the way expenses were being reported at aggregate levels, so it moves it towards a better balance of respecting judicial independence.

Access to Information Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 28, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the Senate amendments to Bill C-58.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from June 17 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak to the government motion on the Senate amendments to Bill C-58.

Before I do that, though, I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate my brother Toron and his wife Jacqui.Today is their wedding anniversary, and I know that they are spending the day with my nieces and nephew, Abby, Malcolm, Josie and Zylia. I just wanted to acknowledge that this is another day, as many of us know in this House, that we do not get to be with family. I wanted to make sure that they know that I am thinking about them today.

Today we are talking about something that is fundamentally important, which is access to information, the tools we have to access information as parliamentarians representing everyday Canadians, and how that information can be accessed by journalists and reporters in this country.

I have been in this place for almost four years. I have worked really closely with my constituents on these issues. I have talked to them about the different tools I have as a parliamentarian and where they need to go to get information. They need to feel more connected to the government and to the people who represent it here in this place. I am very passionate about this issue.

Today we are talking about Senate amendments that would improve what I felt was a bad bill by making sure that the Information Commissioner would have real teeth, real power, to address some of the issues that come up in this place.

One of the things I have found very distressing, and the member who spoke before me also addressed this issue, is how often folks request information and are given a letter from a department authorizing itself to delay. Someone asks a question and now is told that the wait will be another 200 days for that information.

One of the most startling examples was that The Globe and Mail reported in April 2018 that it took one year to receive RCMP statistics for its well-received investigative series “Unfounded”, which revealed that police have been dismissing one in five sexual assault claims as baseless. This is really important information. When we see these kinds of startling facts, we know that there is something happening in this place and in this country that we need to address. These important investigations need to happen so that we know that something in the system is not working that we need to see addressed in multiple ways. If that information is not released, how are we supposed to do our work, and how do Canadians trust us?

I asked a question earlier about cynicism. I see that growing. I see it growing all the time. I talk to people who are frustrated with the government. They feel that when they want information, they have no way of knowing it. The automatic response is that something sneaky is happening and that they cannot trust those people.

I think we need to discuss what happens to democracy when we have everyday Canadians feeling that every politician is sketchy. We have an oath in this country. We sit in these seats and represent thousands of our constituents. We have the honour, as I do, to represent hard-working people who do everything in their power to live a good life, look after each other and look after their community. If they cannot trust the people who represent them, that should concern every single one of us.

If information cannot be uncovered to understand how things work, and, when something seems unfair, why it happened, how do we build that relationship, and how do we improve democracy?

I just want to take a moment to acknowledge the member for Vancouver Granville, who used to be the justice minister. I have a deep respect for her. I have known her for many years. I am very proud to represent the nation she comes from. I am very proud to represent the people of her traditional territory.

When that happened with SNC-Lavalin, it sent shock waves through my riding. It was very personal. I had constituents from my riding calling me and saying that she was in their class, that they know who she is, that she was from their family. They could not believe what was happening. They asked, do Liberals not know who she is, because they know who she is? Constituents were frustrated by the lack of information. They were frustrated by the process that unfolded. It was very troubling to them.

When I think about that and look at that happen, it takes away that sense of trust and connectivity. It brings all of these issues to the forefront when they are not addressed in a good way, and, in my opinion, these issues were not addressed in a good way. A lot of constituents contact me and say that they still do not know what happened, but that what happened was not right.

We look at the systems, and that is important. As legislators in this place, what we look at, debate and discuss is the process, how something is going to happen. Right now, we know that the Information Commissioner still will not have the ability to review whether in some cases like that one cabinet confidence is being claimed and whether it should be claimed.

I think about this a lot. I want to see a better democracy. I was very frustrated when the government campaigned to have electoral reform. It was very meaningful. I did multiple town halls in my riding. It was really interesting. People came forward. They were not sure and they did not know if they wanted to move to a different system, but they wanted to talk to me about it. They wanted to hear information. We tried to bring people in who were non-partisan to talk about different systems and how they would work. We had a lot of intelligent questions.

I will admit, people walked out the door saying that they were not sure; they were not sure if that was the right way to go forward. However, when they were told that it was no longer a discussion, when the Prime Minister stood up and said that Canadians do not want electoral reform, people were upset. They felt that they did not get to be a part of the decision-making process. That is really important.

Sometimes people get frustrated in this House, and they let us know by their heckling. However, we need to look at these systems. We need to make sure that everyday Canadians are part of the decision-making process. When that does not happen, we should have systems in place for them to be able to find out why it did not happen that way.

Again, we are seeing a failed piece of legislation. I am really disappointed. It is another broken promise. One of the things that was talked about in the last election was making sure that the PMO and the ministers were subject to these acts. That was one of the promises of transparency, that Liberals were going to do it differently and that Canadians would see a more open, transparent government.

Unfortunately, what we are seeing, again, is that the PMO is still blocked off. It is something to really think about. When everyday Canadians cannot get access; when journalists cannot get information from these particular departments, these ministries, what are we telling people? We are telling people that their voice does not belong in those places. However, they do belong in those places. In fact, we are here to represent those very voices.

I am really disappointed in this legislation. I think we could have gone so much farther. It is time for daringness. When I listen to constituents in my riding, what they want to see is honesty, openness and an authentic touch. They do not want to hear lines repeated. Some people think that if they just keep saying the same thing over and over that people will believe them.

However, when we look at democracy, the invigoration of democracy, and when we talk about why people do not get out to vote, it is because we are allowing cynicism to grow. We are not making sure that we open these doors and allow things to go forward.

Toby Mendel, the executive director of the Centre for Law and Democracy, said, in response to this bill, “The proposed reforms are just not good enough. At this point, we need root and branch reform, not incremental tinkering.”

I am a person who stands in this House, who looks at a lot of legislation. Most recently, in my role as vice-chair of the indigenous and northern affairs committee, we looked at Bill C-92, which talked about indigenous children in care. One of the things that was really heartbreaking for me is what I see happening again and again, which is this: “We will do a little better. It will not be enough. It is not going to save people's lives in a profound way. It is not going to look at the very foundation of the things that are broken. But we are going to make it a little prettier on the surface, and hopefully that will fix it.”

A little bit better is not good enough. It is not good enough for democracy, and it certainly is not good enough for indigenous children in this country who are struggling in profound ways every single day.

We were told very clearly that the new score for Canada would be 92 out of a possible 150 with this legislation. That means we would get bumped up from 49th to 46th.

I do not like our country to be in the middle. I want our country to be challenged to do better, because I want Canada to be at the top. I want other countries in the world to see the work we are doing in this place and think they have to aim higher because of what Canada is doing. I want them to look at how accountable we are to our constituents, to the Canadian public, to our reporters, and that we are not afraid to have these discussions, even if they are really painful and really hard.

We have to talk about really painful things in the House. If we are not brave enough to do that, if we do not allow people to have the information they need to make decisions for themselves, it is like saying that we are separate. However, we are all one.

I remember one of the elders in my community, Alberta Billy, telling me that a long time ago the cedar trees were so big that they would go into the forest and pick one to build a canoe for the community. They would respect that tree and then they would make a canoe out of it to be used by the community.

We do not have those big trees anymore. We have to find two trees now and find a way for them to come together. Finding two trees that are going to fit seamlessly together is a lot of work. That is the world we live in now. We do not have those big trees.

If we look at that canoe as if we were all in this together, then we know we have a western world that came here as colonizers and we have an indigenous world and we are trying to build a canoe together.

Let us look at the fact that indigenous communities around this whole country had great systems in place. Let us look at how we can do better, be more accountable to the people we serve. That is what a leader is. It is the person who follows behind, who serves from behind. This legislation fails to do that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we debate Bill C-58 tonight, I cannot help but share the disappointment of my colleagues on the NDP benches. We were promised that this access to information legislation would create information available essentially by default, with more transparency.

I recall that when I used to practise environmental law, the joke among all of us at the time was that Canada's access to information legislation constituted freedom from information.

Now, we know that quite a lot of amendments were made in the Senate, and I know that the hon. parliamentary secretary wants to make sure that we are not caught in a time warp where we miss them. It is important to note that a lot of those amendments came from the government side. Amendments tightened up some of the language around vexatious questions being used as an excuse to reject access to information requests. However, I still find that this legislation falls far below the bar of what was promised. We did try, as Greens, to improve this legislation. I had 18 amendments come before the committee. Lots of us, as parliamentarians, tried to improve this legislation.

Given that there were some improvements, some significant ones from first reading, is there any temptation on the NDP benches to pass it as marginally better, or is it better to defeat it because it falls so far below the mark?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly. I have been here for 15 years and I have never seen a more dedicated member of Parliament. He is a good representative for his region, which I know very well from going door-to-door in the Chambly area. He is always here and he asks questions that get to the heart of his constituents' concerns. Like many other members, I continue to be very impressed by his work, his dedication, his discipline and his way of addressing people's concerns. I thank him for his excellent work. He just asked an excellent question.

Transparency and access to information are not rocket science. Witnesses told us what to do. They said that Bill C-58 was inadequate. The Information Commissioner said that he preferred to keep the status quo rather than seeing this bill pass. The Liberals refused to listen and include in the bill all the solutions, amendments and recommendations that were proposed by witnesses and the NDP. We proposed three dozen amendments.

The Liberals had all the solutions they needed in hand. We were not asking them to do the work. We were simply asking them to agree to let the NDP do it for them, because we were chosen to be the watchdog of Canadians in the House of Commons. We are always seeking to improve legislation. All the Liberals had to do was accept the work that we did for them and for all Canadians. Unfortunately, they refused to do so. They said that they would not accept the amendments or the testimony and that they were going to do as they pleased. That is why we have here a bill that is just a tiny step forward when we could have made some real progress. That goes against everything the Liberals promised in 2015.

As the member mentioned, in 2015 the Liberals promised democratic reform. They promised to put an end to omnibus bills, which are undemocratic. They also promised to work with the opposition parties and all members. Instead, they are imposing gag orders, a bit like in the 1950s, when the opposition was prevented from saying one more word about bills once a closure motion was adopted.

For all those reasons, I would say that this is yet another missed opportunity on the part of the Liberals.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to comment on what just transpired. The Liberals are slapping each other on the back because they passed a motion that is meaningless. Tomorrow they are going to rubber-stamp the Trans Mountain pipeline, which will dramatically increase greenhouse gas production in the country. The hypocrisy is beyond belief.

That is extremely appropriate when we see the hypocrisy contained in Bill C-58, which should be called “another Liberal broken promise act”, because, again, the Liberals are breaking the solemn commitments they made back in 2015.

Members will recall that back in 2015, the Prime Minister made a whole series of commitments, including that he was going to work with all members of the House of Commons. Instead what we have seen is a new tool, never used in parliamentary history before, gag closure.

It is a particular motion that does not allow opposition members, once the gag closure motion is moved, to even utter one word on government policy, to offer any amendments, to ask any questions, to, in any way at all, intervene on the bill, the legislation, the business before the House. It has been moved several times already in the last couple of weeks. So much for the solemn commitment to improve the functioning of Parliament.

The Liberals also promised they would do away with omnibus legislation. The Harper government was renowned for that, throwing a whole bunch of different bills into one piece of legislation and throwing at the House of Commons. It was profoundly disrespectful to members of Parliament and profoundly disrespectful to Canadians.

However, the Liberals have doubled down over the last four years. They have now presented more pieces of massive omnibus legislation than in any other Parliament in our history.

Members will recall that Liberals and the Prime Minister talked about bringing in democratic reform, actually reforming our election process so every vote would count. That would make a lot of sense. Canadians voted for that. The Liberals only got 39% of the vote and yet they have 100% of the power in the House of Commons. They bring in gag closure, they bring in omnibus bills and that promise, that solemn commitment to bring forward democratic reform has been thrown away.

The Liberals also talked about dealing with climate change. Tomorrow they will be rubber-stamping a pipeline that will destroy any opportunity for Canada to meet any commitments that have been made internationally.

The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie estimated that even before the pipeline, it would take Liberals 200 years to meet the Paris commitments. The planet will not exist at that time if Canada continues to be as irresponsible as the government has been, both under the Conservative government and the Liberal government.

The Prime Minister solemnly promised he would address the massive housing crisis in the country. Tragically, we know that is not the case. The Liberals said that they would address the health care crisis and promised, yet again, that they would bring in pharmacare. I think it is the third time, with a Liberal majority government, that Liberals promised to bring in pharmacare and yet have failed.

After four years, we have a litany of broken promises. Perhaps one of the most significant promises, even though this bill has not attracted a lot of interest, is the broken promise on information being provided to the Canadian public. That is why I call Bill C-58 the “another Liberal broken promise” bill.

The Liberals committed back in 2015 to provide information to the Canadian public. That makes a lot of sense. Canadians have a right to information from the government. It does not belong to the Harper government. It certainly does not belong to the Liberal government. That information belongs to Canadians.

Putting in place an effective information regime that allows people to access information, important government information, important information that should be available to the public, was a commitment the Liberals made back in 2015. Like so many other commitments, it has ended up on the scrap heap.

The Information Commissioner called Bill C-58, the “another Liberal broken promise” bill, regressive and went so far as to say that the access to information regime would be better under the status quo than under Bill C-58.

Is that not a sad commentary, that a Liberal government, four years later, has so little to show for itself except for a litany of broken promises solemnly delivered in 2015? Canadians believed them. I certainly thought, and I think most Canadians believed, that when the Prime Minister made those solemn commitments that he had at least the intention of keeping them. However, the Liberals have not. As the Access to Information Commissioner reminds us, the bill that the Liberals have brought forward is worse than what currently exists.

How did the Liberals fall so short? Despite committing to so many things, discarding their promises on the scrap heap of broken Liberal promises history, how did they even get the access to information wrong? Four points need to be brought to bear regarding why the Liberals failed so lamentably on access to information.

To be sure, the Conservatives did the same thing when they were in power. They said they would enhance access to information for the public, recognizing that Canadians felt they should have a right to access the information that was available to the federal government. It is a fundamental tenet of democracy, that information available to the federal government is available to Canadians. When we do things in the House of Commons and speak in public, that information is available. When government ministers do things in private, that should also be available through access to information.

It is the Canadians' government. It is Canadians who choose their parliamentarians. It is Canadians who ultimately decide who governs them. Because of this, it is fundamental that Canadians have access to information.

Bill C-58, which is worse than the existing access to information law, has a number of key exemptions or shortcomings, deliberate attempts to undercut the access to information regime that the Liberals planted in the legislation. It has essentially put poison pills in the legislation. They have a beautiful title about enhancing access to information, but we must look at the details, as New Democrats do. We always do our homework and always pore through legislation to ensure there is at least a semblance of reality in what is written in the legislation, as opposed to the political spin that comes from the Liberal government.

First, there was a recommendation that the coverage of access to information include ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office. This is another key commitment from the 2015 election that has been broken. Given the incredible scandal regarding SNC-Lavalin, it is absolutely fundamental that Canadians can access information related to what transpires in the Prime Minister's Office and in ministerial offices. It is a no-brainer. So many democracies around the world have already incorporated into their access to information regimes that ministers' decisions and decisions of the prime minister's office, that type of correspondence, are subject to access to information rules. Unlike in so many other democracies, the Liberals deliberately exempted the Prime Minister's Office and ministerial offices.

Second, as the Information Commissioner has long recommended, there has to be appropriate sanctions for non-compliance. If the government or government members try to get around access to information rules, there should be sanctions for that. However, that is absent from the bill as well.

The Information Commissioner was critical of what the Liberals offered in access to information, because it would do nothing to reduce delays or extensions. This means the Liberal government can basically rag the puck and ensure that information is not available to the Canadian public.

In the last Parliament, when the New Democrats were the official opposition, we spoke out repeatedly about the Harper government doing this. It simply delayed things beyond belief to ensure that for all practical purposes, access to information was simply not available. Again, the bill would do nothing to address this.

The bill would also do nothing to narrow exemptions for ministerial advice or cabinet confidence, ensuring that, with a broad brush, the Liberals could simply stop the access to information system to which Canadians have a right.

This is the fundamental point I need to make. Yes, Liberals made a whole series of commitments that they have ripped up with complete disregard to the solemn commitments made to the Canadian public. They basically threw them out the window.

However, in terms of access to information, this is one of the most egregious broken promises. The Liberals could have approached this in an open way. They could have said that they actually do want to make sure Canadians have access to information from their government and that this is a fundamental aspect of democracy. They could have said that they would work with the NDP, because we have always been the number one champions in this House of Commons for access to information. We believe fundamentally in it, and, as in so many other areas, we and members in the past have always championed the most effective approach possible on access to information, including the member for Timmins—James Bay, who has felt very strongly about this and has worked in this regard for years.

The Liberals could have done that, but instead they rejected the NDP amendments and refused to improve this. We now have a bill before us that can only be chalked up as another Liberal broken promise. As the Information Commissioner said, the status quo is actually better than what the Liberals have produced. That is a shame, and we are voting against it.

The House resumed from June 13 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Notice of Closure Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice that with respect to the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that the debate be not further adjourned.

Bill C-58—Notice of time allocation

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of certain amendments to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the bill.

Access to Information Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Victoria is a tough act to follow, but I will do the best I can.

I will start by saying there is wide gulf between what the government promised in 2015 and what it has actually delivered. It is quite saddening to every Canadian who believes in parliamentary democracy and believes the people should have the right to determine the destiny of this country. We see the government having repeatedly betrayed the promises the Liberals made during the election campaign in 2015.

I will not spend too much time on the litany of broken promises, but certainly one is on democratic reform. In 2015 we were supposed to have the last first past the post election which is undemocratic. We are now going into another election with the whole aspect of democratic reform gutted, ripped up. It is a promise that has been thrown on the floor and trampled on.

The government wanted to take action on the environment. Instead, we get the Trans Mountain pipeline that the government has spent billions of dollars on and will spend tens of billions more as construction costs escalate.

When we talk about the House of Commons and respecting parliamentary democracy, we had the Prime Minister promising in 2015 an end to omnibus legislation, legislation that ties together a whole range of unrelated items. Instead, the Liberals have doubled down and created some of the most monstrous pieces of omnibus legislation that the House has ever seen in a century and a half.

The Prime Minister during the election campaign talked about eliminating closure and working co-operatively with the opposition parties. Instead, what we have seen this week is the most toxic muzzling of the opposition that has ever occurred in our history, toxic closure motions that allow only one member to speak. The government has used this device a number of times now. Once the government moves the motion, one member gets to speak. Most often it is a government member, and there is no time for questions or comments or anything by the opposition. Opposition members represent more than 60% of the Canadian population and they are completely muzzled and shut down.

We just saw the spectre of the worst Thursday question response that this Parliament has ever seen. There has always been respect for Parliament that when the Thursday question is offered by the official opposition House leader, a role which I played in the last Parliament, the government then gives some idea of the legislation to come before the House in the following week. For a century and a half when that question has been asked by the official opposition, the government has been forthcoming. It does not mean that sometimes agendas change, but there has been some inkling of the business to come before Parliament in the following week.

Today, we saw the government remove its mask and show its real face. There was no information forthcoming at all to any member of the opposition or even any member of the government side. We do not know when the Conservatives will get their opposition day. We do not know when the supply votes, which should take us a good part of the day and probably all night, will occur. We do not know what legislation is coming up on Monday morning. Members of Parliament will be leaving this place this week with absolutely no idea of what is coming before the House in the subsequent week. That is the first time any government has attempted to override and ride roughshod over parliamentary rights in our nation's history. It was absolutely despicable to see that.

This is not a small matter. When we think of all the members of Parliament having to organize their travel schedules to make sure they are here for those supply votes which often take 24 hours, for Conservatives to know when their opposition day is coming forward so that they can offer their suggestions, which often I disagree with, but always respect their right to offer them for what Parliament and the government should do moving forward, all of those things have been put in complete suspension. Members of Parliament now have to wait to see what the government will be bringing up Monday morning. It is unbelievable.

Therefore, when we talk about Bill C-58, it is in the same framework of broken promises and abuse of parliamentary democracy.

All members of Parliament have a role to play in the House of Commons. All of us should have the ability to represent our constituents. However, the government provides nothing but a blank slate, saying, “We'll let you know Monday morning what is actually going to come before the House. We're going to let you know, Conservatives, when you can offer your opposition motion. We're going to let all members of Parliament know when we are getting into the 24-hour voting cycle.” For those members of Parliament who also have to be present in their constituency and for those members of Parliament who also have family obligations, this disrespect for Parliament is unbelievable. It is unbelievable not to provide any sort of indication whatsoever about what is going to transpire in this place from Monday morning on.

Access to information starts with that. If the government respected access to information, it would start with parliamentarians, by saying to them, “Here is the schedule for next week. It may change, but here are our intentions about the bills to come before the House.” Yes, the Senate influences that, I have no doubt, but to give some sense of what bills may be coming forward, when the opposition day is or when we will be having all-night voting is just a modicum of respect and information that needs to be provided to parliamentarians.

The Liberals have done the same thing to Canadians that they are doing to members of Parliament. We now have Bill C-58, which was deeply flawed. It was criticized from right and left, from people who believe that Canadians have a right to access the information that belongs to them. This is not a Liberal dictatorship, or I certainly hope it is not or will not become one. Liberal governments, like all governments, should govern in the interest of all Canadians. There is no doubt that there is a fundamental right to information that all Canadians possess.

However, the Liberals presented a flawed bill. The New Democratic members and members of the other opposition parties all came forward with helpful suggestions that would make a difference and make a bad bill a fairly good bill. Liberal members on the committee and in the House simply gutted that and refused those amendments. The bill then went to the Senate, and the government had an opportunity to get amendments from senators. We might believe in the abolition of the Senate, but it certainly has a role to play right now, and it improved the bill, again. I think people were generally optimistic that at least the bad bill had become a fairly good bill, yet the government has gutted that again.

Ultimately, it is disrespect for parliamentarians, and it is disrespect for Canadians. For that reason, New Democrats will be voting against the government's proposal.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his very kind remarks.

He talked about the amendments. I was involved in bringing forth some 36 amendments to Bill C-58 at committee. Many of them were deemed inadmissible because they were beyond the scope of the bill we were amending, but they were part of the package that all of those academics and activists and journalists had asked us to bring forward. Twenty were ultimately accepted as admissible, but of course, the government disallowed every single one of them. Why the Liberals are opposed to this I do not know.

Journalist Jeremy Nuttall, who writes for the Tyee, talks about writing cheques for $5. People have to pay $5. It costs the government way more money to cash the cheque than to do otherwise. One cannot go online like can be done in British Columbia with a credit card and request the information.

The Liberals pride themselves on updating the bill but they are stuck with this horse and buggy bill. It is very hard to understand why they would not take the opportunity to improve it. It is not like all of the provinces have not done stuff that the government could learn from. The Liberals are so rigid and do not seem to accept that we can do it better for Canadians. I am not suggesting that the provinces' legislation is perfect by any stretch, but it is so much better than what we have here.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, anyone who is from St. Catharines should be listened to, and I appreciate that.

The current Information Commissioner, Caroline Maynard, noted that our proposed legislation is “definitely a better bill than what we have currently”. She said that her predecessor's call for changes has been responded to. She said, “I am really hoping that Bill C-58 will be passed.”

I am wondering if the member could comment on that and why that differs from the NDP's position on the bill.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to participate in this important debate. I want to say at the outset that what we are technically addressing is a motion by the government that would refuse the 19 or 20 amendments to Bill C-58 that were proposed by the Senate. The NDP opposes the motion. It cannot support a bill that does not include the amendments that were brought to this place by the Senate. I will explain why in my remarks.

It is a very disturbing situation we find ourselves in. During the election campaign, the government committed to transparency. Indeed, the Prime Minister, when in opposition, introduced Bill C-613, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Access to Information Act. We could call it the transparency bill. Bill C-58, therefore, is not something the Liberals simply decided to propose on a whim. It was the result of a considered effort by the government to deliver on an election promise on transparency.

It was a total disappointment when it came forward. That is not me speaking. It is from the former information commissioner of Canada, Suzanne Legault. Members know, just as I do, how unusual it is for an independent officer of Parliament, such as the Information Commissioner, to give the kind of criticism I would like to read into the record today.

On September 28, 2017, when the bill first came forward, she said that bill would “take people’s right to know backwards rather than forward”, according to the National Post. The article went on:

In her first substantive comments on the legislation, [the former commissioner] said the measures fail to deliver on Liberal election promises. “If passed, it would result in a regression of existing rights.”

She put forward 28 recommendations to improve the legislation, and they are not found, in any significant degree, in Bill C-58. That is why, when I stood in this place during debate on the bill earlier, I reluctantly said, with sadness, that we had to oppose the bill. If the government is not even prepared to take the baby steps represented by the Senate amendments, clearly we cannot afford to pass what even the commissioner so eloquently said was a regressive bill. She is right, for reasons I will come to.

Like the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who is justly acclaimed for his awards in the world of journalism, I received an award as well for my work on freedom of information. It was from the hon. Ged Baldwin, who was once the member of Parliament for Peace River, for work I did at graduate school and then with the Canadian Bar Association, so many years ago, lobbying for an access to information act. It was modelled on legislation other countries have taken for granted. The United States has had it since the sixties, Sweden since the 18th century, and so on.

Finally, Canada got an access to information act. However, it is old. It was passed in the eighties. It is from horse-and-buggy days, yet some of those old features have not been corrected in the bill before us.

I care deeply about the issue. I think it is central to a democracy. The Supreme Court of Canada has called the right to know, freedom of information and access to information a “quasi-constitutional right” Canadians have. When the former commissioner says that the bill is regressive and is a step backwards, despite the bold promises of transparency the Prime Minister made when he was leader of the third party in the House, we can imagine the disappointment of Canadians.

Of course, it is not only this Canadian who has that disappointment. I should point out that Canadian Journalists for Free Expression and the Centre for Law and Democracy called the bill “inadequate” and asked that the government withdraw it.

The Senate has brought forward improvements, and for the government to say it cannot even go there is frankly shocking.

What is wrong with the bill? I do not quite know where to start. One thing it gets right, I concede, is that for the first time, there is an order-making power for the commissioner.

Just to step back, what should an access to information act contain? It should contain three things.

First, it should contain a general statement that the public has a right to government records.

Second, it should have obvious exceptions to that rule. We can all guess what they are. They are all included in this legislation, and then some. They include cabinet confidences, business information, policy advice, solicitor-client records and information that if disclosed would be injurious to national security or international relations. There are the rules, and there are exceptions.

Third, there should be an independent umpire in the game. Until this bill goes through, that umpire, the Information Commissioner, has only been able to make recommendations, which the government has frequently ignored. Now there would be something like an order that could be made and enforced in the Federal Court. That is something I believe is worth support. I also support that there would be a legislative review of these provisions within five years. I think that is good.

I talked about Liberal promises. One thing the Liberals talked about constantly in the last election was that the bill would be extended to the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices. Those records would be available. They are available in provincial laws. They are certainly available in my province of British Columbia. That was a black and white election promise that has now been broken by the current government. There is no way to sugar-coat that.

The Senate amendments would improve it and give it a bit more teeth, but that is simply not on in terms of this legislation. I am grateful to the Senate for the 20 amendments that would, if passed, allow us to begrudgingly accept the improvements in this bill. However, the government has now put us on notice that it does not want to go anywhere near them. It likes the bill the way it is, despite the fact that it was castigated by everyone who knows about access to information in Canada. The academics and journalists who studied it and the advocates out there who use it as a tool to hold their government to account all said that it is not going to work and that it is just not enough. That was sad to me.

In opposition, the Prime Minister said, “a country's access to information system is at the heart of open government.”

I talked about transparency. The Liberals seemed to like it in opposition. The Prime Minister said during the campaign, “transparent government is good government.” That was something he said during the campaign.

Let us get more specific. He said:

We will...ensure that Access to Information applies to the Prime Minister’s and Ministers’ Offices, as well as administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts.

Unfortunately, that did not happen in this legislation.

What the government likes to talk about is what it calls proactive disclosure, which is a good thing. That is when a minister travels and puts his or her expenses on the website so Canadians can see whether there has been abuse. That is done proactively. If one goes to the website, there it is. Frankly, it is old hat in Canada. It has been around for decades in the provinces. However, as much as I like that, the fact is that it is not what people want. If they want to apply to that minister's office to understand about a particular contract or something for which the minister is responsible, they cannot get anywhere with it, because the ministers' offices are not subject to the law. It is a bizarre aberration.

I had the good fortune of being the unpaid adviser to the attorney general when B.C.'s freedom of information act was brought forward. I can say that we did a lot of consultation. I think there were 52 amendments made on the floor. The bill was passed unanimously and was praised as the best bill in the Commonwealth when it came forward. Unfortunately, it needs more work. I hope it is amended, like this bill. Nevertheless, it was the gold standard at the time. There was never any question about ministers' offices not being covered.

The government has what is called in the trade a “Mack truck clause”. It was not changed. It is the clause that was section 69 in the original bill, the cabinet confidences Mack truck clause. What does that mean? Rather than just being an exemption, an exception to the rule, of which I spoke earlier, the act does not even apply to it. What does that mean? It means that we cannot have the commissioner's office or anyone else deciding whether stuff has been stuffed into a cabinet record to evade the law on the right people have to access information. It is called a “Mack truck clause”, or often, “cabinet laundering”. That means that the government sticks a record in the cabinet. I am not saying that this happened. I am not suggesting bad faith, but it is certainly possible under the law. That is why it was so criticized during the day.

What else does the Senate do that the government will not go near? We have heard a lot about Mark Norman today. The Senate would add a clause that would create a new offence forbidding the use of any “code, moniker or contrived word or phrase in a record in place of the name of any person, corporation, entity, third party or organization” with a view to evading the duty to disclose and release records under the act.

We all know why that is there, because it is notorious that to evade the law on access to information, the Department of National Defence did not even use the name of Mark Norman or his rank. It used a phony word, contrary to the spirit of the act and certainly the letter of the act. This would make it clear that this could not be done in the future, which seems to be good public policy.

It seems to me obvious that if the government intends to evade the letter and spirit of the act, as this government has done, we would want to correct that misbehaviour. The Senate saw through that, proposed amendments and brought them here, and the government has not even allowed us to talk about them. We are going to just put them all aside. That is quite disturbing. It is not a theoretical problem, in other words. It is a real problem that the Senate wanted to address, because we got wind of it in the litigation involving Mark Norman. The government will not fix it. It does not even want to go there.

There are some other changes that are technical in nature, but the big principle is that the bill, after so many years of ossification, is rusting out. The bill came forward before we even had computers, and now the government is doing tinkering and patting itself on the back for doing what in other jurisdictions has been the law for a generation.

I am hard pressed to find things to say about the bill that are positive. I appreciate the fact that there would be a five-year review and that, as I said earlier, finally, in keeping with all the provinces' laws, the order-making power would be available to the commissioner. That is pretty thin gruel after all these years. Nevertheless, it has to be acknowledged as a positive change. However, on balance, the bill is very, very disturbing.

I wish I could be here saying that the bill has merit. I wish I could be saying that there were some of those things I talked about, like cabinet confidences being a regular exception for which courts and others would have the theoretical ability to review disclosure decisions, but there is nothing here that would do that.

There is another issue. That is the duty to document. One of the modern issues that has come forward is that to evade the public's right to know, there is a great oral tradition that seems to have emerged. Things are not written down in government documents. Either little yellow stickies are put on them, which are removed when disclosure applications are made, or, more frequently, a record is not made at all. We have seen that in British Columbia, the development of the so-called oral culture of government.

The notion of documenting and having a duty to record for future generations and others just exactly what decision was made and for what reasons is lacking. In administrative law, there has been a growing commitment, the courts have found, to provide reasons for decisions that are made. Sometimes access to information has been a tool to elucidate the reasons a particular decision was made, so people have been calling for a duty to document. There is no such thing in this law, I am sad to say.

In conclusion, the government has taken off the table all the work the Senate did that would have made it possible to support this bill. The Senate amendments made it better, said Caroline Maynard, the Information Commissioner of Canada. Had those amendments gone through, the New Democratic Party would have supported this bill.

To take all those amendments off the table and leave what has been soundly criticized, in all quarters, by academics, user groups and journalist groups, and say that we should be happy with what is remaining is simply an outrage. We cannot dignify this with our support.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for highlighting many of the issues we have with Bill C-58, and a lot of the failings of the government when it comes to transparency.

My colleague joined us recently on the operations committee, beating out 98 other Conservatives who were desperate to join me on that committee. Before he joined us, the committee put together a report on whistleblowers. Canada has some of the weakest whistleblower protections for public servants in the OECD.

The committee put together a unanimous report on how we could better protect public servants. We heard story after story, very similar to that of Vice-Admiral Norman, of public servants who came forward and had their lives destroyed by the government for daring to expose corruption and negligence, almost identical to Vice-Admiral Norman's story.

We put together a unanimous report, submitted it to the government. The then Treasury Board president, Scott Brison, took the report, promptly threw it in the garbage and did nothing. Later, we summoned him to the committee and he refused to return to the committee to report on why he was doing nothing to protect whistleblowers.

We have seen the Liberal government time and again refuse to be transparent. Are these the actions of a government that is trying to be open and transparent?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member raised several concerns with respect to Bill C-58. However, I see that the Conservatives did not propose a single amendment in committee. The NDP proposed 20, but the Conservatives proposed none.

If they had so many concerns about this bill, I would like to know why they did not propose any amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my B.C. colleague for reminding us about the respect that we, as parliamentarians, should have for rules and customs. It is not because we are full of ourselves that we want to have a lot of people here listening to the person who has the floor, who just so happens to be me right now.

I want to recognize the outstanding work done by the people who draft bills for Canada's Parliament, because that is an extremely difficult job. It takes years of practice and, above all, dedication to doing things right, down to the last detail. I very much appreciate their work.

In December 2004, if memory serves, I did a story on the legislative specialists working for Quebec's revenue ministry. They are the people who write budget implementation bills, which are extremely intricate. I would just like to pay tribute to the Hon. Lawrence Bergman, Quebec's revenue minister under the Hon. Jean Charest. Mr. Charest was well known here in the House of Commons from 1984 to 1997 as an MP, minister, deputy prime minister, party leader and deputy speaker of the House of Commons.

That said, we think it is important to include those four elements in the legislation, which is exactly what the Liberal government did not do. I mentioned that we Conservatives were particularly concerned about the issue of monikers. In the Norman affair, unfortunately, people with bad intentions—and I can say this with the protection of the House—started a witch hunt. I will prove this over the new few minutes. That is completely unacceptable in our democratic system, especially when we consider the respect that the political branch needs to show for the legal system and the military system. Unfortunately, there were attempts to lump everything all together, without talking about the financial repercussions it could have on Canada's shipping industry.

The people conducting the investigations used code names to cover up their work. In our view, that practice should be harshly condemned. We applauded the fact that the Senate adopted amendment 3, which would put an end to that practice. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board announced, it is their right and their prerogative, and I respect that. I am a parliamentarian first and foremost, and a champion of democracy above all else. However, we believe that the government is wrong to reject that amendment, because it pertains to an abhorrent practice and one of the most direct attacks by political authority on judicial authority and military authority, all for financial gain and dishonourable purposes.

I am going to talk about what happened with the Asterix, since that is what this is all about, as well as Vice-Admiral Norman and the contract awarded by the Government of Canada in 2015 for the construction of that supply ship. The contract was awarded to a shipyard in Lévis called Davie. Meanwhile, pressure was being applied by a competing shipyard, Irving, which interfered in the executive process of our parliamentary system by lobbying some of the most senior cabinet members directly.

We should first talk about Vice-Admiral Norman, one of the most decorated and honourable members of the Canadian military. His dedication, professionalism and sense of duty led him to accomplish great things. He is the son of an army officer and grandson of a First World War veteran; honour runs in his blood. Vice-Admiral Norman studied in Kingston before joining the naval reserve and pursuing a career in the navy. He is a specialist in above water warfare and has held a number of posts, including on the maiden operational deployment of HMCS Halifax, and as executive officer of HMCS Iroquois, commanding officer of the frigate HMCS St. Johns and, more recently, commander of Canadian Fleet Atlantic.

At every step of his career, from his days in the naval reserve to his promotion to one of the highest ranks in the navy, that of vice-admiral, he always acted with a level of honour befitting his rank, never betraying the faith placed in him by his peers.

Sadly, history will show that this government dragged an honourable man through the mud for their own, purely self-serving, financial purposes. The government disgraced itself. Incidentally, let's hope the Canadian public voices its extreme displeasure over this issue on October 21.

Let's not forget that all of this happened because, during the 41st Parliament, the previous government, a Conservative government, contracted the Davie shipyard in Lévis to build a supply ship.

As soon as the Conservative government was defeated and the new Liberal government took over, Irving immediately started pressuring the newly elected government to review the decision. This resulted in a judicial inquiry, which led to the vice-admiral, an honourable man, being dismissed and dragged through the mud by the current government, including the Prime Minister, who made some unfortunate comments. Heads of state need to choose their words carefully. Unfortunately, on two separate occasions, the Prime Minister said that there would be a trial, even though nothing had been announced. This was some utterly unacceptable political interference in the judicial system, not unlike what we saw with the SNC-Lavalin scandal. It is worth remembering all of this.

Since my time is limited, I will be brief, but I do want to remind members about the unfortunate Vice-Admiral Norman affair, which runs deep and which will leave a permanent scar on this government.

Paul Martin's Liberal government looked at the possibility of replacing some supply ships in 2004, but the decision was ultimately made in 2015.

There had been talk of the need for a new supply ship since 2004 and a number of steps were taken. Finally, on November 18, 2014, Vice-Admiral Norman informed the Standing Committee on National Defence that Canada needed new supply ships.

In 2004, Paul Martin's Liberal government announced that Canada would need a new supply ship. Then, on November 18, 2014, in front of a parliamentary committee, Vice-Admiral Norman stated that Canada was indeed in need of a new supply ship. In January 2015, the federal government decided that it needed to follow through on that request. On June 23, 2015, the current Premier of Alberta, the Hon. Jason Kenney, who was the defence minister at the time, announced that the government was in discussions with Davie shipyard in Lévis about a temporary supply ship.

This announcement was made on June 23, on the eve of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, Quebec's national holiday or, as some call it, the summer solstice, but that is another story. This happened just a few hours before Quebec's national holiday.

On June 23, 2015, the defence minister, on behalf of the Conservative government, announced that it was initiating talks with Davie. On August 1, 2015, the Conservative government announced, a few hours before the election was called, that the Government of Canada had signed a letter of intent with Davie shipyard for the construction of a supply ship. Everything was going well up to that point. However, on October 19, 2015, Canadians cast their ballots, and the Liberal Party came to power. We are democrats and we respect the people's decision.

On October 8, 2015, the MV Asterix, which was chosen by Davie to be refitted as a supply ship, arrived at the shipyard in Quebec City.

November 17, 2015, is when the political interference in the entirely appropriate process initiated by the former government began.

I want to remind members that that is no small thing. I represent a riding in Quebec City, where the issue attracts considerable attention. Once again, for the third time, I would remind members, because this does in fact relate to Bill C-58, that in my 20 years as a journalist in Quebec City, I reported on the Davie shipyard between 150 to 200 times.

Of those 150 to 200 news reports, maybe three of them were positive because, unfortunately, as I recall, things were never going well for Davie. Our government granted funding to this shipyard, which was established in 1880. That is no small thing, and this is no small shipyard that we are talking about. It is the biggest shipyard we have with two huge dry docks where these sorts of big jobs can be done.

Some members will likely wonder why the Conservative government did not do anything about that in 2011. I will say two things. First, the government announcement in 2011 was based on the recommendations of a neutral and independent committee. Second, it is important to remember that, sadly, the Davie shipyard was technically bankrupt in 2011. No one takes any joy in that, but facts are facts. I would invite members to ask themselves whether they would be prepared to hire a company that is technically bankrupt to build their house. I am not so sure anyone would. That is what happened in 2011.

However, in 2015, under our government, Canada granted Davie a contract to build a supply ship and we all know now how well that turned out. I can confirm that the ship was indeed delivered on time and on budget. That does not happen very often. Davie workers and managers, the union leaders, and the new head and owner of the Davie shipyard all deserve our warmest congratulations and salutations for delivering this important part of Canada's arsenal, the Asterix, on time and on budget.

I was there on July 20, 2017, when Pauline Théberge, wife of the Hon. Michel Doyon, Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, broke a sacrificial bottle on the ship for good luck. We were there. I was very pleased and honoured to attend the ceremony along with a number of MPs and former Conservative ministers. Unfortunately, the current government was conspicuously absent from what was an important, positive and exciting event for Canada. That absence spoke volumes.

Getting back to our story about Mr. Norman and the contract for the Asterix, on November 17, 2015, just a few days after the Liberal government's cabinet was sworn in at Rideau Hall, James Irving, Irving's co-CEO, sent a letter to four Liberal ministers, namely the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Finance, the former minister of public services and procurement, and the former Treasury Board president, Scott Brison. We have heard that name a lot over the past few months, and as we will see, there may be something of a connection with what happened here.

Mr. Irving went to bat for his shipyard, which is basically his job, and communicated directly with four of this government's senior ministers, including the Treasury Board president, the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Finance. They might not be the three aces, but they are pretty close. They are at the top of the federal government hierarchy. Mr. Irving wanted to revisit the contract awarded by the previous government.

Then, as it turns out, on November 19, 2015, during a federal cabinet meeting that Vice-Admiral Norman did not attend, the Treasury Board president shelved the Asterix project for two months to review the contract that had been awarded.

It was not until later that we found out why. Cabinet confidences were leaked to CBC journalist James Cudmore, who, on November 20, 2015, reported that the letter was not signed by November 30 as it should have been.

That is where the problems in this story all began. On November 16, 2016, the RCMP started putting Vice-Admiral Norman under surveillance. There was a police car in front of his house in Orleans, a suburb of Ottawa. As I was saying, he was dragged through the mud, and it was despicable. On January 9, 2017, seven police officers conducted a raid of Vice-Admiral Norman's home.

Let me quote some information. The seven police officers arrived at Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's home. They “stayed [in the house] for six hours, and seized a desktop computer, a laptop, two cell phones and three iPads, one owned by [Norman's wife].”

Norman's defence would later argue that the RCMP, which had a warrant to seize “DND files and related material”, overstepped “by also seizing thousands of pieces of personal effects from the Norman family.”

This is totally unacceptable and outrageous. We are talking about one of the top soldiers in the Canadian Army. We are talking about the number two person in the Canadian Army, and the Liberals did not treat this honourable man as highly as they should treat a man who was so honourable in his career and in his personal life.

Other reprehensible events followed. The vice-admiral was relieved of his duties. On November 20, 2017, the Canadian government refused Vice-Admiral Norman's request for financial assistance for the legal expenses stemming from this crisis.

The Asterix was officially christened by the wife of the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec in July 2017. On December 23, 2017, the supply ship Asterix left Davie shipyard, near Quebec City, to commence operations. Over the past two years, the supply ship Asterix has distinguished itself as one of the best, if not the best, ship of all of Canada's allies. The contract our government awarded to the Davie shipyard was completed impeccably, not only in terms of budgets and deadlines, but also in terms of our military's needs.

Everything was going well until the political interference began. When asked about it, the Prime Minister twice said that Vice-Admiral Norman would be charged with a crime. He said that before any suit was officially filed in court. That is despicable. We are talking about clear interference by the Prime Minister of Canada, who is the head of the government, and therefore the head of the executive branch and, to some extent, the head of the legislative branch, in the judicial process.

This is not the only time he did this. We all remember the terrible SNC-Lavalin scandal, which led to the resignation of two senior government ministers, namely the former justice minister and the former president of the Treasury Board. Such political interference in the justice system is despicable.

The Prime Minister did not have to publicly announce that the Norman case would go to trial. We should let the courts and the justice system do their work. We cannot start predicting that certain cases will go to trial, unless we are talking about a backdoor deal, which we are not, even if it almost seems that way. That is what is despicable here.

What happened next? Vice-Admiral Norman was relieved of his duties under a cloud of deep suspicion. Police searched his home and confiscated his family's personal property. They went through his wife's iPad looking for information. Vice-Admiral Norman eventually requested access to evidence, emails and other records he needed to mount a full and complete defence. The government's lawyers continuously refused to grant him access to this important information, which was vital to mounting a full and complete defence of a man as honourable as the vice-admiral.

When the Canadian military's second-in-command is implicated in a case, we would at least expect the government to remain at arm's length. On the contrary, day after day, this government wanted to ensure that Mr. Norman did not have access to a full and complete defence. It refused to grant the financial assistance that would normally be provided to a man of his rank under such circumstances. Even when the charges were dropped, the government continued to refuse him this financial assistance, even though it had spent almost $15 million prosecuting him. The government steadfastly refused his request for financial assistance.

At the beginning of the court case, a request was made for access to important records, and there again, the government refused. Fortunately, the judicial system worked. A judge gave Mr. Norman access to certain pieces of evidence. Once everyone had access to this information, it suddenly became clear that there was no case and that this man should never have been dragged through the courts and the mud. This case will long be remembered by every Canadian as a shameful incident. Politicians interfered in a court case that was without merit.

Vice-Admiral Norman suffered for months and was left to defend himself alone and unaided. On May 8, the government realized that it might not have a case. It therefore dropped the charges against Mr. Norman and finally decided to pay his legal fees. My goodness, that is the least it could do. The government created this whole problem for nothing.

Once the government was forced by the court to disclose all of the evidence Mr. Norman was entitled to see, and once Canadian legal experts had access to this evidence, suddenly, there was no more story. What did this evidence include? Here is where I will make the connection to Bill C-58 and the Senate's third amendment, which was rejected by this government.

On December 18, 2018, Vice-Admiral Norman's team called two surprise witnesses, who provided evidence proving that Vice-Admiral Norman had the right to see names that had been redacted. The people in power had avoided using his name in their emails, specifically to avoid identifying him. This is a fundamental point. Furthermore, on January 29, 2019, a list was released showing acronyms and other military terms that had been used to refer to Vice-Admiral Norman.

Let me quote this in English because, in the proof, the important element was all written in English. Instead of talking about Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, they referred to him as “the boss,” “N3” and “C34”. The list was compiled by DND. Under questioning, the chief of the defence staff, General Jonathan Vance, said that “unless officials were specifically instructed to use these as search terms, subpoenas from Norman’s defence team may not have turned up documents that used those phrases.”

That is precisely why the Senate's third amendment must be maintained. The use of code names, especially in cases like this one, is completely unacceptable in our view. Mr. Speaker, let me correct something I just said. It is not amendment 3, but rather amendment 12. In my conversations with my colleagues, I have always called it the Norman amendment. This change aims to ensure that no one gets in the bad habit of identifying key people in criminal cases by code names. Incidentally, this was not actually a criminal case.

In the end, they realized that this man was more of a victim of the obnoxious attitude adopted by this government for purposes that I dare not even mention here in the House. The Liberals wanted to please certain friends here and there, rather than all Canadians. In our view, this use of code names should be stopped.

I know this brings up bad memories for the government. If I were a Liberal, I would definitely feel uncomfortable about this situation, the terrible Norman scandal, which has the Liberal government's fingerprints all over it.

This soldier dedicated his professional life to defending Canada with honour and dignity. He came from the humblest naval beginnings to rise through the ranks of the Royal Canadian Navy. At the peak of his career and his art, this man made sure that we could trust Canadian industry and the workers at the Davie shipyard in Lévis. Yes, everything was going well, yes, it was a success, and yes, it could be completed on time and on budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and proud to speak to Bill C-58 as the official opposition critic for the Treasury Board.

Let us put things in perspective. The bill was debated and passed in the House. Then it was sent to the Senate, which proposed amendments. In accordance with our legislative and parliamentary procedure, once the Senate made its proposals, these must be brought back to the House for analysis, and the House must accept or reject the proposals. The government calls the shots in that regard.

Essentially, the government has decided to accept most of the Senate's amendments, but it opposed four proposals, two of which are particularly interesting.

In the time I have, I will take an in-depth look and clearly explain why those four proposals should be in the act. Unfortunately, the government rejected them.

That attitude has led to the one of the worst crises of public confidence in the government, especially when it comes to the respect that the government should have for the responsibilities of the Canadian army. In fact, just a few minutes ago, here in the House, we honoured some of our bravest men and women in uniform.

Bill C-58 is a tricky bill. It is tricky yet essential, since it concerns privacy protection and the disclosure of information. We basically need to strike a balance between the public's right to information and privacy.

I know what I am talking about, having had the good fortune and privilege of being a journalist for more than 20 years. On July 17, 1989, I was officially hired as a journalist by the TQS television station in Quebec City. That was the start of a 20-year career. Actually, the year before that, I was hired by the Canadian Press to fill in as a parliamentary reporter covering the National Assembly of Quebec. During the 1988 general election, Michel Dolbec, who was a journalist at NTR and the Canadian Press, left. I replaced him for six weeks. That was my first experience as a journalist. I am not going to get into my entire life story. My point is that this is very important to me.

This issue is quite important, because we are talking about the balance we have to protect, as parliamentarians, between the right to information, which means that we protect the good work of the free press in our democracy, and on the other hand, making sure that people have their privacy respected. It is not a very easy thing to address, but this is what democracy is all about. It is about letting the press do its job while making sure that people are well protected with regard to their privacy, and especially their private lives.

It has been quite a while since this legislation was first brought forward and all the political parties committed to reviewing it. It is important to remember that the first Privacy Act dates back to 1983.

If we look back 36 years, we were entering a new world. Certain rules were needed. Year after year, successive governments thought that the rules would need to be updated one day to ensure that the approach taken in 1983 was still relevant. In 2006, the Conservative government initiated the first update to that legislation.

As mentioned earlier by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and member for Hull—Aylmer, who is also my MP when I am in Ottawa, the fact is that in 1983, the World Wide Web, the system that led to the Internet, was not nearly as widely used as it is today. It was basically restricted to very small scientific and military circles.

To get back to what I was saying, in 2006, the Conservatives laid the foundation for a much-needed update. From one government to the next, election after election, everyone committed to reviewing the legislation to adapt it to the realities of the 21st century, such as the advent of social media and greater access to information. This dramatically changed how journalists and investigators do their jobs, as well as the information to which everyone has access.

Members will also recall that in 2016, in the last Parliament, a report was tabled that included 32 recommendations. Most of them made their way into the legislation and have been implemented to various degrees. Some of the recommendations that were not included in the legislation were subsequently proposed by the Senate and were either implemented or rejected by the government, which is part of the legislative process.

This piece of legislation is quite important, because since 1983, we have had a law here in Canada on the protection of personal information. It has been a long ride since then, but we have to understand that in 1983, there was no World Wide Web, aside from in some laboratories, universities and the military. People in general did not have access to this new reality of the 21st century. That is why, when my party was in office in 2006, we touched up that legislation, and finally, in this Parliament, the government tabled Bill C-58.

The first version of this bill was introduced a while back. That may come as a bit of a surprise, since this bill was the next logical step after the Liberal Party's election promise to address the dire need for more democratic privacy legislation. This promise appeared in the Liberals' infamous election platform, along with a number of other broken promises. For instance, they promised to run three modest deficits. Instead, they have posted three huge deficits in the last three years. In 2015, the Liberal Party also promised a zero deficit by 2019, but we now have a $19.8-billion deficit. The government has not kept its word, and Canadians will pay the price.

The Liberals' election platform also included a promise to update the privacy legislation, which led to Bill C-58. That is why I am talking about it in this speech. Obviously, when we talk about something, we must get to the point, lay out the facts and stay focused. I just felt it was important to remind the House that the Liberal Party's 2015 election platform said that they would introduce legislation on this issue, and the result was Bill C-58. Their platform also included a string of broken promises that the Liberals will have to answer for on October 21.

I would like to table the document in question, that is, the election platform. Over the past three years, I probably tried to do so 150 times, which is barely an exaggeration, but my requests are always denied. Again today, after question period, I asked for leave to table an official document of the Government of Quebec's environment ministry, which was tabled in the National Assembly by the Quebec premier on November 29. Unfortunately, once again, the government refused to let Canadians have access, here in the House, to serious, rigorous, scientific and official data on the environment compiled by the Government of Quebec. We will definitely have an opportunity to come back to this. In short, this was an important piece of legislation for the government.

When the new cabinet was sworn in at Rideau Hall, in November 2015, after the November 19 election, the Prime Minister gave each new minister a mandate letter. The Minister of Democratic Institutions' mandate letter stated, “Work with the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Justice to enhance the openness of government, including supporting a review of the Access to Information Act.”

Then, there is the Minister of Justice; he, too, was called upon to work collaboratively in his mandate letter. Actually, back then, the position was held by a woman. I apologize for misleading the House. The fact of the matter is that the individual who once held the position of justice minister resigned and was ejected from caucus. She now sits as an independent.

This unfortunately happened in the wake of a situation considered to be shameful and outrageous by any Canadian who understands that politics and the judicial process must be kept separate. I will talk more about this later.

The justice minister's mandate letter stated the following:

Work with the President of the Treasury Board to enhance the openness of government, including supporting his review of the Access to Information Act to ensure that Canadians have easier access to their own personal information, that the Information Commissioner is empowered to order government information to be released and that the Act applies appropriately to the Prime Minister’s and Ministers’ Offices, as well as administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts.

I should also point out that the president of the treasury board in question also resigned. The Prime Minister claimed that he was behind all of this government's misfortunes in 2019. I will talk more about this later.

That is no small task that the Prime Minister gave his former justice minister, whom he later ousted from his caucus. Many of the tasks outlined in that letter did not even come close to being accomplished, but that is another story. Canadians will have their say on October 21, just four months and a few days from now.

In June 2017, after two years in office, the government introduced Bill C-58. I would like to recognize the outstanding work of my colleague in the upper chamber, Quebec Senator Claude Carignan. I believe I am allowed to say his name. Here in the House, we cannot identify MPs by their names, but I think I am allowed to do so when referring to a parliamentarian from the upper chamber.

Senator Carignan is a lawyer and the one responsible for the extraordinary legislation to protect whistleblowers. Members will recall that, two years ago, Senator Carignan introduced a bill in the Senate to provide better protection for whistleblowers. I had the great honour and privilege to sponsor that bill here in the House of Commons. We would therefore like to recognize Senator Carignan's outstanding work to protect access to information, freedom of the press and journalists' ability to do their job properly.

Senator Carignan played a major role in the analysis of this bill. Senator Carignan is a lawyer and a well-known parliamentarian who was nominated 10 years ago by Prime Minister Harper. He is doing a tremendous job with respect to protecting whistle-blowers. He tabled a bill two years ago in the Senate. I had the privilege of being the sponsor here in the House of Commons of this great piece of legislation.

I want to pay my respects to Senator Carignan, who played a major role in the study of Bill C-58 in the Senate of Canada.

In a speech he gave in the upper chamber on May 3, Senator Carignan noted that former information commissioner Suzanne Legault had expressed serious reservations in her report about Bill C-58, which had been tabled in the Senate in September 2017, writing:

Rather than advancing access to information rights, Bill C-58 would instead result in a regression of existing rights.

Later in his speech, Senator Carignan made the following remark:

Senator Pate spoke about this. A number of Indigenous groups have asked that Bill C-58 be simply withdrawn. Former information commissioners have spoken out against it. Several commentators hope it will not be passed. Senator McCoy pointed out that Bill C-58 makes a mockery of the very essence of access to information, and I share her opinion. She wanted the Senate to block the bill, but she dares not do it now.

Senator Carignan was warning of a very valid and relevant issue that had been raised by many commentators and journalists. Many professional journalists' associations felt that, although the government got elected by vaunting its lofty principles, the very essence of Bill C-58 fell well short of those goals.

As former information commissioner Suzanne Legault said, this was not a step forward, it was a step back. That is why the Senate did its work. Members will recall that the official opposition voted against the bill. Since we are now at the stage following the upper chamber's study of the bill and the tabling of amendments, let us focus on what the senators did.

That is why the amendments were tabled and voted for by a majority of senators. As I said, we are now studying the proposed amendments.

In the big picture, the government accepted most of the amendments tabled by the Senate, but unfortunately decided to put aside what we consider to be four key elements of this legislation and the amendment tabled by the the Senate.

The government said, in a very respectful way in the words that were read a few minutes ago, that it put aside amendments No. 3 and No. 12 and will also put aside paragraph No. 6. It also put aside amendment No. 15(c).

Now let us talk about two Senate amendments that we believe should be included in the legislation. Unfortunately, the current government is rejecting those amendments.

I will now look at amendment 12, which I mentioned earlier in my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. The amendment proposes:

12. New clause 30.2, page 17: Add the following after line 37:

“30.2 Subsection 67.1(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (b):

(b.1) use any code, moniker or contrived word or phrase in a record in place of the name of any person, corporation, entity, third party or organization;”.

This is a key element that I will have a chance to debate later. I will also provide a specific example that we believe justifies keeping this subsection. Unfortunately, this amendment was rejected by the current government.

In the next few minutes, I will go over the tragic ordeal our country went through because of this government's arrogant attitude. I am referring to the sad affair of Vice-Admiral Norman.

The other amendment that we believe should have been accepted is amendment 3, which reads:

3. New clause 6.2, page 4: Add the following after line 4:

“6.2 Subsection 9(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(2) An extension of a time limit under paragraph (1)(a) or (b) may not be for more than 30 days except with the prior written consent of the Information Commissioner.”.

Before getting to the topic at hand, I want to commend the outstanding work of the legislative drafters. When we read clauses of bills, they can seem arduous and hard to understand. They are especially difficult to follow since the language is very technical. I would like to commend the outstanding work of the legislative drafters of the Parliament of Canada, who check, word for word, line by line—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his first speech as the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. I just wish he had better content for his first speech.

Bill C-58 is such a massive disappointment. I have never seen a commissioner like the Privacy Commissioner pan legislation as this was panned. I have to confess that while I try to keep up with absolutely everything in this place, I have not seen if the Senate amendments are capable of making this bill worth supporting.

I read an article which says that the Liberals' new freedom of information bill is garbage. I wonder if there is any reference that the hon. parliamentary secretary could direct us to from any impartial experts. Is there anything from a third party source that could be referenced at this point indicating that it is a substantial improvement?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Digital Government]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the message received from the other place with regard to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I would like to recognize that this is my first official duty debating a piece of legislation as Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Digital Government, who is a fabulous minister, I might add.

I also want to acknowledge the many stakeholders who were involved in getting Bill C-58 to this point, starting with our colleagues in the other place, who conducted a very thorough and thoughtful study of this bill.

I must also recognize the contributions of parliamentarians and stakeholders and particularly the contributions of the Information Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner in the development of Bill C-58, as well as, of course, our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics who worked long and hard on the amendments being proposed.

I would especially like to note the interventions of a number of indigenous organizations, their influence on the matters we are considering today and with whom the government is committed to engaging more closely on these matters in the future.

Together, the ideas and suggestions in the letters and presentations at both committees contributed to ensuring that the concerns of Canadians were taken into consideration and reflected in the final version of the bill.

I would remind the House that the bill would implement some of the most significant changes to the Access to Information Act since it was introduced more than 30 years ago, changes which have not been seen since the advent of the World Wide Web. This is part of the Government of Canada's continuing effort to raise the bar on openness and transparency.

We believe that government information ultimately belongs to the people it serves, and it should be open by default. That is quite simply a fundamental characteristic of a modern democracy, and the bill reflects that belief.

In that context, we welcome many of the proposed amendments that would further advance this objective. I would note, however, that two of the amendments would effectively legislate matters that are beyond the intent of the bill, whose purpose, I would remind the House, is to make targeted amendments to the act.

Those targeted amendments include providing the Information Commissioner with the power to make binding orders for the release of government information and the creation of a new part of the act on the proactive publication of key information.

For the reason that it goes beyond the intent of the bill, the government respectfully disagrees with the amendment that would limit time extensions to respond to a request to 30 days without prior approval of the Information Commissioner.

The government is declining this proposal because these provision have not been the subject of consultation or thorough study in the context of the targeted review that led to Bill C-58. This proposal risks having unintended consequences, particularly for the office of the Information Commissioner.

The government does agree with our friends in the other place that the time extension provisions merit further study. These will be examined as part of the full review of the act which Bill C-58 requires to begin within one year of royal assent.

For the same reason, the government respectfully disagrees with the proposal to create a new criminal offence for the use of any code, moniker or contrived word or phrase in a record in place of the name of any person, corporation, entity, third party or organization. Once again, the provisions of the Access to Information Act concerning criminal offences have not been the subject of consultation or thorough study in the targeted review. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to review changes to this provision in the context of a full review.

A third amendment of concern would require the Information Commissioner to review the operation of proposed part 2 of the act regarding proactive publication and report the results to Parliament on an annual basis. Giving the commissioner oversight of proactive publication by institutions supporting Parliament and the courts would create the potential to infringe on both parliamentary privilege and judicial independence. For this reason, the government respectfully disagrees.

It is also proposed that the Information Commissioner's ability to receive and investigate complaints related to fees and time limit extensions be removed from the act. While the government recognizes the intent of this amendment, which relates to some of the other proposals that were advanced, the commissioner's authority to receive and investigate complaints regarding waiver of fees would be removed from the act, an outcome I am certain hon. members on all sides of the House would agree is undesirable.

Similarly, as the amendment with respect to the extension of a time limit was not agreed to, we must preserve the powers of the Information Commissioner to receive complaints concerning time limits and to investigate these complaints, and therefore this amendment is not necessary.

With these few exceptions, the government is pleased to accept the proposed amendments in the message from the other chamber, subject to some technical adjustments to ensure the proper functioning of these provisions.

For example, we agree with the proposed amendment that would eliminate the government's authority to set and collect fees, apart from the application fee. As the government has committed to Canadians, it will continue to charge no fees other than the application fee of just $5.

A related amendment proposed in the message would retain the right of requesters to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner regarding decisions to waive the application fee. While the Senate amendments would have removed that right, we consider that the Information Commissioner should continue to have oversight over the way the authority to waive fees is exercised by institutions.

Some of the amendments proposed in the other place would foster and, in some cases, require more extensive consultations and better communication between the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. This is paramount to continue to ensure privacy protection while the government seeks to foster more openness and better access to government documents.

The bill already provides the Information Commissioner with new power to order the release of government information. To ensure that this does not compromise the right to privacy, an amendment proposes that the Information Commissioner must consult the Privacy Commissioner before ordering a release of personal information. This amendment also proposes that the Information Commissioner have the discretion to consult the Privacy Commissioner when investigating a complaint regarding the application of the personal information exemption. Both of these and some related amendments were suggested by the commissioners themselves, and the government has previously indicated that it supports these amendments. We believe they will strengthen the protection of personal information and further safeguard Canadians' privacy rights.

The government also accepts an amendment that would retain Info Source. Government institutions will continue to be required to publish information about their organization, records and manuals. Canadians seeking to exercise their right of access to government records will continue to have access to this tool.

As hon. members are surely aware, the government processes tens of thousands of access requests each and every year. It is an unfortunate fact that in a small number of cases, the requests are made for reasons that are inconsistent with the purposes of the Act. They may be made to harass a certain employee or work unit, for example. Such requests can have a disproportionate effect on the system and slow down resources on legitimate requests.

The government agrees with the amendment from the other place that the power of government institutions to ask the Information Commissioner for approval in order to refuse to act on requests should be limited to requests that are vexatious, made in bad faith or that would constitute an abuse of the right of access and would backlog the system. That would enable government institutions to focus their efforts on legitimate requests after having obtained approval from the Information Commissioner.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the main objectives of Bill C-58 is to provide the Information Commissioner with the power to issue binding orders for the processing of requests, including the disclosure of records.

The commissioner would be able to publish these orders, establishing a body of precedents to guide institutions as well as users of the system.

Originally, in order to give the commissioner time to prepare to assume this power, it would not come into force until one year after royal assent. However, the commissioner has asked that this power be available immediately upon royal assent. Reflecting the value it places on the commissioner's perspective, the government has already indicated its support for this amendment.

Another amendment asked for the Information Commissioner to file her orders in Federal Court and have them enforced as Federal Court orders. Under Bill C-58, the Information Commissioner's orders are legally binding without the need for certification. We believe that this amendment is unnecessary and would add a step in the process.

However, the government will look at these amendments at the one-year review of the act, with a year's worth of experience under the new system.

Providing the Information Commissioner with the power to issue binding orders to government and institutions is not a trivial change. It is a game-changer for access to information. Whereas now the Information Commissioner must go to court if an institution does not follow her recommendations, Bill C-58 puts the onus on institutions. Should they disagree with an order by the Information Commissioner, institutions will have 30 days to challenge the order in Federal Court.

As for the courts, I would remind the House that the government accepted an amendment that would ensure that Bill C-58 does not encroach on judicial independence. As the House knows, part 2 of the bill would impose proactive publication requirements on 260 departments, government agencies and Crown corporations, as well as the Prime Minister's Office, ministers' offices, senators, MPs, parliamentary entities and institutions that support the courts.

The amendment would also enshrine in law the proactive publication of information of great interest to Canadians, particularly information relevant to increased transparency and responsibility with regard to the use of public funds.

This includes travel and hospitality expenses for ministers and their staff and senior officials across government, contracts over $10,000 and all contracts for MPs and senators, grants and contributions over $25,000, mandate letters and revised mandate letters, briefing packages for new ministers and deputy ministers, lists of briefing notes for ministers or deputy ministers, and the briefing binders used for question period and parliamentary committee appearances.

Putting these requirements into legislation will ensure that Canadians will have access to this kind of information automatically, without having to make a request. It will impose a new degree of transparency on this government and on future governments.

As passed by the House, Bill C-58 would require similar disclosure by the judiciary.

Concerns have since been raised about the impact that the publication of individual judges' expenses could have on judicial independence, and those concerns are exacerbated by the fact that, due to the traditional duty of reserve, judges express themselves only through their judgments and can neither defend themselves nor set the record straight. The amendment proposed in the message that would require the publication of judges' expenses according to each court, rather than on an individual basis, would address these concerns and include additional measures to increase transparency.

The government also welcomes and accepts the amendment to remove the specific criteria requiring requesters to state the specific subject matter of their request, the type of record being requested and the period for which the record is being requested.

This was included in the original bill as a way to ensure that requests provided enough information to enable a timely response.

We listened to the Information Commissioner's concerns about this clause and especially to the indigenous groups who told us that these provisions could impede their access rights. I just want to note that this amendment, along with several others proposed in the message, was suggested by the former Treasury Board president when he appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in October.

The proposal and acceptance of this amendment reflect the government's commitment to guaranteeing that indigenous peoples have access to the information they need to support their claims and seek justice for past wrongs, for example.

As members can imagine, when it comes to records that are several decades or, in some cases, more than a century old, asking someone to state the specific subject matter, type of record and period requested may constitute a barrier to access.

I also want to assure the House that the government has taken careful note of the feedback from indigenous groups who felt that the governments did not consult them properly when drafting Bill C-58.

To respond to these concerns, the government supported the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, the National Claims Research directors and the Indigenous Bar Association in surveying selected first nations researchers and policy staff about the issues they were encountering with respect to access to information, compiling and analyzing the results in a discussion paper, and undertaking a legal review of Bill C-58.

Nonetheless, we recognize that further work is needed, with greater collaboration between the government and indigenous groups. I would draw the attention of the House to a letter written by the former president of the Treasury Board and sent to the committee in the other place. The letter detailed specific commitments to engaging indigenous organizations and representatives about how the Access to Information Act needs to evolve to reflect Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples, including how information and knowledge of indigenous communities is both protected and made acceptable.

This engagement, as with all engagements with first nations, Inuit and the Métis Nation, will be founded on the fundamental principle of “nothing about us without us”. The government is committed to ensuring that programs, policies and services affecting indigenous peoples are designed in consultation and in collaboration with them.

In that regard, I would remind the House that this bill represents only the first phase of the government's reform to access to information. A full review of the functioning of the act would begin within one year of royal assent of Bill C-58, with mandatory reviews every five years afterward to ensure that the Access to Information Act never again falls so far out of date. I would add that the government recognizes that engagement with indigenous communities and organizations needs to be a central part of these reviews of the act.

In conclusion, I would recall for the House that in its fifth global report, issued in 2018, Canada was ranked number one in the world for openness and transparency by Open Data Barometer, well ahead of many other nations, including many so-called advanced countries. I would note that in this most recent report the author states:

The government’s continued progress reflects a strong performance in virtually all areas—from policies to implementation. Its consistent political backing has been one [of] the keys to its success.

Bill C-58 would continue to advance our progress toward more open and transparent government.

I again thank our friends in the other place for helping to make a good bill even better. I share the Information Commissioner's opinion that Bill C-58 is better than the current act and urge all members to join me in supporting it.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and acknowledge the opposition House leader's new-found respect and regard for the environment. It probably means the Conservatives will be coming out with a plan soon. We have been waiting for it for well over a year now.

In answer to her question, this afternoon we will begin debate on the Senate amendments to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act. This evening we will resume debate on the Senate amendments to Bill C-69, the environmental assessment legislation. We will then return to Bill C-88, the Mackenzie Valley bill.

Tomorrow we will resume debate on the Senate amendments to Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act. We expect to receive some bills from the Senate, so if we have time, I would like one of those debates to start.

Next week, priority will be given to bills coming back to us from the Senate, or we may have an opportunity to continue to debate the motion referred to by the House Leader of the Official Opposition.

Personally, I am reassured to hear that the Conservatives want to talk about the environment. Perhaps they will also share their plan with Canadians.

Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by saluting my colleague, the soon-to-be-retired member for Edmonton Strathcona, for her diligence and perseverance in bringing this bill forward over 11 years. This is perhaps the fourth time.

Of course, the Liberal government has had four years to study this bill, and here we are in the waning hours of this Parliament, which is very regrettable. If we are honest with each other, I think the chances of this bill being enacted are slim to none. However, that does not mean that it is not an essential, thoughtful piece of work. It is like a judgment that is in dissent in a court, and eventually, over time, that dissenting opinion becomes the law of the land, which is what I hope happens in this context.

This bill is not radical. The Province of Quebec has had section 46.1 of its Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms for years, which says, “Every person has a right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved, to the extent and according to the standards provided by law.” That is what Quebec did. For many years, Ontario had a bill as well, the Environmental Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, over the last few months, the new government of Premier Ford has gutted that bill, to the eternal shame of that government.

However, that does not mean we at the federal level cannot get it right at last. In fact, a number of people wrote in a book called International Law and the Environment as follows: “The emergence of individual environmental rights marks perhaps the most significant shift in the focus of international environmental law.” My colleague's bill would do just that.

I want Canadians to understand that this is not one of those feel-good bills with one sentence celebrating the heritage of one ethnic community that takes two sections to enact. This is a thoughtful bill, with 37 sections, 16 pages long. It was very thoughtfully changed in each Parliament to its status today, which is a fully thought-out bill that would do what other jurisdictions around the world have done.

Nor is this a new idea. I remember, back in the 1980s, writing a chapter in a book edited by the well-known environmental law scholar John Swaigen that talked about just this, and many of the principles in this bill were in fact discussed at great length in that book back in the 1980s. I salute my colleague for this excellent work.

The bill before us would create a number of specific rights, including my favourite, the right of access to environmental information in a reasonable, timely and affordable manner. As someone who has spent his career working on access to information, members can only imagine how happy I am to see that here.

However, I can tell members of the great disappointment of every single person who studied the Liberals' Bill C-58, that astounding reaction to the current Prime Minister's commitment to transparency. Every single commentator who has looked at that bill currently before Parliament has concluded that it is a travesty. It would take us backward, not forward. In fact, it is so ironic that the current Prime Minister, when in opposition, put forward a bill that would amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Access to Information Act to provide greater transparency, but that bill goes in the exact opposite direction.

Other key things in Bill C-438 are things such as a public trust doctrine, which has been used so effectively in the United States of America to preserve lands, such as in a parks context and so forth. Another is an ability for individual Canadians to get an investigation of environmental offences. It is a thoughtful amendment to the Federal Courts Act that would allow standing for environmental groups, if there is a serious issue at stake and they have a genuine interest, to basically get rid of all the obstacles that have been put in the way of individual citizens wanting to judicially review decisions they think are wrong in the environmental context. There is also whistle-blower protection. These are just some of the key ideas that are put out in clause 4 of the bill.

However, there is so much more in this bill that needs to be saluted and praised. There are five paramount principles of environmental law that are listed. I do not have time to go over them all, but they are the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle, the principle of sustainable development, the principle of intergenerational equity and the principle of environmental justice. These are not just words; these are principles that would apply in the implementation of the bill.

As I said earlier, Quebec has had a very vigorous commitment to environmental justice, codified in its human rights legislation and in its charter of rights and freedoms. That is how important environmentalism and sustainability Quebec talks of biodiversity are in that context.

Ontario, for many years, has had an environmental bill of rights, which has also been vigorous in its application. Unfortunately, it has met its fate. The environmental commissioner created under that statute is no longer funded by the Ford government, therefore bringing to an end a very positive experience that the jurisdiction has had with legislation not unlike what my colleague has brought forward today.

In the interests of time, I want to summarize. This initiative could have been acted on if the government were serious about environmental justice. Parliament has had this legislation before it for 11 years, four years with the current government. Here we are at the very last moment. It truly is tragic, certainly regrettable that we are unable to see this forward. The government says that it will send it to committee. That means absolutely nothing.

With two weeks left of Parliament, Canadians need to be reminded that it is a complicated bill, thoughtful bill. It would need to go through committee. It would have to go to the Senate and the like. Frankly, it is too little too late.

If the government were truly committed to environmental justice, to the of principles of which I talked, to the very specific things that would make it easier for individual Canadians to be empowered to achieve environmental justice, it would have done something with this. However, it has not and here we are.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 21, 2019:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12:00 a.m., except that it shall be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (e), when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2) or Standing Order 78, but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday, provided that, if a recorded division on the previous question is deferred and the motion is subsequently adopted, the recorded division on the original question shall not be deferred;

(c) notwithstanding Standing Order 45(6) and paragraph (b) of this Order, no recorded division in relation to any government order requested after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 20, 2019, or at any time on Friday, June 21, 2019, shall be deferred;

(d) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) or Standing Order 67.1(2);

(e) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday;

(g) a recorded division requested in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(h) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(i) when one or several deferred recorded divisions occur on a bill at report stage, a motion, “That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass”, may be made in the same sitting;

(j) no dilatory motion may be proposed after 6:30 p.m., except by a Minister of the Crown;

(k) notwithstanding Standing Orders 81(16)(b) and (c) and 81(18)(c), proceedings on any opposition motion shall conclude no later than 5:30 p.m. on the sitting day that is designated for that purpose, except on a Monday when they shall conclude at 6:30 p.m. or on a Friday when they shall conclude at 1:30 p.m.;

(l) during consideration of the estimates on the last allotted day, pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), when the Speaker interrupts the proceedings for the purpose of putting forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the estimates, (i) all remaining motions to concur in the Votes for which a notice of opposition was filed shall be deemed to have been moved and seconded, the question deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested, (ii) the Speaker shall have the power to combine the said motions for voting purposes, provided that, in exercising this power, the Speaker will be guided by the same principles and practices used at report stage;

(m) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the 31st sitting day after the interruption; and

(n) Members not seeking re-election to the 43rd Parliament may be permitted to make statements, on Tuesday, June 4, and Wednesday, June 5, 2019, at the expiry of the time provided for Private Members’ Business for not more than three hours, and that, for the duration of the statements, (i) no member shall speak for longer than ten minutes and the speeches not be subject to a question and comment period, (ii) after three hours or when no Member rises to speak, whichever comes first, the House shall return to Government Orders.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 30, which allows for the extension of the sitting hours of the House until we rise for the summer adjournment.

I rise today to speak to Motion No. 30. This motion would allow for the extension of sitting hours of the House until we rise for the summer adjournment. There is a clear and recent precedent for this extension of hours to give the House more time to do its important work. It occurred last year at this time and also the year before that. As well, in the previous Parliament, the hours of the House were extended in June 2014.

Four years ago, our government came forward with an ambitious mandate that promised real change. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, our government has introduced legislation that has improved the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. However, we have more work to do.

So far in this Parliament, the House has passed 82 government bills, and 65 of those have received royal assent. The facts are clear. This Parliament has been productive. We have a strong record of accomplishment. It is a long list, so I will cite just a few of our accomplishments.

Bill C-2 made good on our promise to lower taxes on middle-class Canadians by increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians. There are nine million Canadians who have benefited from this middle-class tax cut. This tax cut has been good for Canadians and their families. It has been good for the economy and good for Canada, and its results have been better than advertised. On our side, we are proud of this legislation. We have always said that we were on the side of hard-working, middle-class Canadians, and this legislation is proof of exactly that.

As well, thanks to our budgetary legislation, low-income families with children are better off today. We introduced the biggest social policy innovation in more than a generation through the creation of the tax-free Canada child benefit. The CCB puts cash into the pockets of nine out of 10 families and has lifted nearly 300,000 Canadian children out of poverty.

Early in this Parliament, in response to the Supreme Court of Canada, we passed medical assistance in dying legislation, which carefully balanced the rights of those seeking medical assistance in dying while ensuring protection of the most vulnerable in our society.

Also of note, we repealed the previous government's law that allowed citizenship to be revoked from dual citizens. We also restored the rights of Canadians abroad to vote in Canadian elections.

We added gender identity as a prohibited ground for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Also, passing Bill C-65 has helped make workplaces in federally regulated industries and on Parliament Hill free from harassment and sexual violence.

We promised to give the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer the powers, resources and independence to properly do its job. We delivered on that commitment through legislation, and the PBO now rigorously examines the country's finances in an independent and non-partisan manner.

Through Bill C-45, we ended the failed approach to cannabis by legalizing it and strictly regulating and restricting access to cannabis, as part of our plan to keep cannabis out of the hands of youth and profits out of the pockets of organized crime. Along with that, Bill C-46 has strengthened laws to deter and punish people who drive while impaired, both from alcohol and/or drugs.

These are just some examples of the work we have accomplished on behalf of Canadians.

We are now heading into the final weeks of this session of Parliament, and there is more work to do. Four years ago, Canadians sent us here with a responsibility to work hard on their behalf, to discuss important matters of public policy, to debate legislation and to vote on that legislation.

The motion to allow for the extension of sitting hours of the House is timely, and clearly it is necessary. We have an important legislative agenda before us, and we are determined to work hard to make even more progress.

Passage of this motion would give all members exactly what they often ask for: more time for debate. I know every member wants to deliver for their communities and this motion will help with exactly that. We have much to accomplish in the coming weeks and we have the opportunity to add time to get more done.

I would like to highlight a few of the bills that our government will seek to advance.

I will start with Bill C-97, which would implement budget 2017. This budget implementation act is about making sure that all Canadians feel the benefits of a growing economy. That means helping more Canadians find an affordable home, and get training so that they have the skills necessary to obtain good, well-paying jobs. It is also about making it easier for seniors to retire with confidence.

Another important bill is Bill C-92, which would affirm and recognize the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis children and families. The bill would require all providers of indigenous child and family services to adhere to certain principles, namely the best interests of the child, family unity and cultural continuity. This co-drafted legislation would transfer the jurisdiction of child and family services delivery to indigenous communities. This is historic legislation that is long overdue.

We have another important opportunity for us as parliamentarians, which is to pass Bill C-93, the act that deals with pardons as they relate to simple possession of cannabis. As I mentioned, last year we upheld our commitment to legalize, strictly regulate and restrict access to cannabis. It is time to give people who were convicted of simple possession a straightforward way to clear their names. We know it is mostly young people from the poorest of communities who have been targeted and hence are being left behind. This bill would create an expedited pardon process, with no application fee or waiting period, for people convicted only of simple possession of cannabis. Canadians who have held criminal records in the past for simple possession of cannabis should be able to meaningfully participate in their communities, get good and stable jobs and become the contributing members of our society that they endeavour to be.

Meanwhile, there is another important bill before the House that we believe needs progress. Bill C-88 is an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. This legislation only impacts the Northwest Territories, and its territorial government is asking us to act. This legislation protects Canada's natural environment, respects the rights of indigenous people and supports a strong natural resources sector. This bill will move the country ahead with a process that promotes reconciliation with indigenous peoples and creates certainty for investments in the Mackenzie Valley and the Arctic.

Earlier this month, our government introduced Bill C-98, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act. This bill would create civilian oversight of the Canada Border Services Agency. It would provide citizens with an independent review body to address complaints about the CBSA, just as they now have complaint mechanisms in place for the RCMP. Let me remind members that it was our government that brought forward Bill C-22 that established the national security intelligence committee of parliamentarians, which has tabled its first annual report to Parliament. We are committed to ensuring that our country's border services are worthy of the trust of Canadians, and Bill C-98 is a significant step towards strengthening that accountability.

We have taken a new approach. We, as a government, have consulted with Canadians when it comes to our legislation. We have seen committees call witnesses and suggest amendments that often times improve legislation, and we, as a government, have accepted those changes. We were able to accomplish this work because we gave the committees more resources and we encouraged Liberal members to do their work.

Likewise, currently there are two bills that have returned to the House with amendments from the Senate. I look forward to members turning their attention to these bills as well. One of those bills is Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. Our goal is to make accessibility both a reality and a priority across federal jurisdictions so that all people, regardless of their abilities or disabilities, can participate and be included in society as contributing members. Bill C-81 would help us to reach that goal by taking a proactive approach to getting ahead of systemic discrimination. The purpose of this bill is to make Canada barrier free, starting in areas under federal jurisdiction. This bill, if passed by Parliament, will represent the most significant legislation for the rights of persons with disabilities in over 30 years, and for once it will focus on their abilities.

The other bill we have received from the Senate is Bill C-58, which would make the first significant reforms to the Access to Information Act since it was enacted in 1982. With this bill, our government is raising the bar on openness and transparency by revitalizing access to information. The bill would give more power to the Information Commissioner and would provide for proactive disclosure of information.

There are also a number of other bills before the Senate. We have respect for the upper chamber. It is becoming less partisan thanks to the changes our Prime Minister has made to the appointment process, and we respect the work that senators do in reviewing legislation as a complementary chamber.

Already the Senate has proposed amendments to many bills, and the House has in many instances agreed with many of those changes. As we look toward the final few weeks, it is wise to give the House greater flexibility, and that is exactly why supporting this motion makes sense. This extension motion will help to provide the House with the time it needs to consider these matters.

There are now just 20 days left in the parliamentary calendar before the summer adjournment, and I would like to thank all MPs and their teams for their contributions to the House over the past four years. Members in the House have advanced legislation that has had a greater impact for the betterment of Canadians. That is why over 800,000 Canadians are better off today than they were three years ago when we took office.

We saw that with the lowering of the small business tax rate to 9%, small businesses have been able to grow through innovation and trade. We see that Canadians have created over one million jobs, the majority of which are full-time, good-paying jobs that Canadians deserve. These are jobs that were created by Canadians for Canadians.

That is why I would also like to stress that while it is necessary for us to have honest and vibrant deliberations on the motion, Canadians are looking for us all to work collaboratively and constructively in their best interests. That is exactly why extending the hours will provide the opportunity for more members to be part of the debates that represent the voices of their constituents in this place, so that we continue to advance good legislation that benefits even more Canadians.

It has been great to do the work that we have been doing, but we look forward to doing even more.

[Caroline Maynard]

You're right in the sense that I'm limited right now under the act to make recommendations to departments when I don't agree with them, but I hesitate to go to court after, if they have agreed with my recommendations.

The new act will give me the authority to make the orders. At that point, the institution will have to go to court if they don't agree with the orders. I think that will be very helpful and it's something we'll be using.

The other thing, as I said earlier, is that it's really hard to issue recommendations on a daily or weekly basis but we can't do anything about it or publicize any of it, so people are not aware of what we're doing, because we have to wait until the annual report or a special report is issued.

Under the new Bill C-58, I'm going to be able to publish those decisions, which I think the institutions are not going to like as much. That's another tool that will be used or will be beneficial. Hopefully, the more we publish and the more Canadians see what they're entitled to and the institutions realize what we're pushing for, the more we'll have consistency and a better response rate.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you.

I have another question about something that came up earlier.

If Bill C-58 passes, will you be able to halt certain investigations that are under way, or are you absolutely required to finish processing those cases one way or another? Once the bill passes, will the act give you that ability, or would there be some kind of grandfather clause preventing you from doing that?

[Caroline Maynard]

No, the Access to Information Act currently does not allow us to stop an investigation. We have to see the investigation through for every complaint until we have addressed every aspect of the complaint.

However, if Bill C-58 passes, that will give me the authority to stop investigations into frivolous complaints or complaints from people with ill will. For the same reasons, the institutions will have the right to refuse to respond to a request.

[Caroline Maynard]

One of my priorities this year is to issue more guidance and positions. When we find examples where the section has not been used appropriately, we are going to start publishing more of those decisions. Hopefully, Bill C-58, which will allow me to publish decisions as they are decided instead of waiting for a special report or an annual report, is going to be a big plus. We definitely see some cases where we can help institutions better understand their obligations.

[Caroline Maynard]

I'm really hoping that Bill C-58 will be passed, yes, before....

[Caroline Maynard]

The act still needs to be reviewed, and I'm really happy that one of the amendments is that there's going to be a mandatory review in a year and, after that, every five years, because as everybody knows, we haven't been consulted for Bill C-58. That's one of the issues. A lot of those amendments came after the fact.

I'm really hoping that in the next year we will have the consultations that were necessary and that the examples we have through our investigations will be used to better the act. Especially, I think, some of the exemptions and the exclusions that have not been touched by Bill C-58 need to be looked at with our new digital world and what Canadians are requesting. I'm really looking forward to that process coming up if it's that.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

You are satisfied with Bill C-58 as—

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Would that mean that your predecessor's characterization of Bill C-58 as “regressive” has been transformed by these amendments or is it still...?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Commissioner, for visiting us again.

When Bill C-58 was originally tabled, your predecessor said that it failed to deliver on the government's promise of openness and accessibility and in fact said that it was “a regression of existing rights”. We know that it's in the Senate and there have been many amendments. How would you characterize the bill as it sits in the Senate today with those amendments?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I had put forward amendments for Bill C-58, as had a number of my colleagues, and there was that one provision where the government was sort of taking a step backwards, from my understanding—it was a while ago now—but the Senate fixed that. Is that right?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks very much.

It is incredible in some ways that Bill C-58 is still not law, but you probably feel that more than we do. What number would you be looking at on an ongoing basis to fulfill the needs of your office? What is that magic number?

[Caroline Maynard, Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. I am pleased to be here with you today.

As you said, Mr. Chair, I am joined by France Labine and Layla Michaud.

I now have 15 months under my belt as the new Information Commissioner, and at this point in my mandate, I see very positive signs of progress but also some challenges that lie ahead.

I am very grateful for the $3 million in temporary funding announced for my office in budget 2019, which was sought to allow me to maintain the momentum of my complaint inventory reduction strategy. I will be devoting this money to hiring new investigators, just as I did with the $2.9 million of temporary funding allocated in last year's budget.

This is the fourth consecutive year that my office is requesting and receiving temporary funding. Note that these requests for temporary funding were stopgap measures in anticipation of a more permanent solution. Improved funding is key to enhancing the OIC's capacity to fully and effectively fulfill its mandate.

My team makes the best use of every dollar we receive. We are reviewing and improving the investigation process. We use technology to innovate and speed up tasks and processes. We collaborate with institutions and requesters as much as possible with a view to completing investigations effectively and efficiently.

Our results speak for themselves. The number, the quality and the timeliness of completed investigations have dramatically improved. My team closed more than 2,600 complaints in 2018-19. This is 76% more than the previous year. It's a record for this organization. Two-thirds of these investigations resulted in requesters receiving more information and faster responses from the institution.

However, despite our best year ever, I foresee trouble on the horizon. I started the first year of my mandate with an inventory of approximately 3,500 files and I received more than 2,500 new complaints in 2018-19. This large number of new files meant that despite my team's excellent performance, I was barely able to make a dent in my inventory. At this rate it will take us decades to clear our backlog.

Simply put, my allocated resources of $11.5 million in the main estimates and 93 approved full-time equivalents are stretched extremely thin by the enormous caseload, which has increased by 25% in the last six years. Without the additional funding I could have in the neighbourhood of 5,800 old and new complaints in the books this year.

On top of this, the proposed amendments to the Access to Information Act currently before Parliament will have operational and, therefore, financial impacts on my office—potentially significant ones.

At the time Bill C-58 was introduced, the then President of the Treasury Board stated that the government would also be increasing the Information Commissioner's resources by $5.1 million over the next five years and $1.7 million on an ongoing basis.

While this additional $1.7 million will be very welcome should Bill C-58 be adopted, it will not be sufficient for my office to meet the requirements of the bill in its current form.

Looking ahead, operating year by year with temporary funding is both inefficient and unsustainable. This is my number one complaint. It does not allow me to plan for the medium or long term. Insufficient funding means that I am unable to maintain momentum in completing investigations and ensuring that Canadians' right of access to information is respected.

I can assure you that I will continue to use my current resources to the greatest effect. I will also continue to take every step I can to find efficiencies in my operations, but frankly, there is only so much that reviewing processes and streamlining can achieve. This is why it is a priority for me this year to secure adequate permanent resources that will account for all the work my office has to carry out under the act.

With more ongoing resources, I could increase the size of my investigation team permanently, to not only complete more investigations each year but also get moving on new ones more quickly.

Permanent funding would also be required to allow me to operationalize the amendments to the act and to ensure as smooth a transition as possible.

These are the results I would like to achieve for Canadians.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

I would be pleased to take your questions.

Access to Information

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister can no longer hide the truth about the SNC-Lavalin case.

The Prime Minister says that he has accepted his share of responsibility for the breach of trust, but he is still in power. Two members of his team resigned to deflect attention; one MP was intimidated to the point that she resigned, and two others were expelled because they dared tell the truth.

Any other organization would question his ability to lead. However, the 176 members of the Liberal caucus are following the leader and defending the indefensible. The media have lost patience with the Prime Minister, who used to be their darling.

Following an access to information request, the Privy Council told La Presse that it will not receive a response until November 2019, even though the law provides for a response within 30 days.

Clearly, the Liberals want to prevent the truth from coming out before the election. There is a reason why they are urging senators to adopt Bill C-58, which will let them say that such a request is vexatious or made in bad faith. They hope to bury the truth forever.

Opposition Motion—Transparency and Accountability

[Marco Mendicino, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to speak to the opposition motion that has been brought forward by the member for Timmins—James Bay.

Before I make some comments on the substance of the opposition motion the House is currently seized with, I would like to take a few moments to thank two individuals. First and foremost is the member for Vancouver Granville. When she was Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I served as her parliamentary secretary and I would be remiss if I did not express my gratitude for her work and her contributions to that portfolio. Certainly, it speaks for itself in terms of how we advanced the overall causes toward justice, and her leadership on the indigenous file reaches beyond her time in government here.

I would also like to take a moment to express gratitude for the work of Gerald Butts. I have come to know his family. I am keenly aware of the sacrifices that both he and his family had to make in order to put country before personal time. Obviously, it goes without saying that his loss will be felt by our team. However, we will remain focused on the work he has been committed to in the public interest for many years.

Turning to the opposition motion, as I read it, it calls for two things. First, it calls on the government to waive solicitor-client privilege for the former attorney general with respect to allegations of interference as it relates to an ongoing SNC-Lavalin prosecution. Second, it urges the government to call for a public inquiry in order to provide Canadians with transparency and accountability by the Liberals as promised in the 2015 election.

Going back to those campaign promises, we have indeed made significant strides when it comes to making government more open. I highlight a number of examples, including the introduction of Bill C-58, as well as Bill C-76, which would in fact undo some of the harm caused by the last Conservative government so that we can ensure that every voter has the right and can fully appreciate the right to vote. Bill C-50 would shed more light on political fundraising activities.

As it relates to the justice system, I am very proud of the work our government has done when it comes to ensuring that our judicial appointments process is open, transparent and merit-based. We have also introduced legislation that would improve access to justice. Here, I am referring to Bill C-75, which I know is continuing to be studied by the other place. We look forward to receiving its report back so that we can ensure our justice system is serving all Canadians.

These are all concrete measures that have raised the bar when it comes to open government and having a government that is transparent and accountable to all Canadians. We have supported each and every one of these measures with full and fair debate in the House and in the other place. What did the opposition members do when they had a chance to support those measures? They voted against those measures. That is indeed regrettable, because their voting record, in standing in opposition to those measures, actually speaks much larger volumes about how they feel about open government, as opposed to some of what I have heard from the other side of the aisle today.

The allegations that have been levied against the government are indeed serious. No one on this side of the House takes them lightly. However, as in the case of any allegation, we have to begin by looking at the sources. Who are the sources? Are they reliable? Have they been independently verified? Have they been substantiated?

Here is the truth of the matter. At present, the sources of these allegations are unknown. They are anonymous. They are not corroborated. They are not verified. They are not substantiated. This should be of great concern to not only the members of this chamber who are currently debating the motion. This should be of grave concern to all Canadians. Why is that? It is because in the place of facts, evidence and circumstances that would underlie and underpin these allegations, we have the opposition embarking upon a campaign of conjecture, speculation and a rush to judgment. While indeed I will concede that this does make for good political theatre, it does not advance the pursuit of truth.

The Prime Minister has been clear that at no point did either he or his staff direct the former attorney general or the current Attorney General on the matter of SNC-Lavalin. He has been abundantly clear that at no point did either he or his staff wrongly influence the former or present Attorney General when it comes to the SNC-Lavalin matter.

I understand from the opposition that in answer to those statements made by the Prime Minister they would hear from the former attorney general, the member for Vancouver Granville. It is not for me to speak for the member for Vancouver Granville. It is not for the opposition to speak on her behalf, as I have heard some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle purport to do over the last number of days.

I understand from media reports that the member for Vancouver Granville has sought legal advice. I imagine she is certainly taking that legal advice into consideration. Coincidentally I would note that the legal advice itself is privileged and I will come back to the importance of that principle in a moment. I want to underscore that it is a decision of her making as to if and when she will make a further comment about this matter in public.

In regard to the merits of the motion, the Prime Minister has indicated today, as has his Attorney General, that he has sought and is in the course of seeking legal advice on the matter of solicitor-client privilege as it applies to the motion. Let me say a few words about the importance of solicitor-client privilege.

This is not only a legal principle recognized in the common law. It is not only a legal principle that has been enshrined in various statutes. It is a principle that has been elevated to constitutional status by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is permanent. It survives the relationship between the parties and it is, as the Supreme Court of Canada has held, fundamental to the proper functioning of our government and to our democracy. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that without solicitor-client privilege, the administration of justice, and by extension our democracy, would be compromised. We cannot take for granted what is at stake when we put into play the questions of when solicitor-client privilege applies.

The Prime Minister and the government, as some of my colleagues will have served in the last administration will recall, some of whom indeed were in cabinet themselves, no doubt understand first-hand the importance of this principle as it relates to the day-to-day functioning of our government. It is required in order to ensure that there is an atmosphere, an environment in which the government can seek legal advice on how best to undertake policy and legislative initiatives so that they are consistent with the charter.

Without that environment, without that space, in order to have a free, fair and flowing exchange of ideas, different perspectives and different voices, there would be an undermining of the proper functioning of government. We place this privilege at the very pinnacle of our justice system and it does not just apply to government. It applies to all Canadians. If at any point in time Canadians have either retained a lawyer and have come into play with the justice system, they will understand the importance of having a confidential relationship with their lawyer so that their lawyer can best serve their interests. Canadians would understand that they would not want their lawyers to flippantly waive that privilege. We need to be sure that we put this issue into its proper context in the debate of the opposition motion that is on the floor today.

It is true that in law there are some limited exceptions to this privilege and I understand that members of the opposition are calling with great fervour for the waiver of privilege in this case as it relates to their allegations and the former attorney general of Canada. To my mind, in order to waive this privilege, we need something more compelling, more confirmed and more corroborated than the anonymous sources that have appeared in a number of media reports.

I look to my colleagues in the opposition, and in particular to those who have been called to the bar who have a deep understanding of and I would hope a profound respect for this principle, to substantiate their claim beyond the hyperbole, the exaggeration and the stretched statements that I have listened very carefully to throughout the course of this debate. I am still waiting.

The second part of the opposition motion urges the government to initiate a judicial inquiry, something that my Conservative colleagues have had some experience with themselves. In some cases, there were obvious social causes for which the public requested, of the last Conservative government, the compelling need for an inquiry and the Conservative government refused. One such case was the call for an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women. The last Conservative government consistently, in the face of an ongoing systemic tragedy in our justice system, refused to undertake one. I will let members opposite defend that decision, and I will stand here and explain my reasons the call for a judicial inquiry is, at best, premature.

Currently, there are a number of processes unfolding in Parliament and within the law by statutory parliamentary officers to provide a degree of accountability and transparency in response to the allegations that have been put forward by the opposition.

The first comes from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is meeting at this very moment, if I am not mistaken, to determine which witnesses it will hear from. Once more, the opposition has rushed to judgment. It has made this a partisan matter without waiting to see the full list of witnesses who will be called by that committee.

Respectfully, I would suggest that my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle let that process unfold and place faith in the independence of that committee, in which members on this side of the House place great faith, and in its members' capacity to bring their own ideas, their own thinking and their own principles. I suggest they see where that committee takes this, rather than claiming that on the one hand the committee should do its business, and on the other hand, it is essentially fraught with partisanship. It is either one or the other. Either members of the House will come to that committee with an open mind, an appreciation of independence and an understanding of the importance of this work, or they will not.

Certainly for my colleagues who work on that committee, I have faith in their independence and integrity. I speak on behalf of all members on this side of the House when I say that we all look forward to their ongoing work at committee.

We have also heard from the opposition that we need to have a judicial inquiry because the Ethics Commissioner does not have the sufficient ability or capacity, the statutory mandate, to look into the allegations that are the subject of the opposition motion. In particular, my colleagues in the NDP have expressed their concerns and frustrations regarding the Ethics Commissioner's lack of capacity to do his job.

The first observation to make is that it was the NDP members themselves who decided, of their own volition, which parliamentary official to bring this allegation to.

We are not saying, one way or the other, whether this was the right choice. That was a matter for the NDP to determine. However, listening to the NDP members today in question period, it was somewhat ironic to hear them say on the one hand that they filed a complaint with the Ethics Commissioner and then on the other hand, virtually at the same time, that the Ethics Commissioner did not have the ability to look into the very allegations that they were bringing forward. It is inconsistent and incompatible with basic logic that they would have submitted those allegations to the Ethics Commissioner in the first place if they believed that the Ethics Commissioner was unable to look into them.

We have said that we believe in the work of the Ethics Commissioner. This is a parliamentary officer. This is an officer who is independent from government. This is an officer who is not part of the partisan exercise and debate that is the sine qua non of this place. This is a parliamentary officer who has the statutory mandate to examine the circumstances and the allegations put forward by the opposition.

As we have said repeatedly, we place faith in the office and the people who serve in that office, and we will co-operate at every step of the way, as we have in the past.

There are many other fora and venues for the opposition to make their case. It is not for the government to set those steps or to provide that road map for them. The opposition will determine what it wants to do. However, in the meantime, in addition to all of the remarks that I have made about the subject of this motion, I hope Canadians view this matter as not just simply turning a blind eye. There will be transparency. There will be accountability. I am confident in what the Prime Minister says in saying that there has been no direction and no wrongful influence as it relates to the former attorney general or the present Attorney General, because I know that this is a government that has great respect when it comes to the independence of our judiciary, when it comes to the independence of the legal profession and when it comes to the independence of the administration of justice. I believe firmly that our work speaks to those values.

At the end of the day, what matters more than the theatre and the drama—which can make for good reading on a weekend or at night if there is nothing else to do—is the work, the work of the government, the work to ensure that every Canadian has the opportunity to achieve his or her full potential. It is the work to serve the most vulnerable, which was a campaign promise, a belief on which the government was elected, and work that we do each and every day, together, united in solidarity. It is bigger than any one of us. It is bigger than all of us. It is the very reason we are here: to serve the public, to serve the public interest.

For all those reasons, I am going to encourage my opposition colleagues to reconsider this motion and to put our focus and our energies back on the people who sent us here—Canadians.

Motions in amendment

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, free and fair elections are the fundamental essence of a democracy. While we know that more than half the world's population today lives under autocratic, dictatorial or otherwise democratically deficient regimes, Canadians, until recently, could be fairly confident that elections here were the gold standard in terms of freeness and fairness.

Let me assure folks who may be watching this debate that Canadian elections are indeed free in the sense that voters can be fully confident that the choices they make on their election ballots, supervised by Elections Canada, remain secret. However, when it comes to fair elections, where, by definition, all parties have an equal right to contest elections without fear, favour or interference and an expectation of a level playing field, voters may not yet be fully aware that the concept has increasingly been compromised in recent years in a variety of unacceptable ways.

Bill C-76, as with Bill C-50 earlier this year, falls far short of addressing the increasing vulnerabilities and threats, domestic and foreign, to the fairness of the federal election coming in 2019. In fact, Bill C-76 follows the Liberal government's pattern in this Parliament of introducing amendments to Canadian institutions and laws, in place for years, that are promoted as improvements but are actually regressive. We saw it in amendments to the Access to Information Act, Bill C-58, a flawed piece of legislation that was specifically condemned as regressive by the former information commissioner. Despite a significant number of tweaks, Bill C-58 remains regressive.

We saw it earlier this year in amendments to the Canada Elections Act, through Bill C-50, that claimed to end, or at least make more transparent, the Liberal Party's notorious cash for access fundraising events. The Liberals have made much of the new protocols, claiming to observe the letter of the amended law. It was passed in June but does not actually come into effect until December. Bill C-50 actually bakes into law a lobbyist cash for access loophole for Liberal fundraising, the notorious Laurier Club lobbyist loophole.

Bill C-76 makes similar false claims of strengthening and protecting the democratic Canadian electoral process. This is a bill that should have been before the House in more substantial form a year ago. It is a bill the Liberals are now rushing, actually stumbling, a more appropriate characterization, into law, with less than a year until the 2019 election. If anyone doubts the clumsiness of the Liberals' development of the bill, the government was forced to propose, and with its majority pass, in committee almost six dozen amendments. That is the definition of incompetence in government.

The Conservative Party, attempting to stiffen the legislation, proposed over 200 amendments. Regrettably, only six gained Liberal support. Major deficiencies remain. They include the use of the voter information card as acceptable voter identification and the Liberal insistence that all non-resident Canadians be allowed to vote, no matter how long they have been away from Canada, no matter whether they have paid taxes in recent years, no matter whether they follow Canadian politics or know the names of political candidates, and no matter whether they ever intend to return to Canada. As many as 2.8 million Canadian citizens are living outside the country.

I know the time is short, and I must say that I have noticed in the last few minutes a familiar stale stink wafting across the floor from the other side of the House. It smells to me as though we are about to hear the dreaded majority government democratic guillotine, the notice of time allocation. By the time the guillotine drops tomorrow, I would expect that barely three members of the opposition will have had a chance to speak to this incredibly flawed bill, Bill C-76.

I know the clock on the wall forces us to move to procedure.

I look forward to concluding my remarks tomorrow.

National Defence Act

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I decided to join my colleagues today in speaking to Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. Throughout the day we have heard some wonderful speeches explaining a lot of the great good that the bill would eventually do. We are very honoured to have a lot of veterans from our Armed Forces serving as MPs who have given some wonderful insight. I want to thank them for that and also for the general nonpartisan discourse we have heard today.

I call the bill the “freaky Friday bill” because the government has basically swapped titles with a bill by the previous Conservative government. For those who are not followers of pop culture, Freaky Friday was a movie in which Lindsay Lohan and Jamie Lee Curtis played daughter-mom characters who switched bodies. It is quite interesting that the Liberal government has consistently labelled the opposition as Harper Conservatives, yet it does not hesitate to try to pass off Harper Conservative legislation as its own, as it is doing with Bill C-77. There is barely a sentence muttered by that side of the House that does not blame every problem under the sun on Harper Conservatives. It is kind of funny to be debating the Liberals' copy of the Harper Conservatives' legislation. It is too bad that the government does not copy the Harper Conservatives' commitment to victims of crime.

We are debating a bill that is almost a direct clone of a previous military justice reform bill, Bill C-71. It was introduced by the Harper government because it was simply the right thing to do. We believe that someone needed to stand up for victims of sexual misconduct and other forms of discrimination in the armed forces. It is the ultimate irony that we are debating victims' rights in this legislation on the day when question period was focused on the government giving military benefits to a murderer who never served a second in our military, but I digress.

The bill introduced today shows that the Liberals are following the good examples that our party set by keeping the items that we had in our bill, including enshrining the victims bill of rights into the National Defence Act, putting a statute of limitations of six months on summary hearing cases, and clarifying what cases should be handled by a summary hearing.

The fact that it took the Liberals three years to introduce the bill is disgraceful. It confirms the Liberals' position that victims' rights are secondary to basically everything else. It should come as no surprise, considering how long the government is taking to appoint judges to ensure that those arrested for horrific crimes are not set free due to judicial delays.

We had a a gang member suspected of committing mass murder released in Calgary as a result of the government's refusal to appoint judges. This gang member, who is suspected by the Calgary police of murdering up to 20 people in Calgary, has been set free. Moreover, another accused murderer was set free in Edmonton due to the government's inability to appoint judges. A man in Nova Scotia who broke both of his infant child's legs with a baseball bat was set free due to delays because the government will not prioritize justice.

Here we have waited three years for this legislation to be brought to the House, legislation that is almost identical to Bill C-71 by the previous government. It is not as if the Liberals had to start from scratch, yet it took them three years to bring it to the floor.

I want to look at some of the legislation brought in by the Liberals that is apparently of higher priority than victims' rights. Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing), was brought in to address their own unethical fundraising scams. They were caught selling access to ministers, so they brought in legislation to curtail their own unethical fundraising. Of course, they probably continue to allow lobbyists to pay for direct access to the ministers. Here is a thought: Why not just act ethically and not require legislation to address their cash for access scandals, and instead prioritize this legislation for victims?

Bill C-58 would amend the Access to Information Act, but the Liberals have still have not done anything with it. Access to information is very important, but the legislation introduced by the Liberal Party watered down access and transparency. The Liberals took the time to introduce legislation that would weaken Canadians' access to information and put it as a higher priority than legislation for victims.

Earlier, the government House leader, who introduced Bill C-24, was heckling me about government priorities. Bill C-24 aimed to pay ministers of state at the same rate as ministers and changed the official title of the public works department act. That ridiculous bill basically just changed the salary of certain ministers of state to match cabinet ministers' salaries.

Legislation already existed to allow the Liberals to do that, but they had to bring in new legislation for certain unnecessary reasons. They also spent time changing the official name of Public Works to Public Services and Procurement Canada. They spent days in the House debating that bill, days in committee studying it. How is this possibly more important or a greater priority than victims' rights? It is another example of poor leadership by the Prime Minister and how he is constantly failing our troops. It is just like the used jets, taking away tax relief for troops fighting ISIS, saying that veterans are asking for too much, and doing absolutely nothing to get our troops the equipment they need in the numbers they need. The government is failing our troops.

Our previous Conservative government focused on restoring victims to their rightful place at the heart of our justice system. It is why we introduced Bill C-71, which mirrored the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights that was adopted by Parliament, to ensure that those same rights were incorporated into military law. It was the result of several years of work and took into account the hundreds of submissions and consultations held with victims and groups concerned with victims' rights.

We have seen what the Liberal government has done for our troops and veterans over the last three years, so we are not going to hold our breath that it is will actually move forward with the legislation here.

This can be seen from the Liberals' consistent commitment to progress on a variety of items. For example, they set-up studies and ignore the findings, introduce legislation and then wash their hands of the issue.

I would like to talk about the government's beloved wordplay exercise “what I say and what I mean”. The government specifically says “investment” rather than “spend”, so it can completely sidestep any responsibility for action because, technically, introducing a bill on an issue is an investment, an investment in time and news releases.

We note there are very few instances of the government actually putting spending in place for any given investment opportunity. In cases where legislation is introduced, we see few instances of achieved results. The government's “Strong, Secure, Engaged” plan for our troops is a prime example. It touts its record investments, but experts agree that the likelihood of its being executed is slim to none.

According to a report published by Dave Perry at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, there is a significant gap between spending allocations and capital spending. Perry writes:

As a percentage increase relative to 2016/2017, the capital projections in SSE would see spending increase by 98 per cent in the policy’s first year, 106 per cent in its second, 172 per cent in its sixth and by 315 per cent by 2024/2025.

These increases in spending are not comparable to any other time in Canadian history except the Korean War. We have pie in the sky ideas from the government on what it is going to do, but when it comes to actually doing it, our troops are left empty-handed. Suffice it to say, while the intentions behind this bill are sound, the likelihood of the government's actioning them is slim.

I would like to go through a couple of other things the government has on the go, things like “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, as I mentioned; Phoenix, and of course we know where that is; Trans Mountain, with billions of dollars being spend on a pipeline that is not getting built; and the veterans hiring act. We actually met in committee yesterday and discussed why the government was not moving on that. We just received a shrug from the Liberal members and witnesses. Other items include infrastructure and electoral reform. Again and again, we see the government making commitments it does not follow through on. There is also the issue of fighter jets, buying old jets from Australia so it does not have to take the political hit for buying the F-35 in an election year. It is going to take the government longer to procure sleeping bags for our troops than it takes our NATO allies to run open competitions for their new fighter jets.

While being similar in a number of ways with the Conservative government's previous bill, Bill C-77 is different in some key ways. That is why this side of the House would like to see it further discussed and debated at committee. As with any legislation, especially as it pertains to our troops, we should ensure that due diligence is done, that our concerns about certain areas are discussed, and that the bill is discussed with experts and officials at committee. Conservatives very much support enshrining victims' rights in the military justice system. It is why we introduced Bill C-71 in the previous Parliament.

Victims' rights are important. This legislation is important. Here is to hoping it does not get added to the government's long list of items on its mandate tracker as “under way with challenges”.

Department of Industry Act

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech and for admitting that the government could invest in the economy.

Our government recognizes the importance of innovation as a critical tool for business growth. That is why, like many other industrialized countries around the world, we are offering a financial solution to companies that want to grow, access new markets, and develop technologies that will benefit an innovation-based economy.

Our innovation and skills plan establishes a long-term economic vision for Canada that is fuelled by innovation, strong growth, talent, and a collective will to ensure that no one is left behind.

In order to successfully implement the innovation and skills plan, we have to find new ways to reflect how governments support and stimulate economic growth that is inclusive through greater harmonization, better collaboration, and a strategic approach for supporting innovation in every region of Canada.

Let me be clear. This is not corporate welfare or subsidies for big business. This is smart investment in Canada's businesses, in Canada's people, and in Canadian ideas from coast to coast to coast. These investments will create thousands of middle-class jobs and, in particular, create the economy that we want to have both now and for our children and grandchildren. The support provided by government is done with a merit-based approach and focused on specific projects with results and goals set out clearly.

Members should note that this support is provided in an open and transparent manner, and in accordance with proactive disclosure requirements for grants and contributions that enhance the transparency and oversight of public resources.

Our government's proactive disclosure requirements already meet, and in many cases exceed, the requirements set out in Bill C-396. For example, the member for Beauce said that before, “...taxpayers could go to the department's website and find out which companies had received financial assistance [and] how much they received...”.

I am surprised that the member opposite is not aware that this has been the Government of Canada's practice since 2006, and it is still the practice. In fact, under this government, these requirements have been enhanced.

Since April 1, agencies, crown corporations, and federal departments have been following the new guidelines on the reporting of grants and contributions awards. The new guidelines set clear and explicit requirements for federal agencies with respect to the proactive disclosure of their grants and contributions, and these requirements largely exceed those set out in the bill before us. The guidelines take a whole-of-government approach instead of targeting a single federal department.

All information on federal government grants and contributions will be posted at www.open.canada.ca. Canadians will have access to a single site where they can better monitor how the government is using public resources.

The amount of information to disclose increased considerably, with respect to both the previously announced requirements and the requirements set out in Bill C-396. From now on, federal agencies will have to disclose much more information for each disclosure. This includes a more detailed section on the objective of the awards, the expected results, and the recipient. The bill we are debating today does not contain such explicit requirements.

In addition, if the bill is passed, these publication requirements will be strengthened and modernized by Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, currently before the Senate. Bill C-58 introduces the legislative requirement for the proactive publication of grants and contributions in line with the new guidelines that I just outlined.

I also want to clarify a few things regarding some of the statements made in previous discussions on Bill C-396. More specifically, I would like to revisit something the member for Beauce said, specifically that Industry Canada publishes individual loan agreements, or repayable contribution agreements, including the specific terms and conditions of repayment. That is one of the requirements that Bill C-396 aims to impose on Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.

I want to make it very clear that ISED, the former Industry Canada, has never published the terms and conditions of individual funding agreements or the agreements themselves. The ISED website contains general documents on the terms and conditions as well as program guides that include information on the repayment of funding contributions. This gives Canadians some idea of the government's objectives and needs when public resources are used to support businesses and it gives businesses an overview of the kinds of measures that might be used to determine their repayment schedule.

By contrast, Bill C-396 requires the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to publish information on individual agreements, thereby forcing the government to publish sensitive, confidential commercial information on private Canadian businesses. That information could potentially be used by a domestic or foreign competitor to undermine the competitiveness of Canadian firms in the global innovation economy.

This would be of particular concern to smaller, privately owned businesses that are not already required to publicly report on things like revenues and expenditures in the same way as publicly traded companies. These are matters of privacy and security that we need to contend with as well.

In essence, Bill C-396 would place undue disclosure requirements on individual Canadian businesses, and compromise their competitive position in the market. I, for one, would like the member opposite to explain why he thinks it is okay to impose undue regulatory burdens on businesses, especially our small and medium-sized businesses. In fact, they are the largest receivers of government investment, which they using to try to scale up and grow their businesses right here in Canada, as opposed to moving elsewhere.

The newly implemented proactive publication requirements for grants and contributions, as well as Bill C-58, fully support the principles of greater transparency and accountability with respect to the use of public money, without unduly imposing transparency requirements on private businesses and organizations.

In summary, Bill C-396 would not improve the government's proactive publication practices as intended, and would undermine the government's efforts to collaborate with Canadian businesses that benefit Canada by generating investment, developing new technologies, and enhancing Canadian innovation capacity and expertise.

Since forming government in 2015, we have taken concrete action to ensure greater openness and transparency, without compromising business confidence. While the member for Beauce presents the bill under the veil of openness and transparency, we all know that its real purpose is ideological. That member is fundamentally opposed to the idea of taxpayer dollars going to Canadian businesses. His position is clear: he does not believe in investing in the people, ideas, and innovations of Canadian businesses. What is not clear is if he speaks on behalf of his party.

The member for Beauce also questions the relevance and importance of the work carried out by our regional development agencies and their support for small and medium-sized businesses across Canada, support that we have increased as a government. Of course, that is his prerogative, but it is also unclear whether that is the position of his leader and his party, which is especially interesting because he is also the Conservative Party's official critic of ISED and a member of the industry committee. Do they view investing in Canadian businesses as corporate welfare? Certainly we do not.

For all those reasons, our government cannot support this bill. We are going to keep supporting Canadians and Canadian businesses.

Elections Modernization Act

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments, also known as “the bill to change the rules to favour the Liberals because they cannot fundraise competitively, and other consequential amendments”. However, that is just the working title.

I appreciate that the minister for electoral reform has come back to the House. The job done previous to her by the treasury board president has been a mess. Now the treasury board president has shown once again that he is not up to the job, whether it is watching Bill C-58 , the Access to Information Act, or his complicity in ignoring reports that Phoenix was not ready, or his attempt to pass off his $7 billion estimate slush fund as transparency.

The acting Chief Electoral Officer had made it 100% clear to the government and Parliament a year ago that he would need legislative changes completed by April 28 in order to have time to be ready for the fall 2019 election, not starting debate and not introducing the legislation by April 28, but completely finished by April 28, through the House and Senate. However, here we are. Instead of having legislation debated and passed through the Senate by now, the Liberals are now just starting.

Let us go back a bit. Following the 2015 election, Elections Canada provided a list of recommendations for changes. The procedures committee was looking at these recommendations for a report to bring back to the House. Then out of nowhere the government dropped in our lap Bill C-33 , an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. Before the report from the committee was completed, the Liberals introduced a bill with incomplete information.

The Liberals rushed in a flawed bill, ignoring the procedures committee, and promptly did absolutely nothing for an entire year. If we add in the inability to appoint a permanent chief elections officer, the cynical Bill C-50 to distract from their cash for access scandals, and the desire to create a debates commission, we have typical Liberal ineptness. Well done, mission accomplished.

How did we get here? We went through the sham consultations a year and a half ago on the electoral reform. It was the same consultation meant to change the voting process from first pass the post to a system that would of course favour the Liberals. This is from their website, and it is still up, “We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.”

Henry James, considered by many as one of the greatest novelists in the English language, has said, “To read between the lines was easier than to follow the text.” If we read between the lines of “We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system”, we get if and only if the Liberals get the system they want, one that would guarantee Liberal re-election, then 2015 will be the last under the first-past-the-post system. Further reading between the lines we also see, “If we don't get the system that favours only the Liberals, then we'll abandon the plan”.

It is funny that when we go to the Liberal mandate tracker it shows electoral reform as not being pursued. It is not a broken promise, or thrown into trash or not being pursued. If we go down a bit further on the mandate tracker and look under “Balance the budget”, which is also in their mandate letter to balance the budget by 2019, it says “Underway - with challenges”. There are tens of billions of added debt. Maybe the budget will be balanced by 2045, but we do not know as the finance minister will not answer.

The Liberals are adding $43 billion in debt from when it was supposed to be balanced in 2019 in the mandate to the end of where the budget shows in 2022-23, with $75 billion of added debt over the period from being elected to 2022-23. This is what they call “Underway - with challenges”.

At the operations committee, we asked representatives of the Privy Council Office about this. Privy Council runs this mandate tracker website. We asked them why they would put out this information. It was very clearly a lie and misinformation. They said that the finance department told them to. I feel badly for the Privy Council having to sit at committee and defend such disingenuous information.

Let us go back to Bill C-76 and look at some of the measures in the bill to change the rules that favour the Liberals, because they cannot competitively fundraise, and other consequential amendments. It allows the Chief Electoral Officer to authorize the voter information card as a piece of ID. This is not a voter ID card, as some people are trying to pass it off as; it is a voter information card. People can head to the polls with that piece, which was mailed to them, and vote.

Here are some fun facts from the last election. Non-Canadian citizens were sent the card in the mail, even though they were not eligible to vote. Cards went out with the wrong names. People were directed to the wrong polling station, sometimes 100 kilometres away. There was a 1.5% error rate on the 26.5 billion cards that were sent out, which means 400,000 people got cards with wrong names, wrong addresses, and so on.

In the 2011 election, before that one, three-quarters of a million Canadians moved during the 36-day writ period.

Elections Canada says that the voters list that it draws the cards from is just a snapshot in time. We are going to base the entire integrity of our election on a snapshot in time? Elections Canada says that it cannot even check the voters list to ensure that those on the list receiving the cards are actually Canadians.

To summarize, hundreds of thousands of incorrect cards are going out and three-quarters of a million people are moving during a standard election period. Over a million people potentially could have the wrong card or have someone else's card. Elections Canada is stating that there is no way to check if the cards are going out to Canadian citizens. The integrity of democracy is based on what Elections Canada calls a “snapshot in time”.

This bill would allow Canadians living abroad to vote regardless of how long they have lived outside the country and whether they intend to return. Right now it is five years. It is being challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not even ruled on this yet and the Liberal government will bring in changes to allow anyone, regardless of how long they have been out of country, to vote.

Three million Canadians are living abroad, wonderful people, spreading the word of hockey in Canada around the world. However, should we allow those who have no intention of ever returning to Canada to help decide our policies in our country? The Ontario Court of Appeals, which ruled on the five year law, stated that it was democratically justified because it preserved the social contract between voters and lawmakers.

I know the Liberal government loves social licence, social licence for pipelines and for everything else, but I wish it would respect the social contract as has been decided by the Ontario courts.

There is no requirement that any of these expats have to vote in the last riding they lived in or even have visited one of the ridings. My brother, Bob, who left the country about 18 years ago, lives in New Jersey. He has never once stepped foot in my riding of Edmonton West. Should he be allowed to vote in my riding, even though he has never stepped foot in it and left Canada about 18 years ago? I have to wonder how many ridings across Canada in the last election were settled or won by less than 1,000 votes.

Concerted efforts by unfriendly foreign regimes could easily swing ridings by those with no skin in the game. Again, should people with perhaps no roots here and no family here and who perhaps pay no taxes and have not stepped foot in Canada for 10, 15, 20, or 30 years be deciding our foreign policy or what communities are getting funds for infrastructure? Should those who have zero intent of returning be deciding who sits in these chairs in the House?

I mentioned my brother. I love him dearly and still feel bad about knocking his teeth out playing hockey years ago, but I do not think he should be eligible to vote in Canada. He left many years ago.

I want to talk about the ID issue. We heard a lot of misinformation and saw hand-wringing throughout this debate about voter suppression under the Fair Elections Act. Let us look at the truth and the facts. Under the Fair Elections Act, we had an 11.5% increase in voter turnout in the 2015 election. It surged.

Here are some of the IDs that people could use: certificate of citizenship, citizenship card, Indian status card, band membership card, Métis card, old age security card, hospital card, CNIB card, credit card, debit card, and employee card. There is over 60 valid pieces of ID that can be used. People can even get a note from a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter to use as ID.

The bill would allow a maximum of third-party spending to soar through the roof, to allow Tides Foundation in the U.S.A., and Russian influence in Tides, to influence our election here. It is wrong. We have seen the issue of Facebook data misuse and Russian hacking. The bill would allow money from these groups to influence our vote.

We have seen the government try to change the rules when it falters. The Liberals changed the fundraising rules and they tried to change our rules in this place when they found the opposition to be too effective. They tried to change how Canadians voted to rig the next election. Now the government is botching this bill.

Bill C-76 is an omnibus of a mess and should be dismissed.

[Caroline Maynard]

Under the current wording of Bill C-58, the institution will not be allowed to turn that down without our approval.

[Caroline Maynard]

I can tell you that I have shared three concerns, currently, with Bill C-58. The key area is the mandatory requirements in section 6. I do believe those requirements will limit access and will probably even deter people from asking for information. I've also made clear to Mr. Brison and his team, and to Senator Ringuette, that it's a concern I'd like to talk to them about. I don't think it's necessary. I think the status quo with the Access to Information Act will be better for Canadians.

Also, the transition period for the order-making power is a concern. The lack of enforcement for the order-making power is also something we want to address. The current Bill C-58 doesn't provide me with the authority to get a certification of the orders at the Federal Court level. Not having a mechanism to ensure they respect the orders could potentially lead an institution to not abide by those orders.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Madame Maynard. It's wonderful to have you at our committee again.

I want to follow up on my colleague's direction. Your predecessor was very scathing in her analysis of Bill C-58 and its threat to access to information. The Canadian Journalists for Free Expression have also raised many concerns about the way the act is written and how it will limit journalists' ability to obtain information. Do you share their concerns?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Are you looking to Senate amendments to improve Bill C-58 operationally for you?

[Caroline Maynard]

No. The complaints that we've received will have to be dealt with under the current act. Any new complaints received after Bill C-58 is passed will then be affected by the amendments. That's why I was saying that if nothing changes in the amendments, we will end up with three different types of investigation and complaint processes because the order-making power comes into effect a year after Bill C-58 will be approved. That means I'm going to have the old-fashioned complaint system with recommendations, a one-year new system with recommendations also; and in a year from now, then I would have the power to issue orders. This concern has been addressed already through a letter that I've sent to Mr. Brison, and I'm told they are looking into it. I've also sent a letter to Senator Ringuette, who is responsible for the bill. I've addressed those concerns with them.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Commissioner, for your appearance today.

Your predecessor composed an unprecedented and scathing evaluation of Bill C-58—a report card effectively with more fails than passes—and characterized it as regressive, in regard to access to information for Canadians. When you appeared before us, you were somewhat more discreet and said that anything in this bill that slows access or obstructs access is a concern and any area where accountability or access is increased represents progress.

In your opening remarks, you've mentioned the potential operational challenges should Bill C-58 be passed as it is today. It's in second reading in the Senate and a number of senators have indicated quite strongly that they will be making amendments to this legislation. Before you know the outcome of this piece of legislation, are some of your investigations or files on hold pending the legislation you will have to work with in the longer term?

[Caroline Maynard, Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada]

Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

I am pleased to appear before you today for the first time since my appointment as Information Commissioner of Canada.

Joining me are Layla Michaud, Deputy Commissioner of Investigations and Governance, and Gino Grondin, Deputy Commissioner of Legal Services and Public Affairs.

Let me first thank you for placing your confidence in me to carry out the duties of the Information Commissioner. It is an honour to serve Canadians in this role, and I look forward to the next seven years of working to ensure openness and transparency at the federal level.

My first two months on the job have been very busy and an interesting time of learning. I met with each and every employee at the office during my first two weeks. It did not take long for me to see that I have an excellent and experienced management team, as well as a very dedicated and professional staff. My meetings with employees and managers allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of the work done by my office. I also gained a greater appreciation of the 35 years of institutional knowledge that my office holds, and the strong foundation I have to build on.

In addition, I became more familiar with the challenges and the opportunities that the organization faces. This has allowed me to determine where to focus my efforts in the coming months and years.

I have four priorities that I would like to share with you.

My first priority is to address the inventory of complaints my office has yet to complete, while investigating new complaints as they arrive. I will also work with my team to improve operational efficiency and streamline the investigation process to reduce delays when possible.

My second priority will be to take steps to implement the anticipated amendments contained in Bill C-58. These proposed changes present potential operational challenges for my office. For example, if the bill is enacted as currently drafted, my office will have to manage, potentially for a number of years, three distinct complaint and investigation processes due to transition periods in the bill.

My third priority will be to ensure that the day-to-day work of my office is open and transparent. I will also stress these values in my interactions with institutions, members of Parliament, and Canadians. In addition, work is already under way to enhance and refresh my office's web and social media presence.

My goal is to make the complaint process simple and transparent for Canadians. I also want to provide more guidance to both complainants and institutions on the investigation process and the decisions taken, and more timely updates on access to information news and activities.

Finally, my team will work closely with institutions to help them meet their obligations under the Access to Information Act, and we'll address systemic issues. In the coming months, I intend to personally meet with access to information coordinators and the heads of a number of institutions to reinforce the importance of this collaborative approach and promote openness and accountability.

I will embrace every opportunity to collaborate with you and with Parliament as a whole, with institutions, and with other stakeholders, including the Privacy Commissioner. I will also emphasize the importance of sharing best practices. Canadians deserve to have institutions that are open by default and that make access a priority.

For the coming year, and just like the last six years, my office's main estimates are $11.4 million, and I have 93 approved full-time equivalents. Approximately 80% of this funding will go to deliver our investigations program. The other 20% will be dedicated to our corporate services, such as finance, information technology, and human resources.

As you likely know, the government announced $2.9 million in temporary funding for my office in the 2018 federal budget. I plan to use these funds for the resolution of complaints. In particular, I would bolster my investigations team for 2018-19.

I would fill vacant permanent positions and rehire the experienced consultants that my office engaged in past years. This would be good news for Canadians. My office would be able to complete more investigations in the coming year because of this additional funding.

Ideally, however, my office would be provided with permanent funding to allow me to permanently increase the size of my team and bring stability to the office. The volume of complaints my office receives is increasing. My team registered nearly 2,600 new files in the year that just ended on March 31. This is a 25% increase over 2016-17. As more and more Canadians submit requests under the act, the number of complaints will keep growing. I'm very much of the view that temporary funding and temporary staffing will not address the challenges my office faces. To meet this demand, my office needs more permanent funding.

I am pleased that the President of the Treasury Board announced last June that my office's resources will be increased on an ongoing basis in response to the adoption of Bill C-58. However, this funding will not be sufficient to meet the growing demands on my office and serve the needs of Canadians.

In closing, I wish to emphasize two aspects of the positive impact an increase in permanent funding would have for my office. First, as I've said, it would bring stability to the organization. I could hire enough employees to ensure the act is appropriately applied and respond to complaints in a timely manner. I could also retain these employees from year to year, providing needed continuity. Second, I could pursue innovative options for making the investigation process more efficient. I would like to capitalize on technology to enhance my office's service to Canadians.

That being said, thank you, again, for inviting me to appear today. I look forward to further opportunities to report on the progress I am making against my priorities and on my statutory mandate.

I would be pleased to take your questions.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

This is almost exactly the same as amendment LIB-22, however this applies to CSIS and CSE and, as I said before, it deals with any potential ambiguity that Bill C-58 brings into play. It addresses a drafting error, as the official mentioned.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment would clarify that the intelligence commissioner can receive information when evaluating ministerial decisions, subject to a privilege under the law of evidence. It seeks to address in particular any ambiguity relating to privileges under the law of evidence that would be posed by Bill C-58.

Department of Industry Act

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to being open and transparent about how taxpayer dollars are spent so that Canadians are better able to hold Parliament and the government accountable. In fact, we have recently introduced proactive disclosure requirements for grants and contributions that enhance transparency and oversight of public resources. These requirements set a higher bar for openness and transparency with regard to financial support provided by the government. These guidelines exceed many of the requirements laid out in this bill.

In June 2016, as part of the open government action plan, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat committed to increasing the transparency and usefulness of grants and contributions data. The initiative was spearheaded by a TBS-led committee of 37 participating departments, agencies, and crown corporations, known as the Committee on the Reporting of Grants and Contributions Awards. This was part of the first major renewal of the proactive disclosure requirements for grants and contributions since the policy first came into effect in 2006. As a result, starting on April 1, 2018, federal departments, agencies, and crown corporations have been following the new guidelines on the reporting of grants and contributions awards, which consist of three major themes.

First, the government will now have to disclose all grants and contributions, not just those over $25,000, as required previously. In fact, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, the department targeted by this bill, has been following this practice for its grants and contributions since last January.

Second, all government grants and contributions information will be posted on the open.canada.ca platform rather than on each federal organization's website. This will give Canadians a simple, one-stop repository that will better enable them to oversee how their government is using public resources.

Third, the amount of information to be disclosed has been dramatically increased. Previously, each grant or contribution disclosure contained basic identifying information, including the value of the award, the name and location of the recipient, and limited information on the purpose of the funding. Now the government will publish a much more robust amount of information for each disclosure. This includes a more comprehensive section on the purpose of the award, the expected outcomes, and information on the recipient.

In addition, if passed, these reporting requirements would be strengthened and modernized through Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which is currently being reviewed by the Senate. Bill C-58 would create a legislated requirement for the proactive publication of grants and contributions aligned with the new guidelines I just explained.

In seeking to legislate these requirements, rather than enacting them through policy, the government is looking to enhance the accountability and transparency of federal institutions to promote an open and democratic society and enable public debate on the conduct of those institutions.

As I have just shown, the current proactive disclosure requirements and proposed legislative changes through Bill C-58 would provide Canadians with robust oversight of public resources. Importantly, this would be done, unlike with the proposed bill, without compromising the competitive position of individual firms.

Bill C-396 would require private businesses and organizations to release sensitive commercial information, potentially compromising their competitiveness and market position. This bill would effectively obligate the government to publish the commercially sensitive and confidential information of private Canadian businesses, information that could potentially be used by a competitor, domestic or foreign, to undermine the competitive position of Canadian companies in the global innovation economy. This would be of particular concern to smaller, privately owned businesses that are not already required to publicly report things like revenues and expenditures in the same way publicly traded companies are.

The Government of Canada supports firms looking to scale up, expand into new markets, and develop technologies that support a modern, innovation economy.

The government's support for innovators and entrepreneurs is essential to achieving the goals set out in the innovation and skills plan to build an economy that works for everyone, an economy where Canadians have access to high-quality jobs and where Canadian businesses are well placed to compete in a rapidly evolving and competitive global marketplace.

Despite what the member opposite who has tabled this bill claims about this kind of support, the government is not in the business of corporate welfare. Rather, the government's support for innovative projects and collaborations helps Canadian firms enhance research and development activities, which benefits Canadians and Canada by generating investment, developing new technologies, and enhancing Canadian innovation capacity and expertise.

From the development of new clean technologies to the scaling up of small businesses, the government supports entrepreneurs and researchers working in various sectors of the economy who demonstrate the potential to drive forward Canada's innovation economy. The government will continue to support cutting-edge research that drives innovation and the development of new products and services for global consumers.

This is just one of the many ways the Government of Canada is working toward creating a competitive business environment that will benefit all Canadians and also attract investment. We have made significant strides in advancing this ambitious plan to strengthen the middle class, create jobs, and ensure a clean and inclusive future for all Canadians.

Just recently, we successfully announced the selection of five innovation superclusters. Small and medium-sized enterprises, large companies, academic institutions, and not-for-profit organizations will work together to advance Canada's technological capabilities.

We are also simplifying the way we support innovators with the creation of Innovation Canada to serve as a single point of contact for entrepreneurs looking to grow their businesses and as a gateway to government programs and services. The government provides a broad level of support to businesses looking to scale up, expand into new markets, and develop technologies to grow an innovation economy.

Governments should not be compromising sensitive commercial information that would undermine the competitiveness of those firms or Canada's attractiveness as a place to invest. The new, proactive disclosure requirements the government has put in place already strengthen the oversight of the use of public resources without creating a disincentive for businesses to get the help they need to benefit Canadians.

Bill C-396 would impede the government's efforts to better support innovation and entrepreneurship in Canada. Strong collaboration between ISED and the business community is essential to successfully drive forth the innovation and skills plan, create jobs, and improve the standard of living for all Canadians.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Sure. The amendment clarifies that, when investigating complaints, the review agency has access to information that is subject to common law privileges under the law of evidence not otherwise named, such as police informer privilege. The intent was always for the review agency, again, to access this class of information, but making this explicit removes any ambiguity.

Finally, Bill C-58 makes explicit reference to privileges under the law of evidence. This raised the possibility that the absence of such language from Bill C-59 could be interpreted as suggesting a lack of access. This avoids that risk by making the review agency's access clear in legislation.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment would clarify that, when conducting reviews, the NSIRA has access to all information except cabinet confidences. That would include information that is subject to common law privileges under the law of evidence, such as police and former privilege. The intent was always for the agency to access this information, but making it more explicit removes any potential for disputes should they arise in the future.

Finally, Bill C-58 makes explicit reference to privileges under the law of evidence and it raises the possibility that the absence of such language from this bill, Bill C-59, could be interpreted as suggesting a lack of access. As such, the need to make the review agency's access clear is here with this amendment.

Access to Information

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are proud to be the first government in over 30 years to make substantial improvements to the Access to Information Act. We understand that more must be done, which is why Bill C-58 includes a mandatory review of the act every five years, the first review beginning no later than one year after the bill receives royal assent.

Let us be clear, Bill C-58, for the first time in 34 years, gives the Information Commissioner order-making powers. That is an advancement. For the first time ever, the act applies to the minister's offices and to the PMO. That is an advancement. For the first time ever, the act applies to 240 federal entities from the courts to the ports. That is also an advancement.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-58.

Bill C-58 is guided by the principle that government information belongs to the people it serves. It advances the original intent of the act in a way that reflects today's technologies, policies, and legislation. It does this by kicking off a progressive, ongoing renewal of the AT system, one that will protect Canadians' right of access to government information well into the future. It does this by adding a new part of the act relating to proactive disclosure, one that puts into practice the idea of “open by default”.

The proactive disclosure system will apply to more than 240 departments, agencies, and crown corporations, including the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices, senators and members of Parliament, institutions that support Parliament, administrative institutions that support the courts, and over 1,100 judges of the superior courts.

We will also be putting into law the proactive publication of information that is known to be of high interest to Canadians, information that provides greater transparency and accountability for the use of public funds. These include travel and hospitality expenses for ministers and their staff, and senior officials across government. I was happy to hear that the member was talking about the concerns her constituency has. I am sure they will be happy to know that finally the NDP joined our government in the proactive disclosure of expenses. It took a while but we are happy they are on board with us.

Contracts over $10,000, and all contracts of MPs and senators will also be included, as well as all grants and contributions over $25,000; mandate letters and revised mandate letters; briefing packages for new ministers and deputy ministers; lists of briefing notes for the minister or deputy minister; and the briefing binders prepared for question period and parliamentary committee appearances. Departments will also regularly review the information being requested under the act to help us understand and increase the kinds of information that could be proactively disclosed.

We will also strengthen the request-based side of the system by developing a guide to provide requesters with clear explanations for exemptions and exclusions, investing in tools to make processing information requests more efficient, allowing federal institutions with the same minister to share request processing services for greater efficiency, and increasing government training to get common and consistent interpretation and application of the ATI rules.

We are also following the guidance of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. We are moving to help government institutions weed out bad faith requests that put a significant strain on the system. By tying up government resources, such vexatious requests can interfere with an institution's ability to do its other work and to respond to other requests. We need to get this right and recognize that while this new tool is needed to significantly improve the system, everything from sound policy to training to proper oversight must be done to prevent its abuse.

In addition, the proposed legislation gives the Information Commissioner new powers, including the power to order the release of government records. This is an important advancement that was first recommended by a parliamentary committee studying the Access to Information Act in 1987. 0ur government is acting on it and Bill C-58 will change the commissioner's role from an ombudsperson to an authority with the power to order the release of government records.

After 34 years, Canada's ATI system needs updating—

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about a question I asked last year on Bill C-58.

Just so the citizens of North Island—Powell River, who I am proud to represent, know what we are talking about, I am going to repeat the question. The minister keeps repeating that his government is the first in 30 years to make improvements to access to information. However, the Information Commissioner was very clear when she said that the Liberals' Bill C-58 is regressive and that the status quo would be better than what they are proposing, meaning that Stephen Harper's government was more open and accountable than the current government. Canadians were promised more accountability and transparency. Will the government work with us to help it actually keep that election promise?

This is a very important question. The constituents I talked to across my riding spoke passionately about their concerns around Bill C-51 from the last government, and about wanting to make sure things were transparent. The President of the Treasury Board said that we are reaching a new bar, and this is absolutely not the truth. It is important we remember who the expert is in this, and that is the Information Commissioner, who said, “I would much prefer to keep the status quo.”

This is incredibly important to my constituents. This is about the transparency of government. It is about making sure information is accessible. We know so many issues have come to light because Canadians, journalists, and NGOs use access to information to ask important questions that deserve answers. I do not understand why the government created a bill that really just blocks this.

Let us look at the facts. Residential school survivors fighting the government for decades for acknowledgement of the terrible and horrific abuse they faced, the reality that type 1 diabetes in Canada is now being rejected, the under-reporting of sexual assaults in Canada, Afghan detainees and those horrendous stories we heard, these were all discovered by the access to information that this bill totally erases. That is horrendous in this day and age.

One of the most concerning things for me is the fact that the bill talks about people who may be vexatious. What may appear to the government as vexatious may be of the utmost interest for Canadians. Who gets to decide what that is? How do Canadians appeal the decision by a department? This is really important. I know the people of North Island—Powell River are very concerned. They want to know we have information and have access to it, and that journalists have access to it, so that we can learn what is happening in this country. This completely bars the way. We really need to take a moment to reflect on that.

At this point, the bill has passed through the House, but this is leading to something that will be an ever-growing concern. When the government talks about increased transparency and when it says that the PM's office can be talked to now and people can ask for information, that is simply not true. When the Information Commissioner is saying that what we have now, which was in much need of change, is better than what is being proposed, all Canadians need to stand up and take notice of what is happening.

That is why I am here today, and I think we all must focus on this. Whoever is in government has tremendous power. It must be held in check. That is what democracy is all about.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to the issue raised by your predecessor, the concern about the ability to deny access to information based on the vagueness of requests. That has a particular implication for indigenous communities doing research for claims. We just had a case where a document that was nearly 100 years old, relating to the treatment of Indian children in a tuberculosis hospital, was denied. My concern is that the crown is always the defendant in dealing with any of these hearings for indigenous justice. The farther back you go in Indian Affairs, the more of a black hole it is, which is why many of the documents are more vague.

How do we ensure that indigenous justice is maintained in the application of Bill C-58, if people are researching historic documents where they might not know the exact name of the document and they're having to do fishing expeditions because they're not sure where the evidence is?

[Caroline Maynard]

I agree that any limitations that are added to Bill C-58 or in the act are of concern—anything that could limit or delay access. It's something that I will definitely look into, because now that section 6 has been amended to add that the request cannot be denied or declined without the commissioner's approval, I will be very interested to look at how many cases we are looking into and how often section 6 has been raised as an issue.

[Caroline Maynard]

I don't know how we would increase accessibility through technology within the institutions. That is something I'm going to have to explore. One thing I am concerned about right now—and I don't have answers there either—is the relationship between the Office of the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner.

As you say, there are a lot of access to information requests that touch on privacy. Currently, Bill C-58 is adding the intervention of the Privacy Commissioner into some of those requests that the Information Commissioner is going to be investigating. While I'm concerned about the delay that it could add to the process, I like the idea of having the two commissions working together.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

The last question I have for you about Bill C-58 is the order-making power. You are a lawyer, and so one is the difference between a reasonableness review versus a de novo process gives you more power than the other. Do you have any view as to what would be most appropriate?

[Caroline Maynard]

I know it's at second reading in the Senate. I don't know how long it's going to be there until it's enacted. I hope, if I am invited, and I have time to better understand all the issues, I'll be able to present myself. One of the concerns I have is that this authority to issue and publish orders under the current Bill C-58 will only come into effect a year after the act is approved. I don't know if there's a policy reason for the delay for that particular amendment to come into effect a year after everything else is in effect. I'd like to raise it because it's a new tool and I think it should be used—

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks very much.

You're potentially coming into the position at an interesting time because, of course, Bill C-58 has not yet passed the Senate and the current Information Commissioner has raised a list of concerns. I wonder how you foresee involving yourself in this debate if you are appointed.

[Caroline Maynard]

I definitely read with interest all the reports and a lot of information that is available on the website. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to compare and contrast myself with Madame Legault's opinion. I can tell you, from my own perspective, that when I read the new Bill C-58, any new amendment that limits or potentially would delay access is a concern, and any new amendment that increases accountability and increases access is progress, in my view. Bill C-58 contains both. At the end of the day, I really think that no matter how great legislation could be, for the people who are applying the act and who are trying to access the information, if the culture doesn't change to give them access, we're not reaching the goal of having access and promoting access and transparency and democracy. That's why I think there's progress in Bill C-58. I'm happy that the act will be open for review in a year, so if I do become the next commissioner, I'll have way more information and I will be a lot more confident in reassessing those concerns that have been raised by Madame Legault and a lot of stakeholders, and I will be happy to report back to Parliament on what my personal views are and where we are and whether or not we have achieved progress.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you.

Well, as this process was under way, you must have been aware of your predecessor's unprecedented report, titled “Failing to Strike the Right Balance for Transparency”. Essentially Commissioner Legault characterized Bill C-58, which is now before the Senate—it passed through the House against the wishes of the opposition—in this way, making three key points:

The government promised the bill would ensure the Act applies to the Prime Minister’s and Ministers’ Offices appropriately. It does not. The government promised the bill would apply appropriately to administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts. It does not. The government promised the bill would empower the Information Commissioner to order the release of government information. It does not.

Now, there were some changes before the bill was passed, but just last week the departing commissioner did an interview in which essentially she reiterated her original statement, saying that rather than advancing access to information rights, Bill C-58 instead would result in a “regression of existing rights”.

What are your thoughts on this as you are about to—presuming this meeting goes well—assume the office?

[Caroline Maynard, Nominee for the position of Information Commissioner, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I am honoured to appear before you today and I feel very privileged to have my application for Canada's Information Commissioner considered.

I am particularly honoured to be nominated, given the importance to Canadians of the role of the Information Commissioner in protecting and promoting access to information, a right that has been recognized as a core principle in a functioning democracy.

The challenges and the changes ahead cannot be underestimated. However, as a jurist with 20 years of experience in oversight agencies, I cannot hide my enthusiasm in being considered for the position of the commissioner responsible to oversee the implementation of the proposed new legislation, Bill C-58.

Building on the Office of the Information Commissioner's 34 years of knowledge and experience, I would make full use of the current and proposed powers to provide a fair and efficient independent review of government decisions relating to access requests to increase both transparency and accountability.

Before I discuss in greater detail how I envision fulfilling my duties as an agent of Parliament, let me introduce myself.

First all, I was born and raised in Saint-Hyacinthe, in the province of Quebec. I graduated in civil law from the Université de Sherbrooke. In my final year, I met my husband, who, at the time, was also studying law, but in Alberta. In 1993, we moved to the Outaouais. We have been married now for 20 years. I am also the mother of three boys, between 13 and 18. When I am asked how I spend my time after work, I say that I am a licenced chauffeur, a 24-hour convenience store operator, and a hockey mom.

After a brief period in the private sector, I joined the federal government. My public service career has been spent largely in agencies responsible for providing an independent review of grievances submitted by members of the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces. Whether I was acting as legal counsel, director general, general counsel, and recently as the chairperson of the military external review committee, I have always been guided by the same values: integrity, excellence, fairness, and timeliness.

My leadership style is based on the same principles. My employees would tell you that I am a very open and reasonable person who recognizes a job well done, and promotes innovation and efficiency.

When I began with the external review committee in 2006, it was a relatively new tribunal. The committee is responsible to provide an independent review of military grievances referred by the Canadian Armed Forces. It issues findings and recommendations to the Chief of the Defence Staff, who is the final authority of that grievance process.

As a civilian oversight of military grievances, the committee had to work very hard to build its credibility. Collectively with management, and in consultation with employees, we worked diligently to find ways to improve our internal process. Through teamwork, innovation, and determination, we reduced the average time spent on files from nine months to four months, while increasing the quality of our findings and recommendations.

We showed that a civilian oversight agency could provide significant value added to the administration of military affairs. As a result, I am proud to say that the committee's portfolio has increased from receiving 40% of all grievances at the final authority—mainly mandatory referrals—to now receiving 95% of all grievances, because it includes files that are sent on a discretionary basis.

I have been working in complaint resolution for almost two decades because I know that we are able to change things. I am motivated by the fact that my organization is full of competent officials, who care about what they do, and about the impact they have on Canadians. I have spent my whole career making sure that the rights of those without representation are respected and that the decisions that affect them are justified and reasonable.

Should I become the next Information Commissioner, this is the spirit I would bring to my duties. I see this opportunity as a logical progression in my career in the public service. I am more than ready to report to Parliament on how I would oversee the access to information regime.

That leads me to explain to you my particular interest in the position of Information Commissioner, as well as my vision and what I believe to be the greatest challenges I will have to face in the event that you approve my application.

In Canada, access to information about government decision-making is a well-known and well-established right that is almost constitutional. That statement is supported by the growing number of requests made each year, as reported by the Treasury Board Secretariat. The office of the commissioner's website also tells me that the number of complaints increases each year. In addition, given the new amendments to the act and the recent launch of the electronic form, it is reasonable to assume that the number of complaints will continue to grow.

Should I be appointed, I can assure you that my first commitment to Parliament and to all Canadians will be to tackle the current backlog of complaints. From the report submitted by the current commissioner, I understand this has been one of her main concerns as well, and obtaining additional resources is listed as part of our office's priorities. In this regard, I know that the president of Treasury Board has committed to providing further funding for the implementation of Bill C-58, and this is very encouraging. Also, with the lessons I have learned in streamlining the committee's grievance review process, I'm confident I would bring a critical eye to the commission's internal processes that could help optimize efficiencies.

Addressing backlog issues is a necessity, as I truly believe that Canadians are entitled to have their complaints dealt with in a timely manner. Access delayed is access denied. That being said, success relies on a change of culture, a change of culture towards access rights within the federal institutions subject to the act. I can say from my own experience that, even though the access to information legislation was enacted 34 years ago, there appears to still be an impulse for exemptions and exclusions rather than transparency.

We need to give meaning to the concept of open government. It has to become part of the fellow institutions' day-to-day practices and approaches. It is only when the access right becomes a foundational right and principle, like the respect of our official languages now ingrained in our society, that Canada will reassert its leadership as an open and transparent government that is a model for all democratic nations.

In consultation with the commission's stakeholders, I believe our efforts must be geared towards the promotion of disclosure and transparency. I'm pleased to see these efforts will be supported by the new wording of the purpose found in Bill C-58, which clearly states that the goal is "...to enhance the accountability and transparency...in order to promote an open and democratic society....” This is, in my view, a clear message that there is a commitment to hold federal institutions accountable with respect not only to their decisions, but also their obligations under the act. This expressed intent, in addition to the new powers provided to the commission to issue and publish orders, suggests that accountability and transparency are to be taken very seriously.

Before closing, I must recognize the important work and the undeniable devotion of Commissioner Legault and her employees in championing and promoting access legislation in Canada. The expertise acquired by the office of the commissioner over the last 34 years provides a solid foundation on which I commit myself today to carrying out my mandate, if Parliament sees fit to honour me with the position of the next Information Commissioner.

I also pledge to act with integrity and to the best of my abilities and to serve Canadians and Parliament with the highest degree of independence.

I thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members, for considering my nomination.

I am now ready to answer your questions.

Opposition Motion—Veterans Affairs

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I joined the Canadian Armed Forces and learned leadership skills in the hon. member's riding at the Royal Military College. I am proud to say on flag day that our flag was based on the RMC flag. The member knows that, but he certainly does not know what happened in the last Parliament.

In less than a year, with Bill C-58, which I referenced in my remarks, we brought in the retirement income security benefit, the critical injury benefit, the family caregiver benefit, and expanded the permanent impairment allowance. When the minister referred to building upon existing programs, those are the existing programs.

Spreading out the lump sum or the disability award for life already happened with a predecessor. It was a living document. We saw that Paul Martin's new veterans charter, which all parliamentarians agreed with, was not working to its intended purpose. The only parliamentarian who spoke on the new veterans charter was Roméo Dallaire, a good friend of mine. The iconic Liberal senator and veteran was the only parliamentarian to speak to the bill. It was rushed through because its focus on wellness was considered by parliamentarians to be better than the old system.

People look longingly at the old system now, but it failed so many people. Let us get it right. Let us build on the programs I started. The minister has put more money into them, but he certainly has not lived up to what the Prime Minister promised.

The member comes from a political family and he is pretty smart. An indication of a broken promise is a press conference a few hours before Christmas. Nothing shows the Liberals' inability to defend their broken promise than trying to hide it on Christmas Eve.

Criminal Code

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-51 today. I want to begin by, I suppose apologizing to my colleague from Mount Royal, who is the excellent chair of the justice and human rights committee, and who runs it in a fashion that is non-partisan, to his credit. However, from the perspective of an opposition member, it is passing strange that amendments from our side are so rarely taken up by any committee in this place.

On Bill C-58, the bill that the government calls the “access to information bill”, which I call the “denying access to information bill”, I brought forth 20 amendments, and each and every one was rejected. In this case, the chronology is as my friend suggested, and is correctly stated, but each of the amendments from the opposition was defeated. I think each of the amendments from the Liberals was accepted on this particular bill. That is the way it works in committees. I think that Canadians should know that. I find it disappointing.

On the merits of it, and in the collegiality of how the committee proceeds, I am grateful to the member for Mount Royal for the way he runs this committee. It is exemplary, and I salute him for it.

This is a non-partisan issue, and if I got off on the wrong footing by suggesting anything to the contrary, I owe this place an apology. Reform of the criminal law for all Canadians cannot be partisan. We have to get it right. We have to get the balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of victims correct, because the law is constantly evolving, as technology, for example, is constantly evolving. I will have more to say about that in a moment, in respect to sexual assault provisions.

It is to the government's credit that it is taking a number of sections of this very long Criminal Code and trying to update it, in light of what the courts have done and in light of where society is going. That is as it should be.

The NDP wants to say at the outset of this debate that New Democrats are entirely in support of the bill and will be voting for it without hesitation.

Therefore, I want to say a few things for those who might be listening about the nature of the bill. Some have called it an omnibus bill. I think one of the Conservative speakers, in June, when it was in second reading, termed it that. It is not that way. It is a comprehensive reform initiative to do four types of things.

The first is to clarify the laws on sexual assault, because there has been a lot of Supreme Court jurisprudence that requires us to restate the law to make sure we are keeping up with the times. Second, the bill would remove or amend provisions that have been found unconstitutional by the courts. That obviously has to be done. Third, a number of obsolete or duplicative offences would be removed. Fourth, there is another bill that would be amended, the Department of Justice Act, which would create a new statutory duty for the Minister of Justice to table a charter statement for every government bill.

The fourth issue is laudatory, but quite ineffective. The fact that the government tables a few sentences about why a finance initiative is consistent with the charter seems to me to be much ado about nothing. I am not sure it is of any relevance in a court of law. I think the House can assume, without having a statement, that government bills will in fact be consistent with the charter. We hardly need a statement to do that. Indeed, the charter statements that the Minister of Justice has been releasing to date add very little, in my judgment, to the issues before the House. However, I suppose one can never fault too much information, even information that is of dubious utility.

I want to start with the most significant number of amendments to the bill, which is on sexual assault. However, before doing that, I want to put it in the context of an excellent summary of the bill that was provided in the Canadian Bar Association's journal, National, that was done by Omar Ha-Redeye in the fall, just a few weeks ago. It is quite amusing how the author describes the bill. He says:

The federal government is finally doing some housekeeping of the Criminal Code with Bill C-51. It may find some hidden cobwebs--and according to some, there may even be monsters under the bed.

The Criminal Code is a place where old, obsolete, or even unconstitutional laws languish in purgatory. Most governments have been content to simply ignore these outdated provisions, knowing that most would never actually be used. The result is a long, rambling and sometimes unnecessarily confusing statute.

Amen to that.

Sometimes the code is sufficiently complicated to confuse even the judges. This is where I pause to talk about poor Mr. Justice Denny Thomas of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, who a few years ago convicted a gentleman named Travis Vader of second degree murder. He relied on section 230 of the Criminal Code, which had a provision called “culpable homicide” that was introduced way back in 1892.

Unfortunately, the judge was not made aware of the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada had previously repealed a part of that provision in a 1987 decision. Then it had ruled, in another decision, that the section was contrary to the charter and could not be saved under section 1. The judge had convicted this individual when the provision “allowed for a conviction of murder without the requirement for proof of subjective foresight of the mental elements for moral blameworthiness”. There it was, sitting and gathering dust, in section 230 in the Criminal Code. They had to do the whole trial again, at unknowing cost, both psychological and financial, to the system of justice in the province of Alberta, and brought the Criminal Code, frankly into disrepute as a consequence.

One has to salute the government for its efforts to bring it up to date and sweep away these cobwebs, as the author so correctly said.

There are provisions in here that are simply obsolete for other reasons, such as those relating to the prohibition on duels, which the House will be pleased to know is no longer a problem under the Criminal Code, pretending to practice witchcraft, offences dealing with trading stamps, archaic sections that no longer serve the needs of contemporary Canada. Again, the government is correctly trying to remove these cobwebs from our criminal law.

That takes me to the main event, if I can call it that—and there are a number of others that I will come to—which are the sections dealing with reform of the sexual assault provisions of the code. The minister talked about making it, “more compassionate towards complainants in sexual assault matters.”

Many of the sections in the code address changes that the courts have made, using the charter, to address problems they saw with these provisions. These sections expand the code's rape shield provisions to expressly include communications for a sexual purpose or of a sexual nature. The rape shield provisions that were introduced after the Seaboyer case in 1991 limit the types of questions that defence counsel can pose, and evidence it can introduce concerning a complainant's sexual history.

This information had sadly been used in our legal system to promote a stereotype, that a complainant is more likely to have consented, or is less credible, because of past sexual history. In 2000, the court upheld the rape shield provisions as being constitutional.

The new changes in this bill appear to stem from criticism rising in the famous Jian Ghomeshi case, which attracted a lot of media attention and dealt with societal discussions about sexual assault prosecutions in Canada. As members may recall, that case involved text messages and social media content by the complainants.

Some defence counsel are concerned that this bill will limit the evidence they can use to offer a full and complete defence. Others believe that those concerns are overrated.

Lise Gotell, national chair of the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, LEAF, stated that the amendments simply recognized more contemporary forms of sexual communication. I agree with her. If the evidence is used for the purpose of demonstrating inconsistencies, it can still be included if it is only used to perpetuate sexual stereotypes.

I want to quote Ms. Gotell, directly, “There is no implied consent in Canadian law...and so previous sexual activity should be irrelevant to a belief that someone is consenting to the sexual activity in question.”

That is the key. There is no implied consent in Canadian law with respect to sexual assault. Past sexual history or communications on the Internet or Facebook or the like do not imply any kind of consent to the specific activity at that specific time. The courts have made that clear, and I am pleased that Bill C-51 now makes that clear as well.

More than 20 years ago, in the case R. v. O'Connor, the court ruled that medical and counselling records of a sexual assault case could be disclosed by judicial order. The government limited these productions through amendments, and that was upheld. In 1999, the court stated in R. v. Mills that the judiciary had adequate discretion to preserve a complainant's right to privacy and also still allow for a full and complete defence for the accused.

Although the nature of electronic communications today might be different, the concepts remain the same. Sexual assault complainants, who are almost exclusively women, are still subject to widespread stereotypes and prejudice based on their sexual history. Salacious texts and steamy graphics may be communicated differently today, but they are just as dangerous to the balance of justice.

These provisions that deal with the sexual assault measures of a court make a number of specific changes in addition to the ones I outlined a moment ago. The bill would amend the section to clarify that an unconscious person is incapable of consenting. Most of us would have thought that would be self-evident, but there was court case that clarified that. To the government's credit, it has brought in a clarification to the same effect.

What about incapacity to consent short of full unconsciousness, such as when a complainant is very drunk or maybe only semi-conscious? There are those who have said that somehow by putting this in, we would be creating uncertainty over those sorts of situations: severe intoxication and semi-consciousness. I am not concerned about that, because I believe there are other provisions that would address those in the code. That is one point that was made in debate at committee and elsewhere about this legislation.

Then there is the other clarification brought into the bill, which would clarify that the defence of mistaken belief in consent is not available if the mistake is based on a mistake of law, for example, if the accused believed that the complainant's failure to resist or protest meant that the complainant consented. The court clarified that in a case that was decided in 1999. Let us say that the consent was extorted, for example, someone threatens to show the world nude pictures unless the individual consents to having sex. That is not consent, and that needs to be clear . It is now increasingly clear in this case.

One thing that is fascinating in this legislation, and very positive as well, is the ability of the complainant to have legal representation in rape shield proceedings. She, as it is normally a she, can then retain counsel to be present and debate before the court the admissibility of diaries, text messages, or the like. That sounds great, and it is a positive step, but the practical reality for most Canadians is that they will not be able to take advantage of that, because sadly we do not have the money to do so. There is a dearth of legal aid in most provinces. We have a crisis in legal aid. Therefore, it is nice to have that, but I have to ask a practical question on whether people will be able to avail themselves of that. Will women be able to participate as has been suggested?

Again, to give credit to justice committee, on October 30 of this year, an excellent report on legal aid was produced. I would commend members in this place to read that report, because it talks about legal aid in very stirring terms. It talks about a service that “breathes life into the democratic principle of the rule of law by ensuring that low-income Canadians have access to the courts.”

Once again, all three parties worked collaboratively to produce this excellent report. Of course, it is an acknowledgement that most of this is provincial jurisdiction, but, nevertheless, the leadership and best practices were suggested, and I commend the committee for that.

However, unless the Government of Canada assists provinces with more legal aid funding, this laudable section that allows women for the first time to actually participate in and have a right of natural justice in criminal proceedings involving the disclosure of intimate information in situations where sexual assault is at issue, most of the time it will be irrelevant unless those women have legal aid. Canadians need to understand that reality.

I am here to make sure that this place and the government look favourably at the excellent legal aid report that was produced, so it will not just be another report gathering dust on the shelves of Parliament. I believe that the provisions at issue were dealt with very thoughtfully and are not simply symbolic. I think the report includes meaningful changes and hope that the government will move on them and put its money where its mouth has been.

A number of people are in agreement with the provisions in the report. I speak, for example, of Professor Elizabeth Sheehy of the University of Ottawa, and Emma Cunliffe of the University of British Columbia. They talked about the right of legal representation in rape shield hearings as an important step, but said it would be largely ineffectual unless provincial legal aid programs provide financial support to complainants seeking to retain a lawyer. I agree.

On the streets where these amazing workers in rape relief and women's shelters work day in and day out, tirelessly with victims of sexual assault, they also have concerns. Hilla Kerner spoke for the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter when saying, “Women who work with us were very discouraged after what we saw in the Ghomeshi case." The provisions in the bill will send a message, Kerner continued, that "your past, the things you did before the attack and after the attack, will not deter the criminal justice system from actually dealing with the attack and holding men accountable.”

That is a very good indication that the message will be received by those who were so involved in counselling women after sexual assault. However, the law has changed. It's better now. People can come forward and do not have to be afraid. That has to be the number one objective of these amendments, namely, that women will not be afraid will not not think it is a waste of time to come forward.

The Globe and Mail is doing excellent work in showing how few sexual assaults are actually processed seriously by police departments across the land. They did an update this past weekend of an earlier award-winning series.

We are at the very heart of that issue with this bill, making it easier for women to come forward because they know there will be fairness. They will be taken seriously and the laws will not work against them. I think that is excellent.

Not everyone has applauded Bill C-51 in its entirety, in these glowing terms. Michael Spratt, the vice-president of the Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa, refers to this bill as “another half-hearted attempt to reform the justice system by grabbing the lowest of the low-hanging fruit.”

It is true that the government's mandate letter for the Minister of Justice speaks to a comprehensive reform of the Criminal Code. It is so overdue. Nevertheless, I do not fault the government for going after low-hanging fruit, in addressing duelling and trade stamps, for example, or these sorts of provisions, because it is also doing real work in the sexual assault provisions. We have to support it and give credit where credit is due.

One hopes that there will be the comprehensive reform of the Criminal Code that Professor Coughlan of the Dalhousie University, Schulich School of Law, has been seeking. I think and am confident we will get there.

On the issue of sexual assault, I commend the government for what it is doing. On the issue of charter statements, I say ho-hum, nice, but so what? However, on this stuff, this key change to our Criminal Code to give women in this country the confidence that it is worth coming forward, the government needs to be commended. We will support this bill without reservation.

The House resumed from December 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for bringing forward his private member's bill, Bill C-262. I note his important contribution to the discussion on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I would also like to share my profound respect for my colleague and acknowledge the important work he has done over many years that has significantly impacted indigenous policy in this country.

Before addressing the private member's bill, I would like to make a general observation. Section 35 of our Constitution and Canada's existing laws has in the past, and will in the future, ensure that indigenous rights are protected in Canada. We only need to reflect on a number of historical court decisions to understand how section 35 is shaping these rights. From the 1999 Marshall decision that confirmed the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet treaty right to catch and sell fish, to the 2014 Tsilhqot'in decision that granted aboriginal title to more than 1,700 sq kilometres of territory, a first in Canadian law, it is clear that our understanding of indigenous rights is constantly evolving. Just last week, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decision regarding the Peel watershed, which upheld aboriginal land use rights protected in treaties.

It might be suggested that the gap or problem in Canada is not our legal framework, but our frequent failure to live up to the obligations and the honour of the crown.

The bill before us today seeks to implement the 46 articles in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as stated in the document, “a standard...to be pursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect”. All parties in the House acknowledge the need for reconciliation, a better shared future, and the importance of the declaration. The 46 articles are essential guiding principles for that journey.

I do have some unanswered questions regarding how this international document will transpose into a domestic framework. In my opinion, we need some clear answers before we can move forward on Bill C-262. Let me share some general and specific concerns that need to be addressed.

In the past, the Liberals have argued vehemently that any small changes to the Indian Act and the Labour Code must only be introduced as government legislation, where there is an opportunity for comprehensive reflection and not just a couple of hours of debate. I would suggest that the bill before us today has more far-reaching implications than the right to a secret ballot for union certification. For the Liberals to support an NDP private member's bill to implement UNDRIP and not put it forward as government-initiated legislation is unfathomable. The debate will not be afforded the due diligence that it requires and deserves. Even today, members might have noticed that we did not hear from the minister. We did not have an opportunity under private members' business to even question the minister. In my mind, that is a problem.

To get into more specifics, first and foremost was the statement by the Minister of Justice in 2016, and I quote, “Simplistic approaches such as adopting the United Nations declaration as being Canadian law are unworkable and, respectfully, a political distraction to undertaking the hard work actually required to implement it back home in communities.”

The justice minister, unlike many of us who will be speaking to the bill, has access to all sorts of comprehensive briefings and advice. The minister would not have made that comment lightly, so it is critical for her to explain why she made the comment at that time, and how she now reconciles that with her recent commitment to support the bill. I would note that because it is private member's bill, we are very unlikely to get a chance to ask her that question.

On Thursday of last week, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations was at committee. At that time, we had the opportunity to ask a number of questions, and I want to provide a brief summary of that testimony.

Article 19 suggests that the government ensure free, prior, and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative measures that may affect them. When the minister was asked if that would apply to laws of general application or only laws that exclusively impact indigenous people, she clearly indicated that there would be a broader application. That brings us to a question of what future laws of broader application in this country would require free, prior, and informed consent, and how will that be determined in a country as diverse as Canada. How will that consent be given?

The national organizations acknowledge they are not rights holders, they are not the authorized decision-makers, and their mandate is advocacy. The indigenous community has indicated that it has to do a lot of work in terms of nation rebuilding. Therefore, what government structure or consultation framework would be put in place to actually engage in these consultations? To what degree would this commitment around the laws of general application fetter the government's ability to move forward? I will give some recent examples.

We certainly know that with Bill S-3, the government is committed to engaging in a consultation process. Clearly, that is not a general application law, but the government is going to have consultations with bands across the country. I have no idea how the government members are going to determine when they have concurrence and how long they are going to have to spend in a process where there will be human rights competing in terms of consent, and at the very dichotomy of the many consultations they will have to have. In that case it is first nations, but we also have the Métis and the Inuit.

The marijuana law is another example of broader application that is clearly going to have an impact in indigenous communities. Under our current framework, the government only engaged in a general consultation process. Would that bill be subject to article 19, and if so what would it do to the government's timelines and how are the Liberals going to move forward? The answer to that question is unknown, but it is important.

Today, we have been debating in the House Bill C-58, which is the privacy law. Again, we have a number of indigenous communities whose representatives have said that they have grave concerns. They have referenced the UN declaration in terms of their right to have input, and free, prior, and informed consent, but we have no system or process in terms of how we are going to move that forward. That is important work that needs to be done.

Where a lot of people have focused, the laws of general application are something we need to pay particular attention to, but there is also the issue of free, prior, and informed consent as it relates to the development of the natural resources. The minister has suggested it was not a veto and the position was supported by National Chief Bellegarde. However, he noted on three occasions that free, prior, and informed consent means the right to say yes and the right to say no. A number of lawyers have said the whole discussion is really a bit of semantics and whether it is veto or consent it has the same effect. Again, it leads to a question in law. What is the difference between “free, prior, and informed consent” and “consult and accommodate”, which is what we have in law right now? Certainly there is no question that the declaration proposes that change in our law and we need to simply know what that is going to mean because it is important. From what I have seen, the legal opinions out there are as varied as they possibly could be. As members might imagine, it leaves confusion in the minds of not only the indigenous communities but Canadians in general. We have some work to do in terms of developing a common understanding before we commit to an implementation into our legal framework.

Article 29 talks about the right to territories, lands, and resources. In British Columbia alone, that is 100% of the province. What are going to be the practical implications for perhaps the tourism operators in the Chilcotin or the ranchers who have depended on crown land, as these decisions get made? We have not talked about impacted third parties and how, as we correct the injustices of the past, we should not create a new injustice.

In conclusion, as members can see from my 10 minutes of speaking, there are a lot of important unanswered questions. My first concern is the fact that the government has committed to implementing this as a private member's bill where we are going to be limited in the debate and our opportunity to create a shared understanding. The shared understanding of all these concepts is going to be critical in terms of moving forward into success in the future for all.

Access to Information Act

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to once again speak to Bill C-58, but it is a bit disappointing to have to make some of the same criticisms of it that we on the opposition side have been making throughout. Notwithstanding some of the comments we have heard from the government, the bill actually has not been significantly amended and many of the original problems with it persist.

I would like to address this legislation in terms of three headings: first, the scope of the act; second, exceptions to the act; and third, the difference between proactive disclosure and access to information.

In terms of the scope of the bill, it is important to note that the Liberals were elected on a promise to extend access to information to the Prime Minister's Office and to the offices of other cabinet ministers. Bill C-58 would not do that. It is really part of a litany of broken promises by the government. Here we think of electoral reform. We think of the promise to close the stock option tax loophole. We think of the promise to restore door-to-door mail delivery. The government is building up quite a track record of broken promises and, unfortunately, the commitment to extend access to information to cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister, is another one of those broken promises.

I had an opportunity at the committee on access to information, privacy and ethics to ask the Privacy Commissioner whether there were any privacy reasons that the government could not extend access to information to those cabinet offices. He confirmed that there were no such privacy reasons and that as far he was concerned, it would have been and would be feasible to extend access to information to the offices of cabinet ministers. Our first major disappointment with the scope of the bill is the fact that it fails to extend access to information to the very cabinet offices the government promised to include.

The second heading I would like to address is exceptions to the act. There are already exceptions related to cabinet confidences and policy advice to ministers. These exceptions have proven to be quite troublesome, because it is easy for the government to define almost anything as policy advice to a minister or as somehow being subject to a cabinet confidence. It is a very broad-sweeping exception that the government can use to not disclose information. Unfortunately, Bill C-58 would not correct this exception.

The really bad thing about Bill C-58 is that it creates new exceptions that would allow the government to not disclose information that citizens are requesting. In particular, it empowers the government to deem that an access to information request is frivolous or in bad faith. It is difficult to put government officials in the position of having to try to define the motivations of people making access to information requests. This is a very poor criterion on which to accept or deny access to information requests.

What is this really all about? The example we heard from a couple of different government members throughout this debate is the case of “an ex-spouse [who] ATIPs his or her former spouse's work hours on a daily basis or their emails”. There is obviously a problem with that type of request, but the way to respond to that is through proper protections of privacy, not by deeming the request itself to be frivolous or in bad faith. It is obviously the case that the government cannot disclose certain information for privacy reasons, and the privacy protections need to be very robust in federal legislation.

However, the idea of protecting privacy is not a justification for giving the government broad, sweeping powers to deem that particular access to information requests are frivolous or in bad faith. We do need to have proper protections for privacy, but those in no way justify the new exceptions introduced in Bill C-58, which try to get into the motivation behind an access to information request, which is a very difficult thing for the government to ascertain, and a very difficult thing for citizens to trust the government to ascertain in an objective and proper way.

The third aspect of the legislation that I would like to address is the difference between proactive disclosure on the one hand and access to information on the other hand, because of course one of the aspects of Bill C-58, which the government touts, is the notion of increased proactive disclosure. We have the idea, for example, that the government will proactively disclose ministerial briefing books. A cynic might suggest that this provision will to result in government officials and ministers' assistants spending time drafting briefing books for public consumption. Knowing they will be proactively disclosed, they will just prepare documents that they are happy to have disclosed and that do not really contain a lot of sensitive or controversial information. We are very concerned about that, but even if we assume that would not happen and that everything would be done entirely in good faith, we still have to face up to the fact that proactive disclosure, as positive as it might be, is no substitute for access to information.

Proactive disclosure is about the government choosing to disclose certain things. On the whole, it is good for the government to proactively disclose more documents, but access to information is fundamentally about citizens being able to request information that the government does not want to disclose and does not think it should have to disclose. There is a very important distinction to be made here between proactive disclosure, which is a good thing and the government is touting, and access to information, which is what the bill is supposed to be about.

To sum it all up, I would like to conclude by reading a quote from the Information Commissioner's report on Bill C-58 entitled “Failing to Strike the Right Balance for Transparency”. She said:

In short, Bill C-58 fails to deliver. The government promised the bill would ensure the Act applies to the Prime Minister's and Ministers' Offices appropriately. It does not.

The government promised the bill would apply appropriately to administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts. It does not.

The government promised the bill would empower the Information Commissioner to order the release of government information. It does not.

Rather than advancing access to information rights, Bill C-58 would instead result in a regression of existing rights.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had sat on that committee. It would perhaps have given me a break from explaining all the issues on Phoenix which the Liberals have inflicted on Canadians. I was not part of the committee, and I was not aware, but very clearly presenting amendments, just like the NDP did, would have had absolutely no effect. The minister made it very clear from the beginning that this was the world's greatest proposed law, which would bring in changes to access to information. The government would brook no advice or changes from anyone else. Why we did not, I am not sure, but it would have made no difference.

However, another colleague talked about the whistle-blower act. My party, together with the NDP and Liberals in the government operations committee, put through a unanimous report to protect whistle-blowers, presenting a lot of great suggestions on how we can make amendments and legislative changes to improve it. However, the same President of the Treasury Board, who shot down all the amendments in the committee on Bill C-58, took the whistle-blower suggestions and put them in the dustbin with all the other great amendments that were suggested by the NDP and other parties on the Access to Information Act.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that it is good to have the Conservatives onside in opposing Bill C-58, which rolls back access to information and would do nothing to eliminate delays.

However, being the festive season and to be charitable, I will say that the member for Edmonton West was not here in Parliament from 2006 to 2015 when the Conservative government did not take this issue seriously and did nothing to improve it. I know that the member was not here in 2011 when the Harper government got the lowest mark possible from Canadian journalists for free expression on access to information, which was an F.

I am being charitable to the member, because he was not here. I am glad to have the Conservatives onside, in some kind of conversion on the road to opposition from the Conservatives here, but, in this Parliament, if the bill is so bad, why did the Conservatives present zero amendments in committee?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, a lovely resort town, for sharing his time with me. W.C. Fields was famous for his comment about not wanting to work with children and animals because they showed him up. Following his speech, I feel the same way.

I am pleased to speak on Bill C-58 today, which would amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. I also call it another broken Liberal promise hidden behind talking points peppered with key words like “open by default”, “transparency”, “historic”, and “whole of government”, but that is just the working title. I threw in “whole of government”, because Liberals use that for every other bill, so I figured why not this one as well.

The last time I spoke about this bill, I mentioned how it demonstrates the lofty rhetoric of the 2015 campaign on the Liberals' plan for openness, transparency, and accountability, and it was just that: rhetoric. Rhetoric is defined as, “Language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect” on its audience, but “often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.” That is pretty much what we have with this bill.

The Liberals defended their poorly thought-out bill by saying they were open to amendments. The Treasury Board president appeared before committee and repeated his intention a few times, and then realized that repeating this again and again does not make it true, much like “open by default”. It is shameful that the Liberals continue to talk about being open to amending their terrible legislation, but when the opportunity presents itself to make decent changes, the Liberals almost always shut them down.

This bill has been roundly ridiculed by experts, and what is the Treasury Board president's defence? He likes to say this is the first reform in over 34 years. This is a laughable excuse. One cannot defend bad actions by saying that at least it is an action, but that is the minister's key talking point. It is a lot like the executives of Coca-Cola sitting around an office table, talking about the recipe for Coke, and saying they have not amended it for 35 years or 100 years, so rather than broadly consulting for modifications to the formula, they launch an entirely new brand. Some of my colleagues in the House do not remember new Coke, but I can speak from experience that it did not work out very well.

The minister goes on about the virtues of his work by saying that, for the first time, Liberals are making government open by default, except that they are limiting it to sanitized briefing books and mandate letters that even the Liberal government has shown no intention of following. When faced with public outcry over their ruthless willingness to abandon their principles and promises in favour of whatever is politically convenient, the Liberals refuse to own up to their shameless actions with openness and transparency, but rather, mislead, re-profile, re-label, or try to change the story.

The minister then repeatedly touts the new powers given to the Information Commissioner. He repeats this point so often because it is probably the only positive point of the bill. The minister seems to have stopped listening after that point, and conveniently forgets that the commissioner herself is one of the harshest critics of the bill. Specifically, she said:

After studying the Bill, I have concluded that the proposed amendments to the Access to Information Act will not advance government transparency. The proposed Bill fails to deliver on the government’s promises. If passed, it would result in a regression of existing rights.

That statement is on her website, plain for everyone to see. Perhaps the minister should read it.

The person charged with carrying out and overseeing access to information considers this bill “regressive”, but like many things, because the commissioner's statement is counter to the Liberal message of the day, she does not need to be listened to, it seems. This is ironic. In defending their unending parade of scandals to members in this place, the Liberals claim to hold independent officers of Parliament in the highest regard. I can think of nothing more disrespectful than claiming to agree with the Information Commissioner, but then ignoring her thoughts on this disastrous legislation.

Let us talk about some of the problems with the current system. Timely access to information is key to a well-functioning democracy. If an access to information request takes months or even years to fulfill, the government has failed in its responsibility to be accessible. This legislation would not prevent requests from taking months or even years to be completed, but, amazingly enough, enables the process to take even longer.

I am an avid user of the Access to Information Act. In the two years since being elected, I have submitted over 60 ATIP requests. Take my word for it when I say that the Liberal government is unbearably slow in responding to ATIP requests. As I mentioned, since elected, I have filed over 60 requests, and only half of them have been completed. Some were filed in March of 2016 and remain outstanding over 20 months later.

I am now coming up to my second anniversary of this outstanding ATIP, and apparently cotton is the gift for second anniversaries. I am out looking for something to celebrate the two years outstanding for that ATIP.

Other requests include October 19, 2016, 18 months outstanding; September 2, 2016, 14 months outstanding; two filed at the very beginning of this year, almost a year old now; and April 6, 2017, 10 months outstanding. We also have over 24 ATIPs outstanding that were filed over half a year ago. For reference, I gave the same numbers the first time I spoke to Bill C-58 back in September. My office has not received a single one of them back yet.

The government promised to be better, set a gold standard, and exceed it by a mile. Exceed it? It has not even left the starting blocks.

What is the government's response to this? It wants to give heads of government institutions the ability to decline requests on the basis they are vexatious or made in bad faith. Who is going to define vexatious? Who is going to ensure the government heads are not declining requests that are vexatious to the government or departments because they would embarrass them and are in fact requests for information the public needs to know, such as our ATIPs on the Phoenix issue, which showed very clearly that the government was told two months before it pulled the trigger on Phoenix to clear the backlog before going ahead, which it ignored. Under these rules about vexatious requests, the department would have been able to cover that off.

Another ATIP we had on Phoenix had the CFOs from every single government operation, Transport, Public Services, Agriculture, Finance, and Revenue, all stating very clearly not to go ahead with it, that the training and testing were not done. The government went ahead. Again, without access to information, we would not have found this.

We asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board if ministers would be able to decline requests using the same clause. She said that she could not confirm that ministers would not have that power. This is ridiculous. Apparently, the government itself is stating that it will decide what is vexatious. I have no doubt it will use these new, poorly defined, and inadequately described powers to declare as much as it can to be vexatious or in bad faith.

“Never fear”, the Liberals would say. If a person disagrees with the Liberal denial, he or she can appeal to the commissioner or go to the courts. However, as we have heard repeatedly in this place, the court system is so bogged down with cases and understaffed by qualified judges, almost exclusively because the government is unwilling or unable to fill these roles. Because of that, we are now letting accused murderers off the hook. Imagine how tied up our courts will be when we add in all the appeals on DWI because of impairment for pot. We know we do not have a valid and proper way to measure impairment.

My point is that the system of denial, appeal, denial, appeal could take a process, which already takes upward of 18 months or more and counting, two years. It could take three years or perhaps four years. The beauty of the legislation for the government is that there is no upper limit on the timelessness. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the public and opposition do not see beauty in this.

The government claims that it is ensuring it is open by default, and we know this is patently false. Open by default would include setting an upper limit, which the government would then release the requested information. This legislation ensures that the government can continue moving the upper limit as long as is politically convenient.

The Liberal government talks about all the published mandate letters. How does publishing mandate letters force the government to keep its promises? We remember the mandate letters referring to debt and deficit. That was in the finance minister's mandate letter, which was blown off. The electoral reform promise was in the democratic institutions minister's mandate letter, which was blown off. The promise to complete an open competition for fighter jets was blown off.

There is one mandate the minister can keep, which is to perhaps mess up the procurement, create a trade fight with Boeing and the U.S., and then further subsidize Bombardier.

What about the promise to modify the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act? That is also in the Treasury Board's mandate letter, and is also a failure.

John Ivison from the National Post sums it up very well. He said, “It’s a farce, and... [the minister] has been around long enough to know the changes he’s just unveiled will not make the slightest difference to helping citizens understand the government for which they pay so richly.”

This is it. Apart from a few minor amendments, the legislation has done nothing to meet the campaign promise of the Liberals.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and friend from Regina—Lewvan is quite right. He and I, and my colleague from Edmonton West, sit on the government operations committee. We heard compelling testimony from whistle-blowers who felt they were being let down by their government because the information they would bring forward to expose wrongdoing within the government was falling on deaf ears. In fact, it was even worse. Sometimes they came with stories about being punished for bringing forward these legitimate exposés of government wrongdoing, and in some cases outright corruption.

Will changes in Bill C-58 help or hinder those who expose wrongdoing in the government? Quite clearly, it would hinder the ability of public servants to come forward. That is just one of many examples I can put forward in this place to demonstrate quite clearly how flawed Bill C-58 actually is.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, once again, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is trying to defend the indefensible. The reality is that contained in Bill C-58 is a provision that states the government determines whether or not it will give answers to an access to information request, and in what form. If the government feels that the request is either vexatious, frivolous, or made in bad faith, it does not have to answer. If it does answer, it can redact as much of the information that it feels is necessary. That is not true access to information, that is censorship. The member opposite knows it, and his government knows it. Shame on them for bringing forth a bill that is so regressive that most Canadians, should they understand the content of this bill, would rebel. I again ask the Liberals to do what is right for once in their lives, and to bring this bill back to the drawing board and redraft it. It needs a complete rework and overhaul.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my good friend and colleague from Edmonton West.

All through today's debate, I kept reflecting on an old proverb that we have all heard many times before, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The government at one point in time actually had some good intentions about reforming the Access to Information Act. At one time, the Liberals might have been genuine when they said they wanted to improve the Access to Information Act, but somewhere along the line on that road, something went terribly wrong because the bill we have before us now, Bill C-58, is far more regressive and prohibitive to Canadians seeking to access the government's information than any access to information bill before its time.

I should say at the outset that I believe that over the last 34 years, ATIPs have proven to be extremely helpful to Canadians. Clearly they have been helpful to politicians who are trying to find out more information about the government of the day, particularly opposition politicians. These access to information requests have also been extremely helpful to journalists, because we have seen over the last number of years journalists break stories about some unethical action of the government of the day. Has that improved the ability of Canadians to learn more about their government? It certainly has.

Now Bill C-58 tends to want to reverse some of the strides that may have been made over the past several years. One of those strides was made by our government, when we were in power, to reduce the amount of money it cost the average Canadian to file an access to information request. We reduced that to $5, meaning that any Canadian who wanted to get more information about a government department could fill out a form and with only a $5 fee, receive an answer from the government department they were querying. That was a good thing and one of the things that helped Canadians become more comfortable with their own government.

However, ATIPs have been invaluable not just to Canadians, to politicians, and to journalists, but also to society as a whole because they have allowed Canadians to learn more about their government in a fashion that gives them confidence in the government of the day. We know of many ATIPs that have been successful and have been newsworthy. The one that most Canadians recall was the sponsorship scandal. It is ironic that we are debating Bill C-58 today, because the sponsor of the bill was, in the early 2000s, a minister in the Liberal cabinet, I believe as minister of public works, who day after day during question period had to stand and defend his government against opposition attacks as we found out more information from the Gomery commission and its investigation.

I recall vividly, as some of my colleague will too, the minister of the then public works department standing and saying in response to opposition questions, “Let Justice Gomery do his work.” That was his standard talking point. He would not answer any direct questions. He would simply say let Justice Gomery do his work. At the end of the day, Justice Gomery did fine work because he exposed the ethical shortcomings of the Liberal government of the day. He exposed the rampant corruption within that government and, frankly, the stench of that corruption stays with me today because I recall how the government abused the trust of the Canadian people when it came to the sponsorship scandal, particularly how Liberal ministers ignored the very fact that their own party operatives were charging for work that was never done and pocketing the money themselves, to benefit themselves financially.

How did we find out about that corruption? It was through an ATIP, through one reporter, Daniel Leblanc, who studiously examined what he thought was a corrupt system in the Quebec government of the day and started asking questions.

Finally, his request for information was answered. That was the start of the sponsorship scandal.

The point I make today is simply this. If the changes proposed by the government on Bill C-58 are enacted, reporters like Daniel Leblanc and others who expose such clear wrongdoing by the government would be the unable to access that information. That is simply wrong. That should never be allowed to happen. Any government, whether it be a Liberal government, a Conservative government, a New Democratic government, or any government in this country, should not be allowed to deny access to Canadians about information of their government.

We all know that governments are a servant of the people. We serve the public. We are supposed to be serving the public's interest. The public's interest in this case will be denied simply because we have a government that is embarrassed about some of its previous ethical lapses and frankly wants to cover them up. I can only point to the most recent example of what might happen if Bill C-58 is passed in its current form, and that is with the most ethical transgressions by the Minister of Finance.

We know now, thanks to an ATIP from reporters at The Globe and Mail, what the current Minister of Finance was hiding from Canadians and from the Ethics Commissioner. We know now, thanks to an ATIP, that the current Minister of Finance had a villa in France that he did not disclose to the Ethics Commissioner for two years, a villa that we can only assume is worth in the millions of dollars because of its locale in one of the wealthier regions of southern France.

We know now, because of an ATIP, that the same Minister of Finance had a numbered company in Alberta that was not disclosed to the Ethics Commissioner. It contained approximately $20 million in shares in a company called Morneau Shepell, which the Minister of Finance formerly used to run, a family-founded, family-run, very successful company, that had obvious direct ties to the Minister of Finance. We know that now, because reporters, journalists, requested access to information that uncovered those ethical transgressions.

If Bill C-58 is adopted, those opportunities will be lost. That should not be allowed to happen. Governments must be accountable for their actions. Governments must be accountable to the public. One of the ways to ensure that it is accountable is by allowing the public, whether it be opposition politicians, journalists, or advocacy groups, to gain information from their government without fear of retribution and without fear of censorship.

Bill C-58 is so desperately flawed that Canadians who have been examining this legislation and listening to this debate must feel that they have no more confidence in the government. In fact, what Bill C-58 does is to make information unavailable to Canadians should the government determine that it does not want to release what it considers to be sensitive information. That is right. It is not up to the government to release information upon request. The government feels that it is within its purview to deny information if it feels it might embarrass them, if it feels that the information is not in its best political interest. That is not only shameful, it is offensive, and should not be allowed to happen.

I know that my comments are falling on deaf ears when it comes to speaking to members opposite, but I beseech them to reconsider this flawed bill, take it back to the starting board, and if it truly wants to make access to information a reality, redraft and redraw this bill.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Winnipeg a very simple question. He alluded to it during his remarks of just a few moments ago. It seems that Canadians have been misled in the intentions of the Liberal government with its stated purpose of improving access to information when in fact, what we know now about the details of Bill C-58 demonstrates quite clearly that it is more difficult right now for the average Canadian to access information from the current government. I would like to hear my colleague expound a bit about why he thinks that is and what might be done to try to improve this badly flawed bill.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to speak to Bill C-58. Prior to its tabling, it offered a lot of promise to Canadians, who have been concerned for a long time about the access to information regime in Canada.

Unfortunately, I do not think my remarks will differ from those I made early on in the debate about Bill C-58 before it went to committee, because not a lot has changed substantially about the bill. We are still largely confronted with the same issues as when the bill was originally tabled.

The main point is a sense of lost opportunity. That is clear, not just to members of the NDP caucus, but to a lot stakeholders who have criticized the bill, as well as the stakeholders within the access to information community who testified at the access to information committee during what was a long and thorough study of Canada's access to information laws.

There have not been any real changes to the Access to Information Act since it was first brought introduced in 1983. I am sure that members of the House will appreciate that the way government does business has changed radically since 1983. If we think of the technologies that were available in 1983 versus the technologies available now, and the way those have become part and parcel of the way that government conducts its business, it is clear that reform of the access to information laws is necessary.

With changes being proposed to the laws, there was a great opportunity to address a number of problems. What were some of those problems? One of the important problems in my view is that cabinet ministers can say that whatever information is being requested falls under the purview of cabinet confidence. If it said to be advice to a minister, it cannot be touched. Fine, I think there is a legitimate space for some advice to ministers to be protected, except there is no ability for anyone, including the Information Commissioner, to assess whether that information has been denied properly, under the rubric of advice to ministers, or whether ministers were just making it up or saying that it was advice to ministers when it in fact it was not really advice to ministers.

Canadians must have confidence in the access to information system to know that when they are being told that something is advice to a minister and cannot be shared because it would hurt the public interest, this is true. I do not think we are in a situation in which Canadians have that confidence. I do not think Canadians had that kind of confidence in the last government, that is for sure, and I do not think Canadians have that kind of confidence in the current government.

Let us consider one of the important themes in question period for months now, indeed throughout the fall. It is about whether or not the Canada Revenue Agency made a deliberate decision to change its interpretation of a policy in order to deny the disability tax credit to people with diabetes. It turns out, as we found out this week, that in fact there was a memo circulated within the CRA back in May of this year that said very clearly that CRA staff who were evaluating those applications ought to err on the side of denying those applications, regardless of the advice of a physician or a nurse.

What has the minister said in the House? The minister has denied that a decision was made to this very day, despite the evidence that a decision was indeed made. What confidence can Canadians have in a system that might have allowed that minister to say that the memo was covered by a cabinet confidence? If she had invoked the exclusion, and I do not want to give them ideas, that would assume that the memo came through the access to information process. I am not sure that one did.

The point is that had someone made an access to information request and the minister's office had decided to call the memo an excluded document because it was advice to the minister or something else, no one would have been able to circle back and evaluate whether that was true or not. I think it is pretty clear that a memo to employees is not advice to a minister.

However, the point is that the Information Commissioner would not have been able to circle back, look at that document, and make an assessment as to whether or not that exclusion was rightfully applied. Canadians would still be in the dark about that very clear decision by the CRA to change the way it interprets its own policy.

While it is true for the minister to say that the policy on paper has not changed, it is misleading. Clearly, there was a directive given on how to interpret that same policy that radically changed the balance of acceptance and denial with respect to people with diabetes who are applying for that tax credit. That is the kind of thing that Canadians want to have access to and demonstrates why Canadians would want to know. Canadians want to know as it has a real and material effect for people who are living with diabetes, on their taxes, and what comes back to them from their tax return.

People also want to know because that document contradicts what the minister has been saying. They want to have that evidence and be able to follow through, to see if what the minister says is true and borne out within departmental directives.

One of the important things coming out of the study on access to information was the idea that an independent third party needs to verify a minister's use of that exclusion. Otherwise, it just becomes a huge blanket by which ministers can snuff out all sorts of information that would be politically inconvenient for them but important for Canadians to know and assess the government's performance. That is one of the ways that this legislation has failed.

Another obvious failure is with respect to the black and white commitment by the Liberal Party in the last election to have this apply to the PMO and ministers' offices. We did not make that up. It is not a partisan statement. That was a real commitment. It was part and parcel of the Prime Minister's own private member's legislation in the last Parliament. However, that is not in this legislation or something they chose to do.

Whether we think it is a good idea to have those things apply to the PMO or the ministers' offices, it was a very clear commitment of the Liberal Party that they would do so. The question is why is it not borne out in the legislation? They created a real mandate for openness and transparency and have the backing of Canadians, to the extent that they want the government to be more open and transparent.

They could have done a lot of things to help Canada be a model for openness and transparency. The problem is that is not what Bill C-58 delivers. It does not deliver that because it does not address serious problems that have come out of other jurisdictions.

It was in the news for some time that B.C. had an issue with documentation of government decisions that could be accessed through access to information. Government staff, and particularly political staff, responded by simply not documenting the outcomes of important meetings where decisions were made. That rightly created quite a stir. It was, and continues to be, a strong recommendation of the information commissioner that a legal duty to document needs to be established so that the political staff of ministers cannot get around accountability by not writing down the substance of important decisions made in private meetings. Eventually, it would be accessible under access to information. The government has not done that, and it is disappointing.

I do not want to sound naive or silly. When I first became a member of this House I was a member of the access to information committee and we had the President of the Treasury Board come a number of times. He repeated that one of the things he was looking forward to doing and glad that he had a mandate to do, was to change Canada's access to information laws. That was a real priority for him. He gave timelines, which he ignored.

Bill C-58 came much later than originally promised. When it did finally come, it did not honour what critics and stakeholders said we needed as an ideal access to information regime in Canada or the Liberals' own concrete, black and white election commitments. If that is what it means to be a priority of the Liberal government, Canadians should think twice about being on their priority list. There is a lot of other stuff being done that was promised in the last election. Those things are being done and this is not.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be in the House when you are presiding.

I participated in the debate at second reading, hopeful that for once the government would be open to amendments. As I recall, the President of the Treasury Board promised they would be open to amendments. Regrettably, every amendment tabled by my colleague was rejected.

Why is that important? As the representative for the Conservative Party stated, great promises were made by the Liberals when they ran for office, a new world of openness and transparency and sunshine. What are they offering? Like many of the bills they have brought forward, they tell us not to worry, that they have not made those changes they promised, that in five years when we review the bill again, they will think about whether they will bring those forward. It is getting very tiresome.

It is time for the government to deliver on its promises and on requests by Canadians, by experts, and by its own commissioners to open access to information.

I have shared in the House that in my 40-plus years as an environmental advocate, I championed the cause for the rights of citizens to have a voice in environmental decision-making. Critical to that is having the opportunity to participate in the review of standards and the review of projects, policy, and trade deals. For the public to constructively participate, it is very critical they have ready access to information. The government has failed on that.

The Liberals have said that they will have a proactive disclosure, but then it is up to the government to decide what the public will receive. Yes, it would be nice if the government were more open with access to information, but let me give a concrete example of where it has abjectly failed to deliver on this promise.

We are in the middle of negotiations on a “modernized” NAFTA. Very late in the day, the government suddenly remembered it would have strong provisions for environment in any NAFTA deal, yet there is no environmental adviser to the foreign affairs minister who is negotiating the deal. To her credit, she has industry representatives and representatives from labour, but no representative with environmental expertise.

Very late in the day, at the eleventh hour, the environment minister established an advisory committee. We have no idea what role it is playing, whether its ideas are passed on to the negotiation table. We have no idea whatsoever what the government is proposing for environmental provisions in the NAFTA deal, unlike the Americans. We can criticize the Americans as much as want, but they tabled and made publicly available all the provisions they were intending to seek for environment in a negotiated trade deal. So much for openness and transparency.

Nothing in Bill C-58 will improve that, because the government has made its own decision that it will not disclose that information in advance to the public. To make matters worse, the Liberals issued a call for public comments on a revised NAFTA, when we did not even know what a revised NAFTA would say. I do not know what the outcome of the consultations were but I heard from a lot of Canadians who asked how they could comment on a trade deal when they did not even know what it would include. The Liberal Party's idea about open access to information and timeliness is a bit of Russian roulette.

Why is it important for Canadians to have access to information? From my perspective, as the environment and climate change critic and as an advocate for environmental rights for over 40 years, these are the kinds of things the public wants. They want to know in advance, before they are consulted, if they are consulted, what the planned routes are for pipelines. They want to know the locations of chemical plants before they are approved. They want information on the potential or known impacts of toxins on their health. That request was made very strongly by very many people who testified before our parliamentary committee.

The government has been in power now for over two years. What was one of the Liberals' big election promises? They promised they would immediately restore all federal environmental laws. Well, there is nothing stopping them from tabling today or tomorrow a revised Canadian Environmental Protection Act to extend these kinds of rights. We had a review by our committee with all kinds of recommendations to amend the act, but there has still been no action, and we will not hold our breath for a response.

We want to know about the safety of consumer products before they are made available for sale. Again, it is a specific request made by experts to our parliamentary committee. We are still waiting for action to make that information available. It is a vacuous offer to increase and improve access to information when, in fact, the Liberals bring forward a bill that provides very little.

As my colleague did, I will also share from the Information Commissioner's report on Bill C-58 entitled “Failing to Strike the Right Balance for Transparency”, which reads:

In short, Bill C-58 fails to deliver.

The government promised the bill would ensure the Act applies to the Prime Minister’s and Ministers’ Offices appropriately. It does not.

The government promised the bill would apply appropriately to administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts. It does not.

The government promised the bill would empower the Information Commissioner to order the release of government information. It does not.

Rather than advancing access to information rights, Bill C-58 would instead result in a regression of existing rights.

That is from the report of the Information Commissioner, and it is a scathing review, yet members of the government stand and defend the bill they have brought forward.

The bill could have been strengthened if the government finally delivered on the undertaking in this place by the President of the Treasury Board that he would welcome amendments to strengthen the bill, and yet the government refused every single amendment brought forward by my colleagues. This is not open and constructive government. It is not listening to experts. It is not listening to its own commissioners. It is not listening to the public.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, in fact, in the Liberals' campaign document, the second page states, “Together, we can restore a sense of trust in our democracy. Greater openness and transparency are fundamental to accomplishing this.” The next paragraph goes on to say, “Our objective is nothing less than making transparency a fundamental principle across the Government of Canada.” What a farce. As soon as the Liberals were elected, they said, “Just kidding” and it did not happen.

Bill C-58 definitely should go back and be rethought. All the Liberals are doing is shutting down debate and the information Canadians deserve.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, first, I would invite my hon. colleague to visit my riding. My constituents are quite disappointed in the Liberal government. They know full well that Bill C-58 is under the guise of ensuring the Liberal government, the Prime Minister, and his cabinet are not going to be open and transparent with Canadians.

There are some things that Bill C-58 captures, but the Liberals can already do that. They do not need Bill C-58 for those.

Bill C-58 is a present wrapped up with a shiny bow and all that stuff. The sole purpose of it is to ensure the ministers and the Prime Minister have a say in what is made public. That is it.

For the hon. colleague to stand, which he does every day and I welcome his comments, and say that this is more open and transparent and that my constituents would be very happy with it, I welcome him to come to my riding and we will meet with the constituents one on one.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, having heard the previous Liberal question about this great bill, I will ask the member about four snappy quotes.

The first is, “The proposed reforms are just not good enough,” which was said by Toby Mendel, the executive director of the Centre for Law and Democracy.

The second is, “The bill take a step backwards”, which was said by Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch.

The third is, “Bill C-58 would actually make the Access to Information Act more difficult to use”, which was said by Mark Weiler, a distinguished librarian at Wilfrid Laurier University.

Finally, Bill C-58 “would result in a regression of existing rights.” Who said that? The Information Commissioner.

In the hon. member's somewhat broad-ranging remarks, he expressed his discontent with the bill. However, the Conservatives did nothing in 10 years in power and did not even introduce any amendments at committee. Have you no faith at all in the Liberals' ability to accept amendments, or are you reverting back to your pattern of not acting on this?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

We are not sure if he paid the fine.

The Liberals always blame the governments that have come before them for all the issues they have. They claim that the Conservatives did this or that or that the NDP is just as bad. They are always blaming people. They never take full responsibility. The other thing they say is to trust them.

Members may remember last spring when the Minister of Justice was in Toronto meeting with some high-priced lawyers. There was a bit of a conundrum there. There were questions about whether she was there as a member of Parliament or there as the Minister of Justice who was looking to make some appointments. It was a pay-to-play event. The minister had to come before us. I do not think we got an apology.

My grandmother used to say if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

There are some things we have seen over the last two years with the Liberal government that are just odd. Arrogance is one. We have a millionaire Prime Minister. I do not know whether our finance minister is a millionaire, a multi-millionaire, or a billionaire. Both are embroiled in some ethical scandals. That they sit there smugly is disappointing.

I know that there are good people on each side of the House. There are government members on the backbenches. When those two were up and the questions were going on, and it came up that the finance minister's father even sold shares at one point days before some legislation was tabled, we could see the members' faces. Oh no, not again. The reason Bill C-58 is so important and why the Liberals are rushing it is so Canadians cannot find that out. The government wants to shut it down. They want to pick and choose what Canadians see and hear. That is disappointing.

I am a first-term member of Parliament, and I have enjoyed every minute of my time here. There are great people on all sides of the House. One learns a lot from every member of Parliament. I really believe that members on the front bench of the government, cabinet members, have let the backbench down. They are the leaders within that caucus. We just heard one minister today make some terrible comments to some thalidomide victims. Time and again we see these missteps.

During the campaign, the Liberals said they were ready. They made promises. Let us talk about the one big promise they made. They said they were going to have only a $10-billion deficit. Where are we now with that? It is gone. It went right out the window. Does anyone remember their promise about electoral reform? That is another promise that is gone.

I have 29 seconds to go. I know I am going to get some great questions, because members opposite have been listening to me intently. I am ready for them.

Bill C-58 is not open and transparent. It is not sunny ways. It is cloudy ways. The cabinet and the Prime Minister are doing everything they can to slide back into a decade of darkness. They do not want Canadians to have the information they deserve.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise on Bill C-58, and to go down this path once again on how we got to where we are today. To those in the gallery and those listening at home, it probably seems like we hit pause, rewind, then play, time and again. This debate is back again, and we will hear some of the same arguments we have had time and again.

I want to refresh, for those who are in the House today, as well as those listening, how we got to this point. I believe it was day 10 of the 2015 election campaign where the member for Papineau, now our Prime Minister, made a campaign pledge that, under his leadership, the Government of Canada would become the most open and transparent government in Canadian history. A mere two years later, we have slid backwards. Now we have a bill such as Bill C-58 that not just the media, but former information commissioners are saying is a step backward, a sign of decline in this government's transparency.

It is interesting. There are some things I will discuss along the way, and what do they have in common? What they have in common is that if access to information were not available, Canadians would not have found out about these issues. The access to information process is there.

Again, I will remind the House of why we are here. We seem to always have to remind our friends across the way, the government, that the House does not belong to them or to me. The House belongs to Canadians, those who elected us to be here, to be their voices, from the 338 ridings across Canada. We are here to deliver their voices to Ottawa, not the other way around.

If Canadians have questions about what the government is doing, access to information is a tool that the opposition and the media can use to find out some of the real answers. We get talking points but not a lot of answers during question period, and access to information allows us to dig deep and find some of the answers.

I will give a few examples that we have dealt with over the last two years. About a year ago, around this time, maybe a little later in the month, there was a holiday trip taken by our Prime Minister and his family. Again, I will be on record to say that I never begrudge anyone spending time with their family and going away and enjoying time. We work very hard. However, when the taxpayers pay for it, Canadians should know how much money is being spent. There are costs incurred along the way. The only way that the real costs of the Aga Khan trip were made public was through access to information. If Bill C-58 had been in place, would Canadians have found out what the costs had been, or that our Prime Minister perhaps had some bad advice along the way? He blames others, of course. It is not ever his mistake or problem, it is others who are giving him bad advice. Therefore, access to information has protected us there.

That same year, in 2016, we found out that another cabinet minister had a preferred choice of transportation when she was back in her riding. Again, the taxpayers were on the hook for that. It was a limo, or sedan, or whatever it was called, that we were talking about.

How did we find that out? How did Canadians find that out? It was through access to information.

The other one that came up was the government's plan to introduce a carbon tax. Many people, including experts who are in the field, said that the carbon tax would not be revenue neutral. It would be a cash grab, and even at $50 a tonne, it would not allow Canada to reach its target. How did we find that out? An internal departmental memo highlighted that for us.

If we listen to the talking points the ministers spew during question period, and indeed in their media scrums, everything is fine, and we should trust them, because they know what is best for us. However, when we dig deeper and have that opportunity to really look at some of the departmental information, we really get the truth.

Another one we have been dealing with over the last few weeks is the ethical conundrum the Minister of Finance finds himself in. The information that has come out is from the opposition a bit and from the public and the media that have done some digging, through access to information.

There is another one that came out. Shortly after the 2015 election, the Prime Minister was building his team and was perhaps moving some high-priced friends here to work in Ottawa. Moving here from Toronto, the GTA, would appear to be fairly expensive, because I believe the costs were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for a couple of staff members. After that information came out and was made public, I think most members in the House, and perhaps the people in the gallery, will remember that some of those dollars were paid back, because the Liberals said they erred in their ways, or perhaps, as the finance minister has said in terms of some of his challenges, it was an administrative error.

I am going to use a very recent issue that has come to light. The Minister of National Revenue has denied, a lot, over the last couple of weeks that there have been changes to the diabetic tax credit, despite all the letters and the meetings we have had with constituents. On this side of the House, I believe all of the opposition is on the same page with this one. Diabetics right across Canada are having challenges getting their tax credit. However, despite this revenue minister standing up, banging her fist on the table, and vehemently denying that there has been any change, guess what? Through an access to information request, we have now found out that indeed a memo has gone out. Not only has it gone out within her department, it has gone out to other departments, letting them know that there were indeed some challenges and that this tax credit has changed.

If Bill C-58 was in place today, we would not know about those ideas and issues I just brought up. It would be great for the Prime Minister, his cabinet, and his team, because they would not have such long-looking faces on the backbench. It is not sunny ways across the way anymore. It is cloudy ways right across the front bench. The poor backbench and the parliamentary secretaries are having to come in and answer all the questions for the ministers. I think some of those parliamentary secretaries, not all of them, are really earning their keep, because they are having to answer these questions for these ministers who keep making these ethical mistakes. Only through access to information are Canadians really finding out about them.

For those who are tuning in, Bill C-58 is not really about opening up and being more open and transparent. As a matter of fact, it is a step backward. When the Prime Minister was campaigning, he said that his government would be the most open and transparent government in Canadian history. Let us pump the brakes a little on that, because once he got in, once he had 39% of Canadians' votes, he changed that.

He said he was just kidding. He did not really expect to get in. They could not have Canadians knowing what they are doing or what their ministers are doing and that they are not going to have access to that.

Maybe they have made some amendments to Bill C-58 that are good, but they are failing Canadians on their biggest promise, which was to make the government more open and transparent, including the Prime Minister's Office and the cabinet ministers' offices. As it sits today, if Bill C-58 passed, the minister of a department could decide that a request was vexatious and frivolous. A minister could see that a media outlet or a member of Parliament or an opposition member had signed numerous access to information requests and could decide that perhaps he or she was unfairly targeting that department, so that minister would deny them.

That is unacceptable, because we are not here for ourselves. We are here for the Canadians who elected us. They are the electors in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George. I feel so fortunate to be here, and hopefully we have made them proud as we stand up every day and fight. We fight hard in delivering the voice of the Cariboo to Ottawa, not the other way around. I know that my constituents want us to make sure that we are fighting all the time, that we are holding the government accountable, and that it cannot do the unethical things it has done to this point.

The Liberals want to rush Bill C-58 in. I am sure that as we move forward, this is really a stopgap. I remind members that for the first time in Canadian history, we have a Prime Minister under investigation. We have a finance minister who has two investigations. I think there could be more coming down the wire.

Despite their standing up, hand on heart, saying that the finance minister has followed the letter of the law and what the Ethics Commissioner told him right from day one, we know that it is not true. I have not been up in question period very much on this. That is the job of other members of our team. If they had followed the Ethics Commissioner's rules, would the finance minister have two investigations going? Would he have been fined any money? Would he have been told, “You made a mistake”? He blamed it on an administrative error, saying, “Oops, I forgot my French villa.” I do not know about other people here, but if I had a French villa, I would not have forgotten about it.

That brings me to another point. When members of Parliament are elected, we all are held to a higher account. We all have to go through the same process. For the most part, that is right. In the mandate letters, the Prime Minister tasked his ministers to go above and beyond to withstand even the closest scrutiny. We all have to go through the steps and declare our assets and do what we have to do to satisfy the Ethics Commissioner's rules and guidelines. They are absolutely right about that, but ministers of the crown are actually held to a higher standard, especially those like the finance minister, which is perhaps one of the most powerful positions in Canada. It can influence markets through the policies the finance minister introduces. The Liberals say that he followed the letter of the law and always worked with the Ethics Commissioner. I think there is a bit of funny business going on, because if the minister had done that from day one, the Ethics Commissioner would not say that something does not smell right here and fine him. She only fined him a small amount, but she still fined him.

Essentially, he was found guilty, because he was fined for some form of unethical transgression--

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-58 and, in the words of our Prime Minister, shed some light on this less-than-true statement that members opposite have been making regarding this legislation.

Let us look at the mandate letter that was given to the Minister of Finance in November 2015. The Prime Minister wrote:

We have promised Canadians a government that will bring real change – in both what we do and how we do it.

That sure has changed. The Information Commissioner has been clear: this bill sets us back decades in terms of openness and transparency. I will share more of the Information Commissioner's thoughts a bit later in my remarks.

The Prime Minister went on to write in his mandate letter to the finance minister:

I expect Canadians to hold us accountable for delivering these commitments, and I expect all ministers to do their part....

We have also committed to set a higher bar for openness and transparency in government.

There has never been a more perfect example of how the current government is all style and no substance than this one, focusing on rhetoric and platitudes more than actual substance. This has to take the cake. The Liberals love to throw around terms like “openness and transparency” when in reality they are, through this legislation, making it harder for Canadians to access information under the current government. As members know, often the debates here in the House can be tainted with partisan political positioning, so rather than sharing my thoughts on the legislation, please allow me to read into the record parts of the Information Commissioner of Canada's report, titled “Failing to Strike the Right Balance for Transparency”. The commissioner stated:

The Liberal government was elected on a platform of openness and transparency, promising to renew Canadians’ trust in their government. At the beginning of its mandate, it committed to lead a review of the outdated Access to Information Act to enhance the openness of government.

Initial policy changes from the government, such as the elimination of all fees except the $5 application fee, were early indicators of positive change. Like many Canadians, I was hopeful that the government would follow through on its promise and introduce significant improvements to the Act.

Just before Parliament’s 2017 summer break, the government tabled Bill C-58, which amends the Access to Information Act.

In short, Bill C-58 fails to deliver.

These are the Information Commissioner's words, they are not mine. I hope that members of the Liberal government will not be disregarding the comments of an independent, non-partisan officer of Parliament.

The commissioner went on to write:

The government promised the bill would ensure the Act applies to the Prime Minister’s and Ministers’ Offices appropriately. It does not.

The government promised the bill would apply appropriately to administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts. It does not.

The government promised the bill would empower the Information Commissioner to order the release of government information. It does not.

Rather than advancing access to information rights, Bill C-58 would instead result in a regression of existing rights.

It imposes added obligations on requesters when making a request, adds new grounds for institutions to decline to act in response to requests, reintroduces the possibility of various fees, and, for some information, replaces the right of access and independent oversight with proactive disclosure. It allows the government to decide what information Canadians can obtain, rather than letting Canadians decide for themselves.

I might add that this is the Liberal philosophy: Government knows best what is good for Canadians. It is insulting, it is elitist, and it is arrogant.

More from the Information Commissioner's report:

It also introduces an oversight model where the Commissioner is not truly empowered to order the disclosure of information, and adds burdensome stages to the investigation process that may lead to delays. It does not take advantage of any of the benefits of a true order-making model.

Recent reviews of the Access to Information Act from myself and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics...have proposed amendments that are required to modernize the Act. These recommendations have largely been ignored in Bill C-58.

So much for consultation. So much for openness and transparency. So much for sunny ways. So much for sunshine being the best disinfectant.

Had the changes that the Liberals are ramming through today been in effect in the early 2000s, we would never have found out about the Liberal sponsorship scandal. It makes one wonder what exactly the goal is of the current government in introducing such archaic legislation. What does it have to hide today?

The government acts as if the measures it is taking regarding proactive disclosure in this piece of legislation are somehow groundbreaking. The reality is that the majority of information was already available either online or through access to information under previous governments.

The Liberals are trying to buy off Canadians with promising to proactively disclose how much a minister's steak dinner costs, while taking away their right to request information that could be embarrassing for the government. They give the rights to departments to deny access to information requests that they find to be vexatious or made in bad faith. Who gets to make the judgment as to what is vexatious or made in bad faith? Why, the Liberal government, of course.

I have been serving in opposition for over two years now, and one does not have to look too far into the past to see how thin-skinned the Liberal government is when it comes to asking it tough questions. We can look at the finance minister as an example. For the past several weeks, we have been asking on this side of the House for the finance minister to open up and be honest with Canadians regarding his assets. What does the finance minister do? He threatens to sue members of the opposition. One has to wonder how many journalists and Canadians will be threatened similarly by the finance minister, if he thinks their access to information request is vexatious or made in bad faith.

However, enough about Liberals, let us look at our Conservative government's accomplishments regarding access to information. On November 6, 2014, our government launched the action plan on open government 2.0. The action plan specified ways that the federal government was working toward creating more open and transparent government while maximizing the sharing of government information and data.

Key accomplishments include, one, the next generation open data portal that was launched in June 2013. This new portal was built based on broad public consultations with users to define new capabilities. Enhancements were made to expand the availability of high-value data, improve data integrity, enrich the usability of the site, facilitate intuitive discovery of data, and increase user engagement.

Second was on modernization of access to information services. These online services were launched in 2013 to enable Canadians to search completed ATI requests across all federal departments through a single search interface, and to submit new access to information requests via the web.

Third, in 2013, we issued a new open government licence for all levels of government in order to remove barriers to the reuse of published government data and information, regardless of origin. This licence has also been adopted by several provincial governments and municipalities across the country.

Fourth, we introduced a new government-wide web portal at Canada.ca that improved intuitive navigation features to help Canadians find information they need more quickly and easily. The portal enables users to quickly complete tasks, features government-wide search capabilities, better use of social media, and optimizes content for mobile devices.

In February 2014, we held the largest competitive open data hackathon in Canadian history, bringing together over 900 developers, students, and open data enthusiasts from across Canada to develop over 100 innovative applications using federal data.

Our Conservative government was also promoting transparency in public institutions and supporting taxpayers and hard-working Canadians through our support for private member's Bill C-377, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations). This important legislation would help to ensure greater transparency and accountability for labour unions by requiring them to publish their financial disclosures online for Canadians to examine. However, we know that these changes have been reversed.

No government is better at patting itself on the back than the current Liberal government. However, it is clear that while the government has been pumping out talking points about openness and transparency, the reality is that it is taking Canada down a very dark path.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have said that it is not doing what it is purporting to do in exposing those shadows. That is the biggest thing that let me down. I have always said in past campaigns that if it is a good idea, it is a good idea regardless of whether it comes from an NDP member, a Liberal member, or a Conservative member. If it is a good idea, it is a good idea. If there is truly this open and accountable government and we want to shine a light where it needs to be shone, I am absolutely supportive. We are deeply disappointed it did not go where the government promised it would go in Bill C-58 and that is unfortunate.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I recently became chair of the access to information, privacy and ethics committee, where this bill was brought. We talked about all of its positives, which were few, and many of its shortcomings. The shortcomings were highlighted by the many witnesses we heard from.

I think the most significant would be the commissioner herself, who said:

When I was preparing for this committee, I went back to the request that was made by Daniel Leblanc, the journalist who uncovered the sponsorship scandal. That request would not have met the new requirement under Bill C-58.

That highlights what I want to speak to today. We have heard many talking points. It is one thing to actually be in committee and hear all the testimony exposing all of the problems with Bill C-58, but another to hear other members regurgitate talking points that just demonstrate their lack of knowledge of the opposition to the bill.

That is what I want to point out today, the contrast between that and a government that came in with sunny ways and wanted to have sunlight shining on problems to highlight issues.

I neglected to announce that I will be sharing my time with the member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

What I think people watching this debate today need to understand is that they have been sold the idea that the government is more open and accountable, and that what is really happening is the opposite. What is happening through Bill C-58 is actually more cover-up, from ministers' offices, the Prime Minister's staff, etc.

We are going to see more cover-up and more protection of information. Frankly, as the commissioner mentioned, access to information is why we found out about the sponsorship scandal, and why a previous Liberal government failed and did not get re-elected, because of that particular scandal and the really bad things that were happening that we found out about as a result of that information.

I am just going to read through a few quotes for the benefit of those watching today, from a few of the people who oppose the bill. It is not just Conservatives who are opposed to this, or New Democrats, although both parties are. It is groups outside this place who have spoken against it. I will first cite one particular quote by Mr. Marleau, the information commissioner from 2007-09:

For the ministries, there's no one to review what they choose not to disclose, and I think that goes against the principle of the statute.

He further stated:

They’ve taken the commissioner out of the loop. If you ask for these briefing notes, and you’ve got them and they were redacted, you had someone to appeal to. So there’s no appeal. You can’t even go to a court. It’s one step forward, two steps back.

Again, let us let that sink in a little. Liberals give the illusion that they are moving forward on the issue, and, really, they are moving backwards. It is deliberate, because they want to cover up or have the ability to cover up some things being communicated in the Prime Minister's Office.

Again, I have another quote, this time from Vincent Gogolek, another individual speaking against this bill:

All they have to do is claim it’s a cabinet document, and then with her new improved powers she still can’t look at it, which is ridiculous.... So, when in doubt, call it a cabinet document. That’s the big problem, and that remains untouched.

All that needs to be said about a particular document in government is that it is a cabinet document, and therefore black ink will go across it whenever it is requested. Again, it is one thing to say this about any particular government that does not make claims about being more open and accountability, but another to say it about a government that campaigned on being more open and accountable. This is what the Prime Minister's schtick was about: sunny ways and shining a light where there previously were shadows. It is is simply a bait-and-switch. It is saying one thing and doing another.

I have another quote, this time by Katie Gibbs, executive director of the Evidence for Democracy Group, who said:

By excluding the ability to request information from ministers' offices and the PMO, this government falls short of meeting their campaign promise to make government 'open by default'....

Moreover, the possibility of refusing certain access to information requests on an undefined basis jeopardizes the transparency and openness of the government.

Once again, another person outside this place is saying that the proposed legislation is supposed to be doing one thing, but it is doing completely the other. It is causing more cover-up to be possible rather than exposing the truth.

Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, said that the bill proposes good amendments by requiring a more proactive publication of some information and giving the information commissioner the power to order the publication of some information, but it does nothing to fill the huge gaps in the act as was promised by the Liberals. Therefore, we need more changes to have a government which is transparent and open by default.

Let us think about the sponsorship scandal and the evidence that was being put forward, and the government just saying no, that it is not going to talk about it.

Mr. Conacher says the bill is “a step backwards in allowing government officials to deny requests for information if they think the request is frivolous or made in bad faith.” Public servants should not have this authority, because “they will likely use it as a new loophole to deny the public information it has a right to know.

I will speak as chair of the access to information, privacy and ethics committee. Some of the information that was brought before committee really attempted changes based on the recommendations. It was our party's position to support the recommendations of the Information Commissioner, and there are several. It was our position to see those go through. Well, the bill was not changed. The bill has not been significantly changed, and therefore it is still a problem for us.

I was hopeful that the Liberals would take the Information Commissioner's recommendations and understand that maybe it was a flawed document initially, which they would now fix. However, that did not happen in committee, and I want Parliament and people watching today to understand that. Again, the government is saying one thing and doing another.

An article in iPolitics by Steve Mayer is entitled “Liberals shockingly timid on access-to-information reform”. This does not sound like a government that wants to change access to information in a positive way. It sounds like it is going the other way, as I said before. However, the article reads:

We don’t really know, though, because the emails that would tell the tale are in the inboxes of the prime minister’s staff, and the Access to Information Act does not apply to ministerial staff...What the government has decided to do is not what Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault recommended, which is to have Access-to-information officers determine whether emails and memos from ministerial staff are political or parliamentary (in which case they would remain confidential)

The commissioner does not even have the ability to decide which is which. It is all in the hands of the Prime Minister's Office and ministers.

The article continues with:

or pertain to running a department (in which case they would be releasable). Instead of doing that — which is what they promised —

Again, this is an article talking about what the Liberals said they were going to do in Bill C-58. It continues with:

[the minister's] changes to the act would provide for the proactive disclosure of documents — briefing books and notes for question period — that until now have been released only in response to requests.

This means many useful documents will be released routinely, and it follows similar measures that Trudeau began in opposition, when he unilaterally released personal financial information and got his MPs to start posting their expenses online.

Again, the article is not criticizing him for the positive steps that he has made, but certainly the cover-up continues.

As chair of the committee, there was a hope that this would be something that the Liberals would follow through on and take the recommendations of the Information Commissioner. However, we saw quite a different story. We saw a government that would talk one game in front of the cameras and one game on the campaign trail, but when it came to making solid legislation that would expose those shadows that I had mentioned, it did the complete opposite and would give the ability for ministers to shadow even more information.

Sadly, this is what we are debating today. I hope the government does see sunnier ways and votes against Bill C-58.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, to follow up on the exchange between my colleague on the Liberal side and my friend from British Columbia, the Liberals seem to be saying that these changes in Bill C-58 will increase transparency and assist Canadians in getting more information from their own government. In fact, it seems to be far more regressive than anything we have seen in the last 34 years.

Does my colleague from British Columbia think that if the changes in Bill C-58 are legislated, it would mean that the government would, on its own volition, be able to determine what information it chooses to give to Canadians?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to add some comments to the debate today. I am not pleased to rise to add comments, because, again, we have before us legislation that certainly does not live up to the standards the government has set for itself, and is significantly flawed.

One of the most concerning things about the legislation is this, and it is important for the listeners to hear is this. If the Liberals think the legislation is right, they should also listen.

This is from Suzanne Legault, the Ethics Commissioner. She said:

When I was preparing for this committee, I went back to the request that was made by Daniel Leblanc, the journalist who uncovered the sponsorship scandal. That request would not have met the...requirement under Bill C-58.

As people might recall, the sponsorship scandal was a Liberal scandal. Millions of taxpayer dollars were diverted. Therefore, for the Liberals to have legislation before us that they are saying is adding benefit and value, when Suzanne Legault says that about it, we wonder what they are trying to do and what they are trying to hide.

The amendments to Canada's Access to Information Act will affect every organization that shares information with the federal government and every individual who wants access to that information. While the Liberals are claiming to improve the act, the content of the bill is not only deficient in truly bringing the act forward, but it also opens a lot of loopholes for the Liberal government to refuse to process certain information.

I will look at something that has been happening over the last few days.

This morning I was at the AFN conference and I listened to the minister speak. She talked about how long comprehensive and specific land claims took and how that was unacceptable to the government. She talked about needing a process that moved forward in a more robust way to recognize aboriginal title rights and to resolve these long-standing issues. On the other hand, and this was quite ironic, she said this to the assembly of chiefs, that today we were debating this legislation in the House.

This is what some very important indigenous organizations have said about this.

The National Claims Research Directors stated:

Bill C-58 will greatly impair the ability of First Nations to document their claims, grievances, and disputes with the Government of Canada and will significantly impede First Nations’ access to justice in resolving their claims. The Bill...significantly undermines First Nations’ existing rights of access to information.

That hardly sounds like the commitment the minister made this morning to the chiefs, to have a bill before the House that would significantly impact their ability to do the very thing that she said needed to move forward in an expeditious way.

The Office of the Auditor General of Canada recently conducted an audit of Canada's specific claim process. The OAG report, released in November 2016, concluded that Canada's Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs introduced numerous barriers that hindered the resolution of claims, including by restricting information.

Therefore, if passed into law, Bill C-58 will impose substantive new barriers to the resolution of first nation claims. It will also provide legislative authority for the suppression of evidence, which first nations require to pursue their claims against Canada. Revisions to the act will enshrine into legislation overly prescriptive and inappropriate requirements for applicants seeking records, as well as providing legislative grounds for government bodies to deny access to records that are vital to first nations.

Therefore, it is important to look at what the government has said it will do and what it actually does when it puts legislation forward. This is truly another broken promise by the Liberal government.

During their election campaign, the Liberals claimed they would extend the act so it applied to the Prime Minister's and ministers' offices. However, that will not be the case.

Katie Gibbs, executive director of Evidence for Democracy, has stated:

By excluding the ability to request information from ministers' offices and the PMO, this government falls short of meeting their campaign promise to make government “open by default”.

Moreover, this legislation would enable the government to refuse any access to information requests if it believes they are vexatious, made in bad faith, or a misuse of the right to request information. Refusal to respond to a request will be subject to a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner will have the power to force communication of every document or part of it under the control of federal institutions.

A government that chooses what to publish and when is not democratic and cannot be accountable to its citizens. That is fundamental. For all their talk about sunshine being a disinfectant, the Liberals have introduced darkness through the back door.

In a democratic state, a government should be open and transparent to its citizens, so why are the Liberals going out of their way to hide behind closed doors and refusing Canadians the right to fundamental information?

Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, states:

The bill take a step backwards in allowing government officials to deny requests for information if they think the request is frivolous or made in bad faith. Public officials should not be given this power, as they will likely use it as a new loophole to deny the public information it has a right to know.

I am going to tell the House about a personal situation closer to home. I have a constituent who faced a significant small business challenge, and while he was in Ottawa he met with a number of different folks within the government, including some policy advisers. He needed to get some information from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. He was facing a difficult situation, and when he looked into getting information, he was told that it would take 479 days to obtain what he needed. He would have to wait one year and 4 months to obtain information that was critical for his business, and not only his livelihood, but the livelihoods of his many employees.

Despite the promise to be more transparent, the Trudeau government is failing. As the Toronto Star has stated:

The national freedom of information audit found the federal access system is bogged down to the point where, in many cases, it simply doesn’t work....

The researchers found the federal system continues to be far slower and less responsive than provincial and municipal freedom of information regimes....

Just one-quarter of requests to federal government departments, agencies and Crown corporations were answered within the 30-day limit. One-third of the requests had not received a response by the end of the audit, which means those requests were outstanding for three months or more, with most closer to four months. The RCMP, Health Canada and National Defence were three institutions that cited large backlogs of requests, leading to bottlenecks and delayed responses. Information on pages eventually released under the federal access law can be blacked out for a variety of reasons including national security, legal privilege and commercial confidentiality.

They would get stuff that was totally blacked out.

Clearly the system is not working. The Liberal government committed to fixing the system and, quite frankly, it has made it much worse.

The Liberals issued their own mandate tracker, which has been quickly derided, but gave themselves an A+ for moving this legislation forward and telling Canadians how valuable, important, and great it would be in terms of new transparency. That is completely inaccurate.

I started my remarks by saying if this were in place and if it had cut off the initial investigation of the sponsorship scandal, then it is clearly not a piece of legislation that should pass through the House.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of today's debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, every question necessary to dispose of the said motion shall be deemed put, and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on Wednesday, December 6, 2017.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to point out the quote I gave from the Information Commissioner, an officer of this Parliament. She says, “Bill C-58 results in a regression of the rights of access for information.”

No credible third parties have said that Bill C-58 will deliver specifically on what the member and his government campaigned. If he wants to say that Bill C-58 will revolutionize access to information, we would think someone out there in civil society would support the government. I do not see that. I do not hear that. Could it be because there is no one?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I heard the member during question period, and he asks a great lob question.

In 2009-10, we invested in access to information. It was a 10% increase, which saw, by the time 2013 came around, a reduction in the amount of time it took to get access to information requests. We were improving that record.

The bill would make it easier for someone to call it vexatious request and to deny the request for that reason. When he was a member of Parliament in the third party in the corner, the Prime Minister put forward a swath of propositions to improve the system, campaigned on them, and, in his own mandate tracker, has said that the Liberals are on track to do them, when the bill would do nothing for it.

By the Liberals' standards of transparency, the mandate tracker and Bill C-58 leave much to be desired.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the good member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

It is often said that image is everything. I share that observation because never before in modern day Canadian history have we witnessed a prime minister who is as image conscious as the member for Papineau is. I am not here today to debate the merits or lack thereof of that point, but rather to point out how that branding exercise led us to Bill C-58.

For those who were not here in the previous Parliament, I shall indulge a little. Shortly after becoming the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, the member for Papineau was creating his brand. Part of that brand, and we hear it all the time, was the “sunlight is the best disinfectant” routine. It played well in the Liberal narrative that the former prime minister led the most secretive government in Canada's history, so the member for Papineau introduced a private member's bill to highlight that.

As some will know, during the last election the Liberals again made many of the same open government style promises, similar to what was in the Prime Minister's earlier private member's bill. As usual, these promises used many of the correct buzzwords. They looked good. They sounded good. There was only one problem: the Liberals got elected and now those promises have to be fulfilled.

That leads to our second problem. Bill C-58 does not do exactly that. In fact, it fails so badly that the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada stated in the headline of a news release that “Bill C-58 results in a regression of the rights to access to information”. If we think about that statement for a moment, it is not by a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, or the third party, but from the office of an independent officer of Parliament.

Not only that, the bill actually breaks the Prime Minister's own commitments. Despite the commitment to apply access to information laws to the Prime Minister's Office and his cabinet ministers, they all get a pass. It is yet another example of there being one set of rules for everyone else, but a look-the-other-way clause when it comes to the most senior Liberal insiders. That is a growing problem with how the Prime Minister and his small, elite inner circle does things. Many of our constituents are becoming tired of it.

I was not a supporter of the Prime Minister's earlier private member's bill. As I was the parliamentary secretary to the president of the Treasury Board at that time, I was aware that some of the proposed measures were administratively problematic, and I came into this place and said as much.

The problem here is that those challenges were always well known, but in spite of them, the Prime Minister was happy to campaign on them and promise them anyway. Therefore, like many of those priorities and promises, they get thrown by the wayside now that the Prime Minister and his small inner circle control the levers of power.

That is not principled leadership. To promise things one can deliver on, but chooses not to do so is a betrayal. There are other words to describe that, but I would never want to be unparliamentary.

Here we are. We have a bill that the Information Commissioner essentially condemns. Virtually all of those who frequently make access to information requests and use the ATIP legislation have also widely condemned the bill. In fact, during my research, I could find no significant support for the bill whatsoever. If there is, I would really like to hear government members say so. Basically, all expert opinion gives it a fail. It does not meet the promises the Prime Minister made.

In fact, The Globe and Mail reports that Canada's access to information system has become worse under the Liberal Prime Minister. We all know that the bill would not fix that. Many experts suggest that it will only make things worse.

I will not suggest the last government was perfect on the subject either, but we were on the right track. In 2013, the former government released nearly six million pages of information to Canadians, an increase of over a million and a half pages over the preceding year.

Under Bill C-58, we will have a law that says the Prime Minister's office and his ministers can tell Canadians to pound sand when it comes to access to information requests. Keep this in mind. This is the same Prime Minister who was happy to build his brand and score points after promising he would do the exact opposite.

I will again ask the question I recently asked. The Prime Minister, as we all know, came into this place and said “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.” Why did he say that? Did he say it because it was politically convenient to do so at the time? Did he say it because it showed the principle should only apply to everyone else but himself and his ministers? Did he say it because it happened to be true?

Before I close, I will ask a question. Right now we have a very serious situation where single parents, primarily single mothers, are being unfairly targeted by the Canada Revenue Agency. As a result, in many cases, their Canada child benefits are being delayed, denied, or even clawed back in some cases. We also know that those with type 1 diabetes are also being disturbingly targeted by CRA.

I will credit many backbench Liberal MPs who I know are just as concerned about this situation as I am. I also know that several of them are reaching out to try to help some of those who are being unfairly targeted by this. Some have even stated publicly that they are also concerned.

The ultimate challenge is this. What is the minister going to do to solve this problem? Ultimately that is where the problem is. Thanks to Bill C-58, we will never know. That may be good enough for some. It certainly was not good enough for the member for Papineau, when he was handing out gift bags of election promises, a continued pattern of broken promises that results in one level of rules for senior Liberal insiders and another set for everyone else not the sunlight of disinfectant the Prime Minister promised.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Third Reading

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow my impassioned colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I wish I had the same level of anger. I should, but today I really come to this debate with absolute sadness at the missed opportunity before us in Bill C-58.

When the Liberals introduced this legislation, they called it in their press release “the most comprehensive reform of Access to Information in a generation”. It sure was not.

I want to talk about what the Civil Liberties Association has said, what first nations have said, what trade unions have said, what journalists have said, all of which has been to pan this effort as an appalling waste of time.

I could not do better than to quote my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who in turn quoted the Information Commissioner, who has the most expertise of anyone on the bill. She said has said it is “regressive”. She has said to Canadians that if the bill were not significantly amended, “I would much prefer to keep the status quo”, namely, the Stephen Harper version of access to information than the one before us. That must be so galling for Liberals to hear. Then we heard today in the House, “Oh, no, that was before the wonderful amendments we brought in, which have made it all better so we should not be concerned”, referring to all those people who had concerns.

They have not made it right. They have made cosmetic changes to minor parts of the bill that make no difference to the main event, which has always been the exceptions to the rule of disclosure, the exceptions that carve away the right that was given in the main section of the bill, and those exceptions were not touched.

In committee I introduced on behalf of the NDP a dozen or more amendments to the exceptions, and not one was accepted. There were 20 amendments in total, but in regard to the exceptions, there were about a dozen amendments that many activists have talked about. This is not radical stuff. The Information Commissioner told us to suggest those amendments, not to make the bill regressive, but to make it better. How many of those were accepted? Zero.

The government has the gall to stand here before Canadians and take credit for something that is such an absolute farce. I find it appalling that we are in this position.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity, indeed the honour, to stand with five chiefs from across this great country who do research on residential school settlements, on grievances involving specific claims, on land claims generally, including cut-off land claims. Every single one of them said they were not consulted and that this law would make things worse. I thought no relationship was more important to the Prime Minister than with first nations. One could have heard a pin drop in that press conference as one after another stood up to castigate the Liberal government for yet another broken promise.

This is not just another bill. This is what the courts have termed “quasi-constitutional” legislation, in this case dealing with the essential right to know in a democracy. If we do not know what is going on and cannot find out, we live in a totalitarian state.

Back in the 1980s, the government at the time finally introduced an access to information bill, and a generation later it has ossified. It is legislation that no longer does the trick. The government did not even have computers in active use back then, so clearly things needed to change, and yet the changes the current government has proposed involve things like getting access to ministers' mandate letters.

Moreover, now the government can tell us what we want to know under something called “proactive disclosure”. Far be it for me to criticize making more information available, but proactive disclosure will involve the government letting us know by what it puts on a website, as if that were somehow the same as a person making a request to the Prime Minister's Office for information, as was done during the sponsorship scandal when The Globe and Mail and Daniel Leblanc told Canadians about the abuses of their tax dollars. That is because they had the right to make a request and, finally, ATIP delivered.

The government therefore wants to conflate access to information and proactive disclosure, a doctrine that has been around for many years in most provinces and in the federal government. It has been put in a statute and we are supposed to think it is the most comprehensive reform of access to information in a generation. It is just absurd.

I care deeply about this. I did my graduate work on freedom of information. I drafted the B.C. legislation and the Yukon legislation. I know when Canadians are being hoodwinked, and they are being hoodwinked by the bill before us. I think it needs to be withdrawn, and we need to do it right for Canadians. The experts are unanimous that the bill is in dire need of reform because the bill basically only codifies existing practices.

British Columbia and most of the provinces have a very simple way of enabling an information commissioner to order the disclosure of information. After a few days, if the government does not choose to judicially review the order of the commissioner, it is the law, and the government shall disclose it. I invite members to look at the so-called order-making power in the bill to see if they can figure it out, because the Information Commission does not believe it to be anything like what the term “order-making powers” would suggest.

Interestingly, I believe that the only private member's bill the Prime Minister sponsored when he was in opposition was on reforming the access to information and privacy acts. On the Access to Information Act, one of the specific things he wanted to do was to make ministers' offices open, which is to say that one could make a request and the office should respond, and likewise the Prime Minster's Office.

I will say it again, the government is conflating proactive disclosure, namely what it wants to tell us, and the ability of any citizen to ask for information and have the Information Commissioner order it disclosed. That is how it works in my province of British Columbia, and it works very well. Most of the time, cases are settled. Ninety-some percent of cases over the decades have been resolved through mediation. This need not be expensive. It need not be convoluted.

However, the government has provided something like a camel invented by committee. A horse invented by committee is a camel, and the bill before us is a camel. What if people wanted to know, for example, about the Prime Minister's Christmas vacations or whether a minister's villa were held within a private company? Would they be able to ask for that information? Well, it would not be proactively disclosed, I do not believe, which, of course, is one of the crucial difficulties with the proposed legislation.

Canadians also need to know that the government has not abolished the $5 fee, which is a tollgate on citizens' right to access. How much does it cost to cash a cheque for $5? It is $55. This is our government in action, which is why Canadians are basically paying millions of dollars to deny information to other Canadians. There is no duty to document, as requested by the commissioner. The exemptions have not changed, as I indicated, and every academic and every researcher comes down hard on this legislation. We know we are in trouble when the Canadian Association of Research Libraries comes down hard on a bill like this.

I want to end by saying, would it not be nice if quasi-constitutional legislation involving privacy and our rights to information were somehow taken more seriously, that we had an opportunity to really engage in debate at committee and, as a generational change, to get it right? Unfortunately, the government is about to deprive us of that right. The Liberals have used time allocation to bring down the guillotine so that we will not have any more opportunity to discuss this quasi-constitutional legislation in this place. It is a travesty. It is appalling. Canadians deserve better.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes, say the Liberals. Oh, my, what delusional sense of history do the Liberals have? That only came to light because Mr. Leblanc from The Globe and Mail dug and dug into government information. He used a part of the Access to Information Act and asked for the documents between this date to that date from a certain department. Under Bill C-58, that would not be allowed anymore. Who told us that? The Information Commissioner told us that. She said that if the same request had come in after this bill becomes law, we would have never learned about the whole sponsorship scandal. We would have never learned that Liberals in that part of the country were padding their pockets with public money. People went to jail over this, a government fell over this, as it should have, because it was stealing. It was stealing money under the guise of some sponsorship program, and it was only because of access to information that we found this out.

The residential school survivors have been fighting with government for decades for the simple acknowledgement that they or their parents attended a certain residential school at which they were abused horrifically, and for which the Government of Canada was dragged, finally, to apologize for. That only came to light because of access to information. Government does not disclose these things. The Liberals say that they are going to self-disclose and that should be good. We heard from the Information Commissioner's office that complaints have been rising since its new disclosure policy.

We have also heard from the Information Commissioner's office that with these terms, if a request is deemed vexatious by the government, it can deny the request. What does that mean? It is vexatious to whom, to some department that has been badly handling public funds? Yes, I bet that information would look vexatious. The government is going to tell Canadians it is sorry, they cannot have the information they requested because it thinks it is vexatious. It is going to hurt its feelings, and someone might get fired for doing bad. We want to be able to shine light on these things, not go in the opposite direction.

The Information Commissioner asked for order-making powers, and the Liberals promised this. The Information Commissioner would have the ability to demand documents from government and not have government delay and deny. With the amendments in this bill, the commissioner was asked how this would affect order-making power. She said it would not be a true order-making power, and may in fact delay the process for Canadians even longer because they will end up in the courts more often.

Lastly, we asked the Information Commissioner, the watchdog, an officer of Parliament who works on behalf of all of us, if the government consulted with her and if it offered more in the way of a budget, because enforcing this is going to cost a lot more money due to going to court a lot more often. The answer was no.

Again, the Liberals are talking about how they like to consult, how they like to include, how they like to be collaborative. With every proposal we made to change this bill, to try to save this bill from itself, to help Liberals keep a Liberal promise, one of the hardest things to do in politics, they rejected every single one. They allowed the technical amendments from their side and changed a comma here and moved a period there. Congratulations.

However, the fundamental DNA of this bill is designed to make access to information more difficult for Canadians. That is not me talking, that is the Information Commissioner, aboriginal groups, and advocates across the political spectrum who say that things will get worse under this law.

This is the sense of entitlement. This is a hypocritical approach to politics that discourages Canadians so fundamentally. If Liberals are sincere about working with the opposition, they would amend the bill based on the evidence we heard, rather than their own world view, which will make it so much more difficult for Canadians to hold truth to power.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Victoria.

“All-party co-operation” is what the Liberals call it. This is what happens to this bad piece of legislation, which the Information Commissioner said, unless it was fundamentally amended would be a regression in terms of access to information. That is what she said, so we tried to fundamentally amend it. Based upon what? It was not about the notions we came into the meetings with. It was from the testimony that we heard at the committee from the Information Commissioner, who is the lead on access to information in this country. It was from first nations groups, who are seeking settlement with the government over land treaties, residential school inquiries, with the government, by the way, still in court with first nations. It might be shocking, but the Liberal government is taking first nation kids to court, taking the generations that followed to court, to deny them access to documents that happened in residential schools. My friend can walk away from the conversation, but the reality will follow her right out of Parliament and into her home constituency in Vancouver.

I imagine that most of my Liberal colleagues came in with good intentions, wanting to open up government, wanting to make information more available to Canadians, because it is their information. They paid for it. When the Department of National Defence does something, when Indigenous Affairs does something, and they file some documents on it, the documents do not belong to the Government of Canada, they belong to the people of Canada. That is who paid for it, and that is what is required under law. However, there are tricks around providing that information.

My friend from the Liberals just said that we should celebrate because access to information now applies to the Prime Minister's Office and the minister's office. That, on the surface, would seem like a really good idea, and that is what the Liberals promised, but what is the reality? Can people write an access to information request to the Prime Minister's Office after Bill C-58 becomes law? No, they cannot. What will happen is that the Prime Minister's Office will self-disclose the information, such as mandate letters. They are going to make mandate letters mandatorily disclosed to Canadians. Well, let the angels sing on high and pop the champagne corks. Big deal. They break half of the promises in their mandate letters anyway, so making them public means exactly what? It is a mandate letter. We wanted access to how the Prime Minister's Office operates. That is what the current Prime Minister promised when he was not Prime Minister.

Now that he is Prime Minister, he does not want that access to information to apply to him. He wants it to apply to somebody else at some other time. We went through this. The Assembly of First Nations is meeting today, and they have an emergency resolution on the floor from the chiefs across this country to reject this piece of legislation. The Liberals love the notion and the symbolism and the gestures toward first nation people. Hand on heart, they say that no relationship is more important to them. Then, we find out when it comes to important things that native people care about, like getting access to information, who attended residential schools, who went through that brutality, and can they get the names from government, that they cannot, they have to take it to court. Will Bill C-58 make things worse or better? According to first nation groups who testified, it will make it worse as first nations seek to settle land claims. Oftentimes documents are needed to settle a land claim. Who has those documents? The crown has them. Will Bill C-58 make things worse or better? It will make them worse.

The Liberals talk about working collaboratively. They stood in the House and said they are going to work collaboratively with the opposition. We took them on their word. We took the information given to us from these expert witnesses, from people in the media who use access to information all the time, from first nations, from environmental advocates, from Democracy Watch, and we put them into amendments. What did the Liberals do? En masse, they voted one after another to shoot them all down. They said they worked with us, they collaborated with us, they co-operated with us. I have no idea how they define those terms, but my idea of collaboration and co-operation is to listen to expert testimony and then to properly consider it.

The Liberals moved some cosmetic amendments at the end of the process. I asked Liberal colleagues who were moving the amendments if they could explain them, because clearly they must understand what they were doing. However, they had to huddle, they had to get together, time and time again. This is a travesty. If we look through our history as a country since the access to information laws have existed, some of the most important stories in our country have only come to light because someone was able to apply an access to information request. The Prime Minister says again and again that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

The enormous power that the federal government has must be held in check. That is the way that democracy works, if it works at all. The way to hold government in check is to have information to counter, particularly when government is lying, misleading Canadians, misappropriating funds, or conducting itself in a way other than what it promised.

If we go back through our history, how did we learn about type 1 diabetics in Canada being rejected? That was an ATIP request. The government did not say it had changed policy, that people with type 1 diabetes will now not get their disability tax credits. No, it was an access to information request that found that Revenue Canada was going to describe that policy in a new way and go from accepting 90% of applicants to rejecting 90% of applicants who have type 1 diabetes. That was an access to information request.

Robyn Doolittle from The Globe and Mail gave an incredibly comprehensive analysis of sexual assaults in Canada, on what the situation is with under-reporting and reporting. How did she find that out? It was through access to information. With regard to the Afghan detainees, Canadians in Afghanistan, possibly contrary to international law, were transferring prisoners to the Afghan government. That was discovered through access to information. How did we find out about the sponsorship scandal, where millions and millions of dollars, which was purported to sponsor ads and promote Canada, was ending up in the pockets of Liberal political operatives in Quebec. How did we find that out? Did the government self-disclose and say, “By the way, we have been stealing millions of dollars”?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about reality. The reality is that the commissioner asked for order-making power and would be provided order-making power. In the amendments, that order-making power was strengthened in ways the commissioner had indicated would make it even more effective.

Let us talk about reality with respect to the Prime Minister's office and the minister's offices. For the first time ever, the act would apply to the ministers' offices and the PMO. This would lead to better public understanding of government decision-making, fostering more participation and public trust in government. That is advancement.

For the first time ever, the act would apply to 240 federal entities, from the courts to the ports. That is advancement.

This is not just a one-off exercise. It is an evergreen, ongoing rejuvenation. The member opposite, from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, continues to quote comments made before a committee process that vastly improved the bill, with the cooperation of all parties. I would ask him to update his narrative and reflect Bill C-58 as it is today in this House.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not clear on what the member considers to be draconian about a law, Bill C-58, that would broaden access to information across the Prime Minister's Office, ministers' offices, and many other offices. What is draconian about giving order-making power to the commissioner, enabling the commissioner to determine whether a request can actually be blocked by a department?

I will just add that the previous government had ministers countermanding the provision of information by a department and actually taking the political power themselves to block access to information requests. It was shocking at the time. The sanctimonious comments I hear on the other side of the House are quite surprising, given that record.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-58, and to perhaps set the record straight with respect to some of the remarks of my colleagues opposite. They love to quote criticisms of the bill that took place before the committee study, before amendments were made to address those very issues, and before the bill was even further strengthened to build on the historic improvement to access to information.

Our government is firmly committed to being open and transparent. That is the kind of government Canadians expect and deserve. These reforms were made with that in mind.

We remain committed to upholding this principle, which was first applied in the 1983 Access to Information Act.

Now, 34 years later, our proposed reforms advance the original intent of the act in a way that reflects today's technologies, policies, and legislation, and keeps this an evergreen process as well.

I am proud our government is the government to finally update this act. This is in contrast to the government of the members opposite, the Conservatives, who promised to reform this act in their election platform, spent 10 years in government, and failed to do a thing.

I experienced the former government's control tactics around access to information first-hand as an opposition member of Parliament. I filed an access to information request to find out more about the process for building Canada's pavilion for the 2010 Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Games. The pavilion was to be built in Vancouver, and there were questions about it in the media. Lo and behold, when I received the response from the government, every line in the document had been blacked out. There was not a scrap of information. I would contend that Canada's Olympic pavilion was hardly a national security issue that had to be protected.

That is what the Conservative government of the day was doing instead of fixing the Access to Information Act. Perhaps it was also too busy becoming the first government in not just the history of Canada but the history of the Commonwealth to be found in contempt of Parliament for refusing to provide information to Parliament.

Let us not forget the extent to which the New Democrats were hesitant to join the trend when the Liberal MPs became the first party to begin a practice of proactive disclosure of expenses. They needed to be dragged along with that. However, I digress.

Our government is acting. We are following through on our election promise to reform the Access to Information Act.

Our efforts started over a year ago. In May 2016, we issued a directive that enshrined the idea of a government that is “open by default”.

Open by default means having a culture across government in which data and information are increasingly released as a matter of course, unless there are specific reasons not to do so.

Now, with the amendments proposed in Bill C-58, we are taking the next step.

Bill C-58 would advance the Access to Information Act in some key areas. It would give the Information Commissioner the power to order government to release records. She has been asking exactly for that. That is a significant increase in the power of the commissioner. No longer is the office of the commissioner simply an ombudsperson. It would now have the power to compel government to release records.

The bill would put the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices inside the act for the very first time, as promised, through legislative requirements for proactive disclosure. It would also legislate proactive disclosure for administrative bodies that supported the courts, Parliament, and other government institutions. This dramatically broadens the reach of the Access to Information Act.

The bill also mandates five-year reviews of the act. Therefore, it is an evergreen process of improvement. What is more is that it would require that departments regularly review the information being requested under the act.

This will help us understand and increase the kinds of information that could be and should be proactively published.

We are also developing a guide to provide requesters with clear explanations for exemptions and exclusions. We are investing in tools to make processing information requests more timely and efficient. We are allowing federal institutions with the same minister to share request processing services for greater efficiency. We are also increasing government training to get common and consistent interpretation and application of ATI rules.

We are moving to help government institutions weed out bad faith requests that put significant strain on the system.

By tying up government resources, such vexatious requests can interfere with an institution's ability to do its other work and respond to other requests. However, let me be clear. We have heard the concerns expressed about how we must safeguard against abuse of this proposed measure. In particular, we have heard the concerns raised by indigenous groups regarding land claims.

As the President of the Treasury Board said during second reading debate, “A large or broad request, or one that causes government discomfort, does not, of itself, represent bad faith on the part of the requester.” Broad requests, particularly historical records to substantiate indigenous claims, are legitimate and consistent with the spirit of the act.

However, it was not enough for our government to clearly state our intentions in the House of Commons. Therefore, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics further strengthened Bill C-58 by amending the bill to make it explicit that no department could refuse a request simply because the subject, type of record or date of record was not specified.

The bill was also amended to give the Information Commissioner veto power in advance over whether a department could reject a request. The committee also passed an amendment that would give the Information Commissioner the power to publish the results of their investigations and orders, giving further leverage to the commissioner's new powers, as was intended by the President of the Treasury Board and requested by the commissioner. Our government firmly supports these amendments.

In addition to the government's duty to assist, which is a fundamental obligation built into the Access to Information Act, our government is fully committed to fulfilling Canada's fiduciary obligation to assist first nations in furthering their land claims.

After 34 years, Canada's ATI system needs updating, and this will be a work in progress.

I am disappointed that the members opposite in both the Conservative Party and the NDP have been playing politics with this very important bill. They have been raising issues that were already addressed at committee, where amendments were passed to put to rest the concerns that were raised.

The Conservatives, who never did anything for 10 years even though they solemnly promised in their platform to update access to information, are acting as though this is a step backward. In fact, it is a step in forward in many respects. It would broaden the scope of the act, respect the commissioner's request to have additional powers to determine if a department could refuse to fulfill an access to information request. It also includes order-making power to ensure the order is published and publicly available to review.

A great number of key steps have been taken to advance the openness and transparency to the Canadian public with respect to information to which they should and will have access.

Members opposite are pretending that no amendments have been made, that the commissioner's report is still valid when it was written before the amendments to respond to her concerns were debated and voted on by committee members, including the New Democratic Party members and Conservative members, and wholly supported by the Liberal President of the Treasury Board and Liberal members. The fact that those are being ignored, that those parties are aiming to confuse and confound the public debate, and mislead members of the public listening to their speeches and questions and answers is very discouraging and disappointing. This is one of those kinds of policy measures that everyone agreed needed to be improved. That is exactly what we are doing, for the first time in 34 years.

To try to confuse the public into thinking that this is a step back, when it is a major leap forward, is doing a disservice to the public. It is providing inaccurate information to the public. It is raising unnecessary fears around individual access to information and around indigenous people's access to information in pursuit of potential land claims. These things have been addressed. We have a great deal of respect for the importance of reconciliation with indigenous peoples right across this country, and one part of that is to support and aid individuals and groups that are seeking access to information to pursue the reconciliation, partnership, and co-operation our government is so committed to.

Therefore, I would request that the members opposite stick to the facts, reflect what happened in committee in terms of the amendments that were made, and reflect the ways in which the commissioner's requests and others were actually built into those amendments by committee. Let us have a debate on the merits of this policy using the actual up-to-date, factual information. That would be a public service on the part of members opposite.

As I said at the start of my speech, I am very proud that it is our Liberal government that is finally following through and giving the Access to Information Act some much-needed reform. There would be a review just one year after the coming into force of this bill so that we would be able to have continuous quality improvement of this very important piece of legislation. This very important aspect of our public policy, whereby reviews are done and improvements are made in a timely way, is built into our new act. We are looking forward to continuing our work to help make government more open, transparent, and accountable.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking a relevant question that ties into the statements made by everyone I quoted in my speech. Opposition members are not the only ones crying foul. When people listen to the rhetoric in this place, they may get the sense that we are here just to oppose the government no matter what it says. In this case, as my colleague astutely pointed out, officers of Parliament are the ones saying these things, not us. They are the ones who are responsible for keeping us in line because we are all human and we can all make mistakes. They are saying the same thing as journalists and opposition party members, who want to do a good job of representing their citizens.

Members on this side of the House were elected by the people, too. The people decided to give the Liberals a chance to govern, but they also elected us to keep a close eye on the Liberals. As such, I believe we have the same rights as them. If I submit an access to information request, I, like any journalist, opposition member, or citizen frustrated by what has been going on these past two years, should have the privilege of getting the information requested. Bill C-58 does just the opposite. This government is protecting itself by implementing a new communications management system.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I think the French title of the Information Commissioner's report had something to do with a missed target.

I have never before seen a watchdog of Parliament, an officer of Parliament, hold up government legislation, compare it to the government's promises and mandate letters, and so thoroughly eviscerate that legislation, as in the case of Bill C-58.

We heard in testimony from the commissioner that her department and her office already were receiving complaints about government agencies employing the tactics imagined in Bill C-58, which has not even passed Parliament yet. Government agencies are denying access to information requests from Canadians based on these terrible articles in the bill, which would allow a government agency to deem a request from a Canadian as being vexatious or too problematic for the agency.

When it come to information, some things Canadians want from the government may seem vexatious to the government but are important to Canadians, like missing and murdered aboriginal women, like the number of sexual assaults that go unreported to the RCMP in Canada, like the sponsorship scandal, and like the Afghan detainee situation. All of those came to light only because Canadians, journalists, and NGOs were able to gain access that information from governments that did not want to give them.

My question for my friend is this. If Bill C-58 already is being applied, denying Canadians access to the information to which they are legally entitled, what kind of future can we imagine for first nations groups, environment groups, and journalists, those people who simply are trying to get information from the government to which they are legally entitled?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before explaining why I am so pleased to speak in the House to Bill C-58 on reforming the Access to Information Act, I will read a quote to put things into context:

When I was getting ready to appear [before the committee], I came back to the request made by journalist Daniel Leblanc [from TheGlobe and Mail], the request that uncovered the sponsorship scandal. That request would not have met the requirements [of the bill, which] would be a major setback [for information rights].

That person is referring to the bill we are talking about today, the one that the Liberals want to pass. Who said that? It was not an opposition MP, it was Suzanne Legault, the Information Commissioner of Canada.

That is why the bill to amend the Access to Information Act, 1993 is so highly anticipated. As hon. members know, that legislation affects anyone wanting to obtain information from federal government institutions.

Ever since the Access to Information Act reform was unveiled there has been no end to the criticism and disappointment. First, this reform does not keep the Liberals' promise to extend the legislation to ministers' offices, or to the Prime Minister's office. That is the first broken promise.

Second, the government will now be able to decline any access to information request if it believes the request is vexatious, is made in bad faith, or is otherwise an abuse of the right to make a request for access to information. In other words, the government is leaving itself enough leeway to turn down any request that could be harmful or embarrassing to it. God knows there are plenty of files that meet that description.

Third, we know there is currently a major backlog of access to information requests. Sadly, this bill does nothing to tackle the backlog, which has already reached unacceptable levels and serves to further impede access to information.

Fourth, the government promised that the bill would apply appropriately to administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts, but as it turns out, that will not be so.

Fifth, the government promised that the bill would create an oversight model that would give the Information Commissioner the power to order the release of government information. However, needless to say, this bill contains no such reforms.

According to the Information Commissioner, whom I quoted at the beginning, if this bill had been in force in 1999, it would have prevented journalists from accessing the information that made it possible for them to uncover the Liberal sponsorship scandal, better known in some circles as the Gomery commission.

Ms. Legault has voiced several criticisms regarding Bill C-58. Basically, no one is satisfied. Everyone is disappointed in this version of the bill.

Katie Gibbs, executive director of the Evidence for Democracy group, has said that by ruling out the possibility of obtaining information from ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office, the Liberal government is breaking its promise. She also argued that the government is breaking its campaign promise to establish a government that is open by default. She believes the possibility to arbitrarily refuse access to information requests on an undefined basis jeopardizes government transparency and openness.

The Liberals are going to great lengths to protect the Prime Minister.

Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, believes that the bill represents a step backwards by allowing government officials to deny access to information requests if they think the request is frivolous or made in bad faith. Mr. Conacher has also indicated that public servants should not have this authority because they will likely use it as a new loophole to deny the public the information it has a right to know. We saw this with the minister of the Canada Revenue Agency, especially in recent weeks.

Stéphane Giroux, president of the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec—these are not the mean, old Conservatives the Liberals make us out to be; Robert Marleau, former information commissioner from 2007 to 2009; the British Columbia Freedom of Information and Privacy Association; some first nations groups who noted that some provisions in the bill would make it harder for them to get access to justice and information, all these people oppose the bill. That is a lot of people; they are starting to add up.

This all means that not only the members of the opposition, but also civil liberties groups, journalists, and the Information Commissioner, who is neutral, all oppose the bill and prefer the status quo. That says something when we prefer the status quo, with its many flaws, rather than this Liberal reform presented today. We understand that there is work to do to improve the situation. All these people share a common belief that Bill C-58 does not implement any of the requested reforms to the Access to Information Act, and furthermore, that it introduces new obstacles to the process that Canadians will have to follow to make legitimate requests for government documents. After this, we still wonder why the population is so cynical about politicians.

The reform therefore does nothing to address the enormous shortcomings of the act, as the Liberals promised during the election campaign. In fact, it is a step backward. Governments in power, regardless of the party, constantly introduce bills to improve the situation. As I was saying earlier, it is unbelievable that so many people see only regression in a bill that should improve the situation.

This is also double talk: the Liberals say that they are open and transparent, but they missed a great opportunity to prove it. They must be totally disconnected to believe that Canadians will not see through them, particularly when we consider the scandals that have emerged every day for two years now.

As the reform currently stands, the government will be able to choose which information it will make public and protect the information it wants to hide from Canadians. It will be free to decline requests for access to information for obscure and arbitrary reasons.

My colleagues can rest assured that no information that could be even minimally embarrassing will be disclosed. We know how the Liberals work. By choosing to disclose only what makes them look good—and we know how much our Prime Minister likes to look good, no need to mention the selfies—I think that everyone knows exactly what the Prime Minister is doing: the Liberals are now turning the Access to Information Act into a new communications strategy. What we are talking about is serious.

This act is one of the very few tools that citizens, journalists, and members of all official opposition parties, who have the responsibility to monitor this government to prevent the types of breach of trust we are seeing today, have to exercise their right to information and do their jobs properly. Make no mistake, the Liberal government is centralizing power around the Prime Minister and his cronies, who control even the various ministers’ offices, despite what it is letting on with its nice words and pretty pictures, while publicly condemning such acts.

Lastly, when we look at the bill as a whole, what we take away is “do what I say, not what I do”. It is a sad state of affairs.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must again say that this living document, which is on life support, certainly in the court of public opinion, will be imposed on Canadians by the Liberal majority.

I want to speak positively about the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, because it is a productive committee. Members work well together. A year ago, before this bad law was written, the committee, with a Liberal majority and chaired by a Conservative, voted unanimously to advise the government on what should be in Bill C-58. Those suggestions were completely ignored. When the bill, under attack from all quarters, went to committee recently and all of the recommended amendments by the NDP were rejected, we Conservatives saw the government's mood and did not submit any proposed amendments because we believed, and still believe, that Bill C-58 is beyond redemption, though at least one member of the Liberal committee voted for changes. The Liberal numbers on that committee meant that the direction of the PMO prevailed and all but a very few of those amendments were accepted by the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to talk about the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, which were essentially all rejected by the Liberal government.

Could my colleague tell me why he thinks that the Liberal government once again rejected all the suggestions the opposition made to improve Bill C-58, which is supposedly a living document?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

As we have heard many times today, again, the legislation before us, Bill C-58, which the Liberal government is steamrolling to pass through the heavy-handed imposition once again of the legislative guillotine of time allocation, has been characterized in many ways.

The BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association dismissed the so-called proactive disclosure provisions as a bizarre sleight of hand.

Democracy Watch calls Bill C-58 a step backward.

The Canadian Association of Journalists ridiculed the President of the Treasury Board for “outstanding achievement in government secrecy” and conferred on the Liberals a “code of silence” award.

La Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec said that rather than the promised greater openness from this Liberal government it was a false alarm, too good to be true.

The Centre for Free Expression at Ryerson University says Bill C-58 is little more than a cosmetic touch-up.

The Algonquin Nation Secretariat, on behalf of the National Claims Research Directors, rejected Bill C-58 as it was originally written for installing “significant new barriers for First Nations” trying to access historic information for their land claims. They have a right to access that information.

From experts on open government principles across the country there has been condemnation of the parts of Bill C-58 that allow the government to deny access to documents the government claims contain confidential cabinet information, which the experts characterize still today as the deepest black hole in Canada's access to information system.

As well, there are any number of other negative characterizations of the flawed legislation before us, but the most telling comes from the Information Commissioner herself.

After the Liberal majority ignored the unanimously negative votes from this side of the House at second reading by Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc, and the Green Party, Commissioner Legault sent her own strongly worded message to the government, to members of the House, and to all Canadians. It was titled “Failing to Strike the Right Balance for Transparency—Recommendations to improve Bill C-58”. It is relevant to read just a few of the commissioner's remarks into the record.

Commissioner Legault reminded us that, “The Liberal government was elected on a platform of openness and transparency... promising to renew Canadians' trust in their government....to lead a review of the outdated Access to Information Act to enhance the openness of government.” Commissioner Legault concluded, “In short, Bill C-58 fails to deliver.”

She said the government promised the bill would ensure the act applies to the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices appropriately. “It does not”, she said, with emphasis.

She said the government promised the bill would apply appropriately to administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts. Again, with emphasis, she said, “It does not”.

She said the government promised the bill would empower the Information Commissioner, to empower her, to order the release of government information. Again she said clearly, “It does not”.

The commissioner summed up her assessment of Bill C-58 with telling finality, “Rather than advancing access to information rights, Bill C-58 would instead result in a regression of existing rights.”

She then, across some 45 pages of detailed criticism, marked the government's proposed legislation section by section, paragraph by paragraph, as a disappointed high school teacher might mark an under-fulfilling student. There are 12 red-line failures, regressive elements, in the commissioner's assessment, a couple of neutrals and a couple of positives.

When the commissioner came before our committee, she reiterated her conclusion that Bill C-58 is overwhelmingly a regressive piece of legislation that diminishes Canadians' right to know.

She spoke again to the fact that Bill C-58 does not truly empower her to order the disclosure of information while, at the same time, it adds burdensome stages to the investigation process.

The Information Commissioner effectively said that should the government fail to accept her top 28 recommended amendments, the status quo, what we have now as access to information legislation, as imperfect as it may be, would be preferable to Bill C-58. Her most telling example of the glaring flaws of Bill C-58 was to explain to our committee that if passed as originally tabled, it would have blocked the journalistic requests that exposed the notorious sponsorship scandal.

Now, this example gave the Liberal government pause and moved the Liberals to retreat somewhat. Therefore, one of the few improvements or amendments accepted by the government for the current form of the bill before us was the removal of what the commissioner termed “massive regression” in terms of excessively specific criteria in any access to information request.

This removal is to be welcomed, but it seems some government departments and individual officials are nonetheless already implementing its stringent provisions. The commissioner revealed in her testimony before committee that she had a newly documented case where one institution was applying criteria in Bill C-58, which is not law, and thanks to the government retreat in this area will not be in the law. However, at least one institution is already using those now deleted criteria to deny legitimate requests for information. Therefore, I think that any reasonable person has to wonder how officials in departments and agencies across government will respect and follow the letter of the law in this very slightly amended but still deeply flawed piece of legislation.

The government has not only ignored and rejected the wise advice of the Information Commissioner, journalists, stakeholders, human rights advocates, and ordinary citizens who would like to see meaningful improvements to access to information, but the current Liberal government has also ignored almost all of the recommendations made by the Liberal-dominated committee of the House that carried out an exhaustive study of the law a year ago before Bill C-58 was written and tabled.

Members probably already noted that I have not addressed the false advertising of the Liberals' 2015 election promises on reform to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. Members may recall the then leader of the third party of the House making promises across a spectrum of tax cuts, modest deficits, electoral reform, restoration of home mail delivery, the United Nations peacekeeping, revenue-neutral carbon prices, just to name a few. The Liberal leader also said “...we're going to have to embark on a completely different style of government”. He then added an interesting metaphor when he promised, “A government that both accepts its responsibilities to be open and transparent, but also a population that doesn't mind lifting the veil to see how sausages are made”.

I am not sure whether members can see the Prime Minister or the President of the Treasury Board as sausage makers, but if they do, then they must truly see Bill C-58 as “the wurst”. This is not a great pun, but I think it appropriate in this situation.

The President of the Treasury Board, a loquacious and good-humoured individual, asked us when he appeared before committee to recognize the government's daring in attempting the first meaningful updating of the Access to Information Act in 34 years. He had spoken abroad at the summit of Open Government Partnership extolling the virtues of the Liberal government's commitment. However, in the face of overwhelming criticism of the deeply flawed Bill C-58, the minister has rejected virtually all of the recommended improvements and amendments from our committee, from the commissioner, and from Canadians. He effectively said not to worry, be happy, and that this aromatic sausage may not be perfect, but he will look at it again in a year and perhaps consider improvements. He said, “Don't let perfection be the enemy of the good”. However, as I said earlier today, there is very little good in Bill C-58.

We recognize on this side of the House that Bill C-58 is a classically regressive piece of legislation that is about to be steamrollered into law by the Liberal majority. Shame on Liberal backbenchers. As I have said, they are using the legislative guillotine of time allocation, cutting short debate on an issue that is at the heart of the our democracy, which is the right of Canadians to know how they are governed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a missed opportunity. The title of the Information Commissioner’s report is “Failing to Strike the Right Balance for Transparency”. It speaks volumes.

In fact, I think that the government is missing a good opportunity to act openly and transparently, by not answering the official opposition’s questions during question period.

I do not know how many times I have heard them say, “We will help the middle class and those working hard to join it”, or “We want a good agreement, not just any agreement”. For the government, it is as if this constant repetition were more important than reality and the answers we are waiting for on this side of the House.

At some point, Canadians will tire of the prepackaged comments they are hearing from government ministers. What Canadians want are answers. Not only do the Liberals not want to provide answers here in the House but, with Bill C-58, they are making it even more difficult for Canadians to get real answers from the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is incomprehensible, unacceptable and, at the same time, ironic that the government is trying to cut short discussions on Bill C-58 while claiming that it is a living document.

I sincerely cannot understand the government’s attitude toward Bill C-58, a bill on openness, transparency, and the desire to be open by default. Today we see that “open by default” is once again just a point of debate, a way for the government to hide its inability to fulfill all the promises it made to Canadians with respect to openness and transparency.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments.

I agree fully with his observation that the Liberal government promised much. It promised transparency, accountability, but did not deliver it, spectactularly. The Liberals claim they consulted widely and they did, but they did not listen.

The Liberals characterize Bill C-58 as living legislation. Unfortunately it is not quite dead but it should be; it is on life support. We know that because of the Liberal majority and the heavy-handed imposition of time allocation, now cutting short debate, which should be much longer, the bill will pass, will become law, and will take Canadians backward in their legitimate right to know how they are governed, their access to information.

Does my colleague share my great and deep disappointment that this vitally important debate has been cut so short?

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, during the 2015 campaign, I heard from many people about the previous government, the concern about the lack of openness, the lack of transparency and the direction to dismantle and destroy a scientific library in my riding.

We are the government of openness and transparency. I hear that often in my riding, and nationally. People are pleased with the access to information they can receive. Yes, they want greater access, but they also want more efficiency, which Bill C-58 would help to master.

Does the member support proactive disclosure?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-58. Actually, that is what I was supposed to talk about, but the government has given me yet another opportunity to talk about its closed-mindedness and lack of transparency by moving another time allocation motion, this one for a bill that has to do with access to information. How ironic.

I am very glad to have the chance to speak after my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, who chose to talk about things that happened in the past. His eloquence and his legendary speaking skills in Parliament are well known to us all. There is a reason he has said more words in the House since the beginning of the session than any other member. He has been more vocal than anyone else during this Parliament as well as during the previous one. I believe that, more often than anyone else, he condemned the Conservative government's time allocation motions, which it did use to get its legislation through. The parliamentary secretary once had some choice words about democracy, the work of parliamentarians, and how outraged he was about time allocation motions.

This government was elected on a promise not to use time allocation motions, in order to allow for full debates. It was elected on a promise of basic openness and transparency. It promised it would be open at all times and would sometimes say no. The parliamentary secretary was the spokesperson of that election campaign.

What have we here today? In two years, this government has broken the previous government's record on using time allocation motions. It has used them on a number of very important files, including marijuana legalization, a subject that Canadians wanted to hear more about. Canadians represented by members on this side of the House wanted them to take the time to express their views on the matter. I am also convinced that many people represented by members across the way would have liked them to speak and fully explain their thoughts on Bill C-45 about marijuana legalization instead of repeating government talking points. Unfortunately, the government has used time allocation yet again, as it has done in so many other cases.

Speaking of flashbacks, the parliamentary secretary should also flash back to the eloquent speeches he gave in the last Parliament. They might inspire him to add to today's debate on time allocation motions. In his presentation, he also talked about the past Conservative government that saw the light on proactive disclosure. The Conservatives in government at the time adhered to that policy. Unfortunately, today's Bill C-58 takes us back to the dark ages. I am not the one saying this, it is the Information Commissioner. I will come back to her in a moment.

If the Liberals saw the light while they were in opposition, the light has unfortunately gotten steadily dimmer since they came to office, and we are heading for total darkness. The parliamentary secretary boasts that Bill C-58 will be open to periodic review. This morning I heard it called a “living document”. However, I wish the government had given life to something better, because right now, its living document seems doomed to a worthless existence.

We can already expect this bill to go nowhere in terms of delivering on the objectives and intentions that the Liberals announced during the last election campaign. It will not meet any of its objectives. Sadly, as far as those objectives go, this document is stillborn. Bill C-58 is not a living document. If it were, the government would have accepted the committee's recommendations. It would have agreed to amend its so-called living document from the outset in order to improve it and eliminate its dark and murky aspects by listening to the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Unfortunately, all of the committee's recommendations were rejected.

That is not what I would call a living, open, and transparent document that can be improved upon. The government had already made up its mind, and it refused to amend and refine the bill into something that we on this side of the House could support.

The Liberals' approach is nothing new. Every time the Liberals introduce a bill on which we could have all worked together to move certain files forward for the good of Canada and Canadians, they find a way to sneak in some totally unacceptable legislation. They know very well that there will not be unanimity and the opposition will vote against the bill. They put things in that go too far or that do not make sense. Then they say that there are good things in the bill and they wonder why the opposition does not support it. It is because the Liberals overlook all the bad things. That is how the Liberals see things. They speak in general terms and have a massive public relations campaign, but when we start getting into the details, when we look beyond all the pretty words and pretty pictures, we find that there are many flaws. The quality and the resolution of the image are not always very good.

We have become accustomed to seeing a lot of shenanigans from the Liberal government. Since I was elected in 2015, I have seen that there are all sorts of ways of using the legislative process. The Liberals are trying to do things and they are especially trying to get out of the promises they made to Canadians in order to get elected in 2015. The Liberals realized that they could promise just about anything but that it is not so easy for a government to keep such promises.

I think the Liberals are going through a tough time right now because they made all sorts of promises in order to get elected. They promised Canadians just about anything, but now they are unable to keep those promises, so they have to find a way to get out of them. They decided to introduce a bill that does not accomplish what it is supposed to accomplish, thinking that would at least get people talking about the issue.

However, talking does not change anything. If all the government does is talk about an issue, if it does not change the laws, if it is not really held to account, and if it does not keep the promises that it made to Canadians, then Canadians end up with a government that does things that people did not elect it to do. That is what is happening today.

A number of things in Bill C-58 do indeed reflect Liberal promises. The Liberals made the following promise: “We will make government information more accessible.” Clearly, based on my reading of the bill and in light of what members of this cabinet have been doing, this government has no intention of increasing government openness and transparency. Instead, Bill C-58 actually undermines access to information in Canada. There is a great deal of opposition to Bill C-58.

This government claims to be open by default, and yet, the fiercest opposition to Bill C-58 is coming from the most loyal defenders of government transparency and access to information. What is wrong with this picture? We are talking about journalists, civil liberties groups, and yes, even the federal Information Commissioner. Indeed, the individual responsible for enforcing the legislation we are debating here today has criticized much of what is in Bill C-58.

In a report released in September, Ms. Legault said that Bill C-58 fails to deliver the fundamental reform the Access to Information Act needs. She said that the government's proposals actually introduce new barriers to the process Canadians must go through when requesting government documents. One would expect to hear that kind of thing from the opposition Conservative Party because our job is to criticize the government. However, that message is from the Information Commissioner, who is responsible for enforcing Bill C-58.

The report is entitled “Failing to Strike the Right Balance for Transparency”. The title says it all. Here is what the report says:

In short, Bill C-58 fails to deliver.

The government promised the bill would ensure the act applies to the Prime Minister’s and ministers’ offices appropriately. It does not.

The government promised the bill would apply appropriately to administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts. It does not.

The government promised the bill would empower the Information Commissioner to order the release of government information. It does not.

Rather than advancing access to information rights, Bill C-58 would instead result in a regression of existing rights.

It is the sad story of a government that promised things it had no intention of doing, or a government that improvises and was clearly not ready to govern. Two years after the election, I think that any political observer can confirm what I am saying. The government was not ready and, now, it is improvising and trying to look like it is keeping its promises, which it is entirely incapable of doing.

Let me get back to the Information Commissioner’s special report. The tables at the end of the report are impressive. They include a comparative summary, as well as information about improvements to Bill C-58, the current situation and other items. In short, we can see whether the various elements of the bill are positive, or whether they constitute a regression.

On the topic of making requests, we have a regression; declining to act on requests, regression; declining to act on requests for institutions, positive. Let us be fair, there are positive elements. The Prime Minister’s Office and mandate letters are neutral; ministers’ offices, regression; government institutions, regression; Parliament, regression; courts, regression.

With respect to fees, the process was to be streamlined and the fees abolished, but the changes still constitute a regression. On the topic of oversight model, we have a regression; seeking representations from the Privacy Commissioner in the course of an investigation: regression. That is a lot of regression, and this is not just my opinion. Mediation will be positive if added. The publication of orders will be positive if added.

The examination of solicitor-client privileged records is a positive. We are not being partisan: the impact of the purpose of the Access to Information Act is unknown. On the transition to a new oversight model, we have a regression; and the impact of the mandatory periodic review is unknown.

I can see why the impact of a mandatory periodic review is unknown. Since we began considering Bill C-58, several good suggestions have been made to improve it. The government did not take any of these suggestions into account. I understand why the commissioner has certain questions concerning the purpose of the mandatory periodic review.

The report ends on a negative note. The changes to Info Source, or the requirement institutions have to annually publish certain classes of information, constitute a regression, and lastly, on the topic of institutions’ annual reports on the administration of the Access to Information Act, we have yet another regression.

We are not the ones saying this. It is in the report of the Information Commissioner of Canada, whose title speaks volumes: “Failing to Strike the Right Balance for Transparency”. This document made recommendations to the government for improving Bill C-58 so that it would meet the openness and transparency needs not of the official opposition, the NDP, the Bloc québécois, the Green Party, independent members of Parliament or Liberal backbenchers, but of Canadians.

Unfortunately, “Failing to Strike the Right Balance for Transparency” is the report card for Bill C-58. That is why the Liberal government had to put forward a time allocation motion today, to silence the hon. members of every opposition party here in the House. It does not want us to spend time repeating that the Information Commissioner said that it was way off the mark.

Mr. Speaker, if you knew everything that people were saying and all the articles that were being written about Bill C-58, you would also have a hard time understanding the government's intention. According to the cofounder of Democracy Watch, the bill constitutes a regression in that it allows government officials to decline requests for information if they believe that the request is frivolous or in bad faith.

Let us put ourselves in the shoes of a member of cabinet who is being asked questions about his villa in France and who decides that the request is frivolous or made in bad faith, since where he spends his vacation is no business of Canadians. This person would refuse to answer the questions. That is what Democracy Watch is denouncing.

Also, well-known defender of Canadian democracy Mr. Conacher says that public servants should not have this power, because they will likely use it as a new loophole to decline giving the public the information to which it is entitled. That is exactly what I have been saying since the beginning.

Bill C-58 also imposes new obligations on people requesting information. The act currently requires government institutions to make every reasonable effort to assist a person making a request, regardless of the information requested. However, under the proposed legislation, people requesting information will have to provide more specific information about the exact type of document they are looking for, the period in question and the exact subject.

In other words, if I want to know more about the elimination of a tax credit for diabetics and I do not give the exact name of the tax credit and the form, the people across the aisle may decline to give me the information. Still, as far as I know, Canadians have the right to know why the government eliminated the tax credits for diabetics. When a major change affects the lives of those who are the most vulnerable, Canadians have the right to know why the change was made and why the minister did not inform the opposition and all Canadians. I think that is logical.

It is as if the government wanted to find more ways of hiding the truth from Canadians. I do not dare say it, but this bill looks like another attempt at a cover-up on the part of the government, and yet, all it is doing is revealing to Canadians just how unprepared it was to govern. That is our assessment of Bill C-58.

It is probably for that reason that the government does not want to have to answer questions about tax reform, the Morneau affair, Netflix taxes, the small deficits they promised, NAFTA, China, home mail delivery, and the Prime Minister's vacation on a private island, which was talked about a lot. It is probably the reason why Bill C-58 is before us today and why we are subject to time allocation.

The promise of openness and transparency is a failed public relations exercise, and I would remind members that, according to the Information Commissioner, the government has failed to meet its goal to be transparent.

[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?

The House resumed from November 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Bill C-58—Time Allocation Motion

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of my colleague and friend, the President of the Treasury Board. Unfortunately, the bill he is reflecting on would not do what he purports it would do. Let me give a couple of quick examples.

First, when the ethics committee was studying this bill, it made 28 recommendations. However, the Liberal-dominated committee only accepted one of those recommendations.

Second, the bill purports to strengthen the act by allowing the Information Commissioner to order access to information from ministers' offices, as well as the Prime Minister's Office. However, what the minister has not mentioned is that while the Information Commissioner may have the ability to order such requests, it does not make it mandatory for a minister or the Prime Minister's Office to respect that order.

In fact, as the Information Commissioner has already pointed out, quite rightfully, had the current version of the Access to Information Act, which the government says strengthens the act, been in place during the sponsorship scandal, we would have never found out all of the illegal goings-on by the former Liberal government. Information Commissioner Legault said that if Bill C-58, in its current form, has been passed, it would have meant that journalist Daniel Leblanc, back in the early 2000s, would have been unable to get the information, which eventually led to the sponsorship scandal being unveiled to the Canadian public.

How can the minister possibly state, with any veracity, that the bill would actually strengthen access to information, when in fact all the witnesses pointed out it would do exactly the opposite?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this time allocation motion is for a highly imperfect piece of proposed legislation that deserves much greater debate and consideration by the Liberal government. It has been condemned by Canadians across the spectrum, by those who would demand the right to know how they are governed through access to information. It has been dismissed by the Information Commissioner herself as a regressive piece of legislation. She indicated quite clearly that the status quo would be preferable to the proposed law, which is being debated at third reading today.

The President of the Treasury Board has made excuses, and he urged Canadians, with a slight Churchillian twist, not to allow perfection to be the enemy of the good. Well, there is very little good in Bill C-58, which came through committee with some significant, but very few, amendments to correct a poorly written piece of legislation.

This piece of proposed legislation is beyond redemption. I would ask the President of the Treasury Board why he does not simply withdraw Bill C-58 and go back to the drawing board.

Indigenous Affairs

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, we have consulted with first nations. In fact, we have received suggestions that include clarification that broad requests, particularly historical records to substantiate indigenous claims, are in fact legitimate and consistent with the act. Further to that, we support amendments to Bill C-58 to strengthen the bill by making it explicit that no department can refuse a request simply because of the subject, the type of record, or that the date of record is not specified. We have listened, and as a result of that, the Information Commissioner—

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this week, the Assembly of First Nations is holding its special chiefs assembly where a resolution will be presented to reject Bill C-58, the Liberals' effort to gut our Access to Information Act. Today, five chiefs stood with me, calling on the Liberals to fix Bill C-58, since it introduces significant new barriers for first nations trying to access even basic information.

The Liberals like to talk about how the most important relationship is with indigenous people, so will they finally actually consult first nations and fix this regressive bill?

Bill C-58—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue the debate on Bill S-3, indigenous registration. Tomorrow, we will take up third reading debate on Bill C-63, the budget legislation.

On Monday, we will have the last opposition day in a supply cycle, meaning that we will also vote on supplementary estimates (B) and the respective appropriation bill at the end of the day.

Tuesday, we hope to complete third reading debate on Bill C-58, concerning access to information reforms.

Wednesday afternoon, we will call C-61, the first nations education legislation.

We will round off the week with Bill C-24, the Salaries Act, at report stage.

I would like to take a moment to sincerely thank all hon. members in this House for coming together on the apology of the LGBTQ2 Canadians this week.

Finally, discussions have taken place between the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, when the House begins debate on the second reading motion of Bill C-61, An Act to give effect to the Anishinabek Nation Education Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, a Member of each recognized party, a Member of the Bloc Québécois and the Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands may speak to the said motion for not more than 10 minutes, followed by 5 minutes for questions and comments, after which the Bill shall be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at the report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Was there anything in Bill C-58 that will actually help? Was anything mandated—that part was taken out—that was put in there going to help you be more effective?

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

When they had Bill C-58, one of the things—and I'm a layperson so I don't know much—that came up was that if the request had three parts, and this has been taken out, if they had the subject matter, the type of document, and the period of time, we were told that that would very much help the departments be more effective. We were told that by IRCC and border services who represent 60% of all requests, so more than 60% of all requests said, “Look, if you just give us this bit of information, we can be a lot more effective.”

The commissioner was dead set against that. It was felt that it was barring access to information, and it was actually taken out. But it seemed to me, at the time, that would have made you a lot more effective. It would be a lot easier to produce, and this was coming from the departments that actually have to do the work, saying that would make their work a lot more effective.

Given that didn't take place, what things can be done to make it more effective?

[Layla Michaud]

This year we asked for temporary funding as well, and again it's a fit-gap measure because of Bill C-58. Hopefully, we will be consulted and able to work with Treasury Board and Finance in regard to giving them proposals as to how much money we need to operationalize.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It's equilibrium, balance, sure.

Did the government come to you at any point for a cost estimate of the impacts of Bill C-58 on your department?

[Layla Michaud]

We need to see the form that Bill C-58 is going to take at the end of the parliamentary process. A report was tabled by the commissioner, as you know. She was here before you a few weeks ago. Amendments were proposed by this committee. We're now at the third reading stage. We are analyzing the proposed amendments. When our analysis is done, the commissioner will comment further on Bill C-58.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

We heard from many witnesses that Bill C-58 was going to create problems in getting access to information from certain government agencies. If problems are created, complaints go up and the costs to your office also go up in trying to resolve these complaints. Is that a fair, logical extension?

[Layla Michaud]

We will have to do another analysis to see if $4 million will be enough. Based on the form that Bill C-58 is going to take—

[Layla Michaud]

First, we must see the final version of the bill. Second, one of the issues we have to tackle is the transition. That's extremely important. How will the transition be handled?

If Bill C-58 becomes law in January and all the complaints received up to January are no longer managed in the same way as the new complaints received under the new legislation, we will have to manage two different systems. We need to know how the transition will be handled. How will we manage those two systems?

Today, our inventory has more than 3,400 complaints. If the bill becomes law in January or February, those 3,400 complaints will have to be processed under the new system. The last thing we want is to have an inventory under the new provisions. We will have to do a thorough analysis. As we often say, “the devil is in the details”. When we analyze the bill, which we have already started, we must pay attention to all that. For now, it's very difficult to give you an amount.

[Layla Michaud]

In the past few years, we have made repeated requests for permanent funding.

In your analysis, we look at the trend in complaints, our inventory and the number of complaints received every year.

Three or four years ago, when we did this analysis, we said that we needed about $4 million per year for the first three years in order to be able to bring our inventory down to almost zero, to 500 complaints. In addition, we needed a little over $1 million on an ongoing basis. That analysis was carried out three or four years ago. At that time, we were receiving between 1,700 and 1,800 complaints a year. Last year, we received over 2,000, just like the previous year. This year, if the trend keeps up, we expect to receive more than 2,400. The demand is much higher than what we are able to offer. We therefore have to regulate supply and demand. We should conduct another analysis on that.

Three or four years ago, we needed $4 million per year for three years, in addition to an ongoing amount of just over $1 million a year. In whatever shape or form, Bill C-58 will be a game changer.

[Layla Michaud (Deputy Commissioner, Investigations and Governance, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada):]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Layla Michaud. I'm the deputy commissioner, investigations and governance. I'm also the chief financial officer for the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada.

I'm here to seek the approval of the committee for supplementary estimates (B).

The Access to Information Act establishes the Information Commissioner as the first level of independent review of institutions' decisions on disclosure in response to access requests. Requesters who are not satisfied with how institutions responded to their access request have the right to complain to the OIC.

The Commissioner is required by law to investigate all complaints within her jurisdiction. These investigations are conducted in an efficient, fair, and confidential manner. For the past few years, we have been of the view that the current funding levels for the OIC are insufficient for the office to properly fulfill its mandate to protect Canadians' access to information rights.

Underfunding of this office has been endemic for years. We have made repeated requests for additional permanent funding. To date none have been accepted.

Last year this committee approved temporary funding for the office of $3.4 million for one year. This funding was a fit-gap measure put in place pending the adoption of Bill C-58. With this funding we resolved 2,245 complaints. This was the highest number of complaints resolved in any year of Commissioner Legault's mandate.

Last year the Office of the Information Commissioner made another request for funding but this request was not included in budget 2017. However, since the office lapsed a portion of its funding in 2015-16 and in 2016-17, we now seek your approval through supplementary estimates (B) to reprofile this lapsed funding in the amount of $1.8 million. With these funds, the $1.8 million, we plan to hire 14 consultants and resolve a total of 1,900 complaints.

The office senior management team will closely monitor results. Our performance is also followed by our external audit and evaluation committee on an ongoing basis. However, this request is again a fit-gap measure and will not resolve the office's ongoing funding issue.

For this reason, a permanent funding solution continues to be needed for the office to properly fulfill its mandate and provide the independent oversight Canadians deserve. Hence, we will continue to work with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and the Department of Finance to ensure Canadians' access rights are protected.

In closing, I ask that you approve this request to re-profile the $1.8 million in lapsed funding, through Supplementary Estimates B.

Once again, thank you, Mr. Chair, for the invitation to discuss our request for funding and I hope we have the opportunity to discuss a more permanent solution for the office's funding in the future.

I would now be pleased to answer your questions.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

If I may say so, our new access to information law, Bill C-58, does move towards proactive disclosure of certain things but doesn't touch on this at all.

My effort was to ensure that since we have the regulation-making powers of the Governor in Council under this particular bill in clause 24.... At this point the only thing the Governor in Council is empowered to do by regulation is to amend the schedule by adding or deleting any oil or class of oils. Expanding that to ensure that the Governor in Council can make regulations to facilitate public access to information, I think this is very helpful.

I know we're looking at Bill C-48 and not Bill C-58, but I am of the view of the Information Commissioner that Bill C-58 is legislation that takes us backwards and that will make it harder to access information. Anything we can do under this bill to make it easier for the public and first nations communities to have access to that information proactively....

Certainly there's no harm in this amendment, and I think you could ask your officials whether it does any damage. You can keep your fingers crossed and hope the public's going to be able to get at it, but I've said for years—it's a good line, so I'll say it again—that Canada's freedom of information acts have tended to, for years, be freedom from information. I don't think they're getting better, so anything we can do in this bill to create more access to the information that first nations have wanted on a timely basis and that environmental law groups have wanted on a timely basis....

Maybe the officials could tell me how it does any harm. The most I've heard them say so far is that we don't need it because it's redundant, and that's not something I believe.

Thank you.

Access to Information Act

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

Madam Speaker, I welcome that happening for the first time while I was speaking. I was a little afraid, to say the least, but I am getting used to the rules of the House of Commons.

Earlier, I was speaking about this government's long line of broken promises, which keeps growing. I was going over the commitments it made and then ignored, especially the ones concerning deficits and the money it was supposed to give to the middle class. The Fraser Institute has reported that 80% of Canadian families are paying $840 more, mainly because certain tax credits our government introduced, such as the green tax credit for people who take public transit, like the bus, were eliminated. This represented two months of free public transit. The Liberal government, which claims to be a green government that is in touch with people, did the exact opposite by eliminating this tax credit.

It is the same thing when the government says that the wealthiest 1% of Canadians will pay more taxes under the Liberal government. This Robin Hood policy is completely false. It is not us Conservatives who are saying so, nor the Montreal Economic Institute or any other right-wing think tank. It is the Department of Finance itself that determined in a report issued just two months ago that the wealthiest Canadians are paying $1.2 billion less in taxes because of this government's tax policies. The government is saying one thing and doing another.

Fortunately, that information is public. It is found in a document that the government made public. We did not have to go through the Access to Information Act, which as we know will be weakened by the updated version of Bill C-58.

It is a rather big coincidence, to say the least, that we are debating access to information, openness, and transparency since, today, as we tried to get answers to our questions in the House of Commons, we saw an extremely ugly demonstration of what a government should not do in question period.

Let me be clear. We understand that in question period, we are talking about a question, period. It is to provide information. When I sat on the National Assembly, it was officially called a question and answer period. However, here, unfortunately we are just talking about a question period, we are not talking about answering a question. That would be very useful, because, today, not three or four times, but on 21 occasions in a row, we asked a clear and simple question of the Minister of Finance, and every time, on 21 occasions in a row, he dodged the issue. He refused to answer a clear question with a clear answer. That is sad. Therefore, it will be very interesting to see our colleagues on the other side say why it is important to have openness and transparency, and to give good information to the people of Canada.

In a government, the minister of finance is number two, not the last minister. In some cases, we could even say the minister of finance is number one; however, that is another debate. I do not want to put aside any other ministers, such as the global affairs minister, the transport minister, the Treasury Board President, and all of those important portfolios such as the defence minister and the first nations minister. All of them are very important. However, in life, there are those who are at the top, and then there are other people. When we talk about cabinet ministers, for sure the finance minister is at the top. I am quite sure that no one who is sitting here—and I see some hon. members from coast to coast who have had strong responsibilities in former governments—will be offended when I say that for sure Jim Flaherty was the number one cabinet minister under the Stephen Harper government. The same thing also goes for Joe Oliver. Everybody will recognize that, because the finance minister is the one who designs the financial and fiscal policies that apply to the financial and fiscal reality of Canada. Therefore, when we have what we could say is a conflict of interest, it is our responsibility to ask questions of the Minister of Finance. That is what we did today. We asked a simple question 21 times in a row, but, unfortunately, 21 times in a row, the Minister of Finance refused to give a clear answer.

That is why I think it is pretty ironic that we are debating Bill C-58, the goal of which is to increase government transparency and openness around information gathering. However, in our view, the bill is regressive and will make investigative reporting even harder. It also places the government in a conflict of interest by making it both the judge and the judged when journalists and citizens raise questions.

We think this bill is regressive. It is also ironic that we should be debating it on the very day that the Minister of Finance, the number one minister, refused to give a clear answer to a perfectly simple question not once, not twice, not three times, but 21 times in a row. He never gave a clear answer to the question in either English or French.

In conclusion, we are going to vote against this bill. We recommend that the Liberal members also vote against this bill, because it is never too late to do right. It would be a good thing if the Liberals voted against it. We could review the bill, which we believe to be a step backwards, not forwards, for press freedom and especially for access to information.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, particularly at supper time.

I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-58. It is quite a coincidence that we are talking about consistency, transparency, and access to information—in short, giving clear answers to clear questions—when we saw exactly the opposite of that today in question period. I will come back to that a bit later.

This bill objectively seeks to make government more transparent and to give Canadians better access to government information. That is the objective, but it is still far from reality. I would not say that I am in a conflict of interest because that is a sensitive topic these days. However, as a former journalist and a current MP, I find myself walking a very fine line between the legitimate access to information requests that Canadians should be able to make to the federal government and the executive's ability to govern in order to carry out the usual business of a government, a country, while maintaining some level of confidentiality when it comes to debates and relevant information.

Let us be clear about one thing: if everything is made public and if there is access to everything that is said, and if everyone's views are known, at some point there will no longer be any real internal debate by cabinet, which is necessary to govern a solid state like Canada. Therefore, there is a very fine line that needs to be drawn and this government clearly did that when it was in opposition. When the Liberals made an election promise, they drew that line; today, the line is there, whereas before it was here. This is a regressive bill.

I listened closely to the President of the Treasury Board, who sponsored this bill. I hold the member in high regard and have great respect for him. He has been here for almost 21 years and, at another time, early on in his political career, he sat on the right side, with the Conservatives. He has the right to change his mind, as some have, but I just wanted to point that out, tongue in cheek. I will be a good sport. He made an objective statement that I will not challenge: this is the first time in 34 years that a government is overhauling access to information. Only that much is true. The overhaul is not going to provide more access to information. On the contrary, it will give more power to the executive, the ministers, the Prime Minister and his cabinet to restrict Canadians' access to information.

I will provide some examples. First, the Information Commissioner was rather scathing in her assessment of the first draft of this regressive bill and worse yet, she said that in her view, the sponsorship scandal, the legacy of the Chrétien and Martin governments—of which the current President of the Treasury Board was a member—would not have been uncovered without the excellent journalistic work of the Daniel Leblancs of this world. It is quite a positive development for transparency, right? It is truly a step forward for openness. It is truly a fundamental element of freedom of the press. No, it is not.

We recognize that a dozen or so amendments were adopted, but we think that those amendments do not go far enough when it comes to the Liberal ambition and even less so when it comes to the practice of journalism. I acknowledge that what I am about to say may be subjective, but part of our work as MPs is to be subjective. It may be subjective, but I have 20 years' experience as a journalist under my belt. We believe that the proposed amendments do not go far enough. As a result of these amendments, in a case like the sponsorship scandal of the Chrétien and Martin Liberal governments, of which the current President of the Treasury Board was a member, it would still be difficult to get access to that information. It would not be impossible, but journalists' work would become even more difficult, and that is why we think this is a regressive bill.

In addition, it will be the government that chooses what can and cannot be disclosed from now on. It will be judge and jury. Of course it is in the government's interest to withhold certain information; that is only natural. I am not saying that is what it should do, but it could be a natural reaction for some government members. That is what I would call a step backwards.

The same is true when it comes to the proactive disclosure of certain documents. With this supposedly proactive approach, there is a risk that bureaucrats, policy advisers, and ministers will know which documents are going to be made public in a month or in six months. We can therefore expect a version A, which will be made public, and a version B that has the real information, which can be found in emails, for example, and might be a little more politically sensitive. The government might be a little less inclined to make that information public.

Of course, nothing is perfect in life, but we believe that the proactive disclosure of certain information falls short of what was said or aspired to in the Liberal Party's electoral platform, which is what people voted on two years ago.

Earlier, my NDP colleague mentioned certain amendments that the government flatly refused to consider. The amendments were substantive and in keeping with Liberal promises, but unfortunately, they were rejected. The same amendments had been suggested by the Information Commissioner, journalists, members of the media, and first nations.

The government says it cares so much about first nations and keeps talking about how they are its priority. However, as we have shown during a number of debates, including the one on the Prime Minister's unfortunate statement about religious belief, the government talks about first nations only when doing so suits its purposes. The same goes for this bill.

Even though the government made a dozen or so amendments, we feel that this bill does not go far enough in terms of ensuring the clarity, openness, and transparency everyone expects of the government. It is also a watered-down version of the Liberal promise. In short, this is yet another in what is becoming a very long line of broken Liberal promises.

This government got itself elected on a promise of a small $10-billion deficit for three years and a subsequent return to a balanced budget. Now we are talking $20-billion deficits, and nobody has any idea when the budget will be balanced. The government said it would aggressively raise taxes on seniors. As a result—

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is worth remembering that the Information Commissioner in an unprecedented response gave a full condemnation, top to bottom, of the bill. She basically said that Bill C-58 as it stood, notwithstanding the couple of tweaks and little turns that have been made, is a regressive piece of proposed legislation.

I would ask my colleague what he thought, and whether he agrees with me that the arrogance of the Liberal government is best reflected by the fact that some government departments are already using provisions of Bill C-58 to deny information properly requested which would have been provided under the existing status quo.

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

Madam Speaker, as always, I am deeply honoured to rise in the House and speak for the people of Timmins—James Bay. I will be speaking tonight to Bill C-58 and to express my deep concern about the government's attack on the access to information system.

The folks back home may not pay a lot of attention to access to information because it is the stuff of journalists, researchers and opposition politics. However, access to information is one of the fundamental principles of an accountable democracy. In order to hold government to account, we need to know who is involved when the decisions in the backroom are made. We need to have some manner of light shone into the dark rooms where the power brokers are to ensure a level of accountability. That is the role of the Access to Information Act.

At one point, Canada was well-respected for the Access to Information Act brought in a number of decades ago. However, year by year Canada has slipped in its level of credibility. We are going to be talking about some specific examples of how that plays out tonight.

We are in a situation now where we have a Prime Minister who won so much support across the country because the very first step he took in offering his vision as a new leader was on access to information and open government. His vision for Parliament would be the opposite of the Stephen Harper government, which was considered so controlling and secretive. People put their trust in the Prime Minister. I remember thinking this was really bold, a leader who was willing to make the changes necessary for access to information.

I have grown increasingly concerned that more and more our Parliament has become a sideshow. It has become a Potemkin democracy, where MPs get to play out in the House, but the real decisions are made to benefit those who are not accountable. When the Prime Minister makes a promise on access to information and then undermines it in such a cynical manner, Canadians have a right to know how this happens and how it affects them.

With respect to Bill C-58, which is supposed to change the access to information laws in the country, the President of the Treasury Board says that we should not worry because Canadians will now have access to the mandate letters for the ministers. Is that not already public? He also said that we should not worry because Canadians would now get to know the travel budgets of various ministers. That is already public.

However, what we do not have is the ability in this case for the Access to Information Commissioner to ensure that all documents are posted. One thing we have found with government is that certain documents are not all that helpful to it. Remember when the Minister of Indigenous Services racked up all those thousands of dollars riding around Markham in a limousine? That was embarrassing to government and it did not want that information released. Therefore, if we allow government to release what it wants, it will not release what is embarrassing. However, we need accountability.

Therefore, I will talk about Bill C-58 in the context of a couple of specific cases so people will understand exactly what we are talking about. I am going to talk about the issue of St. Anne's residential school.

As the government is leading its attack to limit the ability of people to access information, I am dealing with the Access to Information Commissioner on the three-and-a-half-year obstruction by federal officials in the justice department to suppress and blackout who made key decisions regarding the justice department's response to the survivors of St. Anne's residential school. In telling the story, we begin to understand why it is so important to have an accountable system for access to information.

St. Anne's residential school was in the region I represent, the community of Fort Albany. If we look at the horrific history of the residential schools, the story of what was done to the children at St. Anne's year in and year out, generation upon generation, it stands among the most horrifying of stories in the country's history. It was a veritable concentration camp of torture and sexual abuse of children.

In 1992, the survivors of St. Anne's came together in Fort Albany to talk about their experience. For the first time, many of them began to talk about the levels of sexual abuse, rape, and forced abortions to which children were subjected.

Edmund Metatawabin, who is chief, brought this to the Ontario Provincial Police and demanded a major police investigation. To its credit, the Ontario Provincial Police, with Sergeant Delguidice in the Cochrane division, undertook a massive investigation of the crimes committed against those children. They identified over 180 perpetrators of rape, torture, and abuse of children. They gathered 1,000 witness statements of that abuse from the survivors and students who were there. They gathered 12,000 pages of police testimony and documentation, including subpoenaed records from the Catholic church in the diocese of Moosonee, to build a picture of what went on in that institution year in and year out.

In 2003, there was an effort with the survivors and the then federal government of Paul Martin, I believe, to try to find a solution. The survivors were shocked at the aggressiveness of the federal government to fight and deny every single case, no matter the evidence. At that time, all of the evidence the police had gathered in Ontario had led to a number of convictions in an Ontario court against the perpetrators of the abuse at St. Anne's, but let us face it: the big ones got away. The priests and bishops who were involved got away. Some of them were dead, some of the perpetrators could not be found, but a number of people were convicted in an Ontario court.

However, in 2004, the justice department wanted access to that trove of evidence to prepare the defence of the number one defendant, which was Canada. When it applied for access to the police documentation, it told the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that it would be unfair to Canada, which was in charge of this institution, in preparing its defence if it did not have all of the evidence. The key officials in the justice department were involved in the application to obtain those records, and they got the records, some 12,000 pages. They got the names of the perpetrators. They were preparing for the major civil litigation trials against Canada.

In 2007-08, the process for the Indian residential schools settlement agreement was set up as an alternative so that the federal government could escape these cases. The federal government agreed at that time to set up the independent assessment process, the IAP. The IAP was to be a non-confrontational process in which the survivors could tell their stories. That is how they told the survivors it would play out, but of course it did not play out like that at all for the survivors of St. Anne's. Therefore, the justice department wore two hats. The first hat was to obtain all of the evidence, prepared in so-called narratives, so that the adjudicators and claimant lawyers could use it to make it easier for the claimants. The justice department acted as the gatherer of evidence. The justice department's other hat was as lawyer for the defendant, Canada, and its number one goal was limiting the payouts.

In the case of St. Anne's residential school, the justice department had an obligation to prepare a list of all documentation, listing all the known crimes and sexual abuse that occurred in that institution, and it presented a document at the hearing stating that there was no known history of sexual abuse at the Fort Albany Indian residential school, St. Anne's. It said there was absolutely no documentation to show any student-on-student abuse at the Fort Albany institution of St. Anne's.

People told their stories, and their cases were thrown out because the justice department did not go there with a non-confrontational attitude. It went in loaded for bear and accused the survivors, who were victims of child rape, of not being able to prove their stories because they could not remember the day the priest raped them, that they could not remember little details. Yet the justice department already knew they were telling the truth because it had all of the evidence.

We had claimants, like claimant H-15019, whose case was thrown out, because the justice department argued there was no proof that a predatory pedophile priest was in St. Anne's Residential School when that child was in that building. That child, who grew into a man who asked for justice from the Government of Canada did not know that the justice department had a long list involving that pedophile priest. The department knew he had been in that building since 1938. From 1938 to 1974 he had free access to rape children, and the Justice Department of Canada lied about it in hearings, suppressed that evidence, and had that case thrown out. How could this have happened in 2015, 2016, and 2017 in Canada?

The greatest moment that I have seen since I have been here and the greatest moment in the history of this Parliament was when Prime Minister Harper stood up in the House and apologized. People in my region wept for days when they heard that apology. They never thought that justice would happen and after hearing the apology they thought it was possible.

People wept when the present Prime Minister gave a powerful speech at the closing of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I was listening to him. He said that Canada would make this right, that the obligation of the survivors to prove what they went through was over, that Canada would be there for them. That has not been the case with the survivors of St. Anne's Residential School. The justice department continues to take the brass knuckles approach to deny them basic levels of justice.

In 2013 I wrote to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs and the justice minister at the time and I asked them who had made the decision to suppress the police evidence in testimony that had these cases thrown out. I asked them both what they were going to do to rectify this clear breach of legal duty. Those ministers said they knew about the evidence but that they were not accountable for presenting it, which was false.

In January 2014, the Ontario Superior Court ordered the previous government and the justice minister to turn over those documents to the independent assessment process to have those cases fairly adjudicated. The government refused. It continued to deny.

The survivors of St. Anne's Residential School had to go back to court in 2015, and this time the government was forced to turn over the documents. However, it had blacked out the names of the perpetrators and the witnesses to make the evidence functionally useless.

For what purpose in a nation like ours would the Government of Canada opt to protect pedophiles, rapists, and sadists by hiding their names? For what possible reason would justice department lawyers, the people who are charged with presenting the law for the people of Canada, go into hearings and challenge survivors who suffered horrific levels of abuse? For what possible reason would the Government of Canada decide to suppress this police evidence? I still have not figured out an answer to that, but it dogs me. I stay up at night trying to figure out what kind of person hired to represent Canada would do this.

In 2013, I applied a simple tool, a tool of all parliamentarians and of all Canadians, by making an access to information request regarding the political decisions that went into suppressing the police testimony and evidence that denied justice to the survivors of St. Anne's Residential School.

For the information of folks back home, when a government does not want to answer a question, it delays. We had a 300-day delay. We knew this was just an attempt by the department not to have to answer the question. The cases were closing down and the ability of survivors who had their cases thrown out to re-appeal the verdicts was coming to an end. It seemed obvious that the justice department would drag this out over three years, because it thought that the cases would be closed and all would be said and done. We waited 300 days, 600 days, then 900 days.

The new government came in and I thought it would change things. It had no reason to oppose survivors of St. Anne's. The new government took the position that it would not turn over any of the political documentation regarding the decision to suppress the police evidence. That was done by the new justice minister and the new Prime Minister.

Therefore, we approached the access to information commissioner, the tool that we use, to ask how is it possible that after three years of delay, they could deny and say they were not obligated to turn over this evidence. This documentation concerns who knew what in the minister's office. This is a question on a political issue that Canadians need answered.

The Information Commissioner and her office are one of the great institutions of our country. She understood the seriousness of this. It was not a vexatious request; it was about justice. She challenged the justice department. We were on the verge of being in court with the justice department to find out what was being said in those offices when they suppressed that police evidence. The justice department agreed to turn over four batches of information over a period of a year. The first batch of information was about 90% blacked out. The second batch of 3,000 pages we just received was entirely blacked out.

When the government says it wants the right to refuse vexatious requests, what it means by vexatious are the requests that would give it political grief. It wants to be able to turn those down.

The folks who survived St. Anne's Residential School, who were taken from their families, who had their identities stripped from them, who had their rights taken away from them, who were left in the hands of abusers and torturers, have a right to ask why Parliament failed them. They have a right to ask why the justice department of our country continues to deny and challenge them and obstruct their basic rights for redress. Part of those answers may lie in the courts, but part of those answers lie in the access to information request. We have a right to know who advised the politicians to do this.

I would like to say that the abuse of the children at St. Anne's has come to an end because of these beautiful apologies, but it has not. We now have, in the case of claimant H-15019 and claimant C14114, a case that was thrown out because she did not have any documentation. She was unable to prove that when she was assaulted in St. Anne's Residential School it was known by administration. Then, after her case was thrown out, she learned there were all these documents. She attempted to have her case reopened. The Government of Canada said she could not reopen her case because her case was adjudicated. We are talking about a child victim of rape. What possible reason would the Government of Canada have to suppress police testimony about child rape? What possible reason could it have to defy the Ontario Superior Court and black out the names of the perpetrators? For what possible reason would it black out all of the political documentation on what was said in the minister's office regarding this decision?

For what possible reason, right now, at this time, would they be in the hearing saying “Okay, we've been finally forced to hand over the police testimony, but it is inadmissible”. Why is it inadmissible? It is inadmissible because it has not been tested. What they are saying to the survivors is that it does not matter that we are having to present 12,000 pages of police documentation of the perpetrators, because the survivors have to find a witness to come in and be tested.

The trauma to the communities I represent is a direct highway from St. Anne's Residential School to the suicide crisis of our young people today. Talk to anyone in the community and they will say that trauma continues to kill children, and yet we have justice department lawyers saying that evidence cannot be used unless they bring forward a survivor to be re-challenged by the justice department.

I will close on this. We do have a survivor who is willing to come forward and verify the testimony. The justice department said she cannot be allowed to speak because she has already spoken. Can someone explain that to me? That is why we need access to information. It is to understand the perfidious nature of what is—

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was the Liberals' promise. Why are they not accountable to this? There is as much criticism about Bill C-58 on their part than there was on the previous government. Do people know what the 2017 and 2018 headline will read? “Liberal government fails to be open and transparent.”

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I must say I am disappointed. The member clearly does not have the intention of raising the quality of debate in the House. First, he barely spoke about Bill C-58. I am proud that we are the first government in 34 years to make major reforms to the Access to Information Act. Second, he was wrong in the few comments he made about the bill. He said it would deny access to information requests that are frivolous or made in bad faith. In fact, the amendments would give the commissioner up-front approval power over any department's request to decline to act on a request because the department believed it was vexatious or in bad faith. The member clearly did not even read the committee's changes and is not up to date on the bill. That is disappointing. It is not a priority for him, clearly.

I also want to note that in its 2006 platform, the Conservative Party made a clear commitment to update the access to information law, and the Conservatives did absolutely nothing in 10 years. Did they never intend to actually deliver on that promise, or did they just not care enough to do a thing about it in 10 years?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister speak, and as I sit in the House on a daily basis, as we all do, is it any wonder that we find it hard to believe that anything the government says it is going to do will actually come to fruition? We have seen broken promise after broken promise. If members do not believe me, just look at what some of those who are looking closely at Bill C-58 are saying. By ruling out the possibility to obtain information from ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office, the government is breaking its campaign promise to establish a government open by default. Moreover, the possibility to refuse certain access to information requests on an undefined basis jeopardizes the transparency and the openness of this government. That was from Katie Gibbs, the executive director of Evidence for Democracy group. However, there are more, and I will refer to more as I get through my speech today on Bill C-58.

I would be remiss if I did not go back a couple of hours, back to the future, and the egregious display of contempt for parliamentary democracy. It has been a practice in this place for many years that when opposition members ask questions directly and pointedly to the finance minister, as we did today, or to other ministers of the crown, that those answers are expected. They are expected on behalf of all Canadians. This is why we are elected to come to this place; it is to ask the type of hard questions that were asked today.

In the preamble to the movement of a motion to adjourn debate on Bill C-63, I will remind the House that we are talking about openness and transparency, which is something the government runs around saying. The Prime Minister stands up in front of microphones, posts on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat that the government is more open and transparent than any other government in the history of Canada. I would suggest that nothing could be further from the truth.

I would again remind the House of what I said before I moved the motion to adjourn debate. I said to the Speaker that before I resumed my comments, I wanted to go back to question period and what I thought, quite frankly, was an egregious display of contempt for our parliamentary democracy. This minister was asked multiple times whether he had sold his shares in Morneau Shepell in advance of his tax reform announcement, and he failed to answer the question on multiple occasions.

Therefore, in the absence of the minister answering those questions on a bill that, quite frankly, he has influence over, I would call into question the ability of Canadians to have confidence in him conducting further business on the bill. It is confidence, and not just on this bill, but any bill. The Minister of Finance was asked a minimum of 14 times today in question period whether in fact he had sold his shares in Morneau Shepell in advance of his tax reform policies being announced, and each time he skirted the question. He would not answer. He went on about the middle class and those working hard to join it. Well, right now, it is a matter of the middle class and those working hard to stay in it because of the policies of the finance minister.

We are expected to sit in the House and accept not just what the President of Treasury Board talks about in terms of openness and accountability, but there are multiple people, stakeholders, who have a vested interest in what the President of Treasury Board is promoting and proposing in terms of this access to information legislation, and they are being critical of it. They are being as critical as we are being on the finance minister, because he needs to answer the questions.

The government needs to force the finance minister to answer the questions as to whether in fact he had any vested interest or knowledge of the sale of those shares. It speaks to credibility, to transparency, to accountability, which the government is good at talking about, but when it comes to implementing or living by that, it does not.

What was funny about Bill C-63 and the motion we put forward was that every single person, save one, I believe the member from the Green Party, voted in support of adjourning the debate on that bill. They did that because they do not want to talk about it.

All we are asking is that the minister answer the questions that have been asked of him by those who represent Canadians in this House, every single one of us who are not members of the Liberal Party.

We are actually hearing about Liberal members who are questioning their confidence in the ability of the finance minister to conduct the business of the country. Why? It is because he has failed to answer the questions. He has answered, but in generalities. He goes back to the fetal position of saying that they are working hard for the middle class and those working hard to join it. However, he refuses to answer the questions.

If we are talking about openness and transparency, and this government is proposing Bill C-58, why is the finance minister not being open and transparent with Canadians? We can speculate that perhaps he knows that Canadians will not be happy with the answers. They will not be happy with the villa in France and why he hid that from the Ethics Commissioner, that he had complete control over Morneau Shepell shares and shares in various corporations, or that perhaps he was the one who sold that $10 million worth of shares just ahead of making that announcement. Openness and transparency: what an absolute joke.

I also want to talk about some other individuals who have concerns about what the government is proposing in Bill C-58. The bill proposes a good amendment, and I will give some credit here, by requiring more proactive publication of some information by giving the Information Commissioner the power to order the publication of some information, but it does nothing to fill the huge gaps in the act, as was promised by the Liberals.

We need more changes to have a government that is transparent and open by default. Again, the Liberals talk about openness and transparency, but they do not act in that way.

"The bill is a step backwards in allowing government officials to deny requests for information if they think the request is frivolous or made in bad faith. Public officials should not be given this power, as they will likely use it as a new loophole to deny the public information it has a right know.” Dale Conacher, the co-founder of Democracy Watch, said that.

Stephane Giroux, the president of the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec said, “The most interesting fact for us was to have access to documents from ministers' offices. False alarm. It was too good to be true.”

In spite of the fact that the President of the Treasury Board is standing up and saying that all these changes have occurred within Bill C-58, the reality is that there are still significant concerns. I think there is concern among Canadians. This past weekend, I had lots of events in my riding, and one of the things I kept hearing about is confidence in the finance minister to continue to do his job, given the circumstances and the besieged state he has been in over the last while. The fact that every single member of the Liberal caucus voted to adjourn debate on this issue calls into question not just Canadians' confidence in the finance minister but the Liberal backbenches' confidence in the finance minister.

The Hill Times today reported that there are concerns among Liberal backbenchers that this is going to affect them in 2019. Do members know the reason they gave for that concern? Many of them will have been here for one term of four years. They are concerned about their pensions. That is what it said in the paper.

How about being concerned about the process of democracy in this country and making sure that no one benefits from having holdings, in the case of the finance minister, that they have not brought forward and been transparent about?

Never mind pensions, we should be focused on what the finance minister is doing by not being transparent and accountable to Canadians and question whether some of the legislation he is putting forward, such as Bill C-27, actually benefits him.

I would remind the House as well that it is not just a matter of benefiting him. What about the benefit to his family? What about his wife? What about his kids? What about his father? How many Morneau Shepell shareholders, or anyone directly or indirectly associated with that family, are benefiting as a result of the policies the finance minister is putting forward? We talk about being open and transparent, but the finance minister has been anything but, and we certainly saw that egregious display today in the House.

As parents, we teach our kids about the difference between right and wrong. We tell our kids what they cannot do and explain it to them. We tell them what they can do and explain the reasons why. We talk often to our kids about character. School systems, through the policies of education, speak about character. They speak about honesty and integrity, yet the finance minister is showing none of those character traits to Canadians with his actions.

We are dealing with a piece of legislation, Bill C-58, that, quite frankly, is difficult to support for many reasons, the least of which is the government not showing any strong movement toward openness and transparency. It is a very top-down approach by the government.

The former information commissioner, from 2007 to 2008, said, “there's no one [in government departments] to review what they choose not to disclose, and I think that goes against the principle of the statute. They've taken the commissioner out of the loop. If you ask for these briefing notes...[and parts of them had been blacked out], you had someone to appeal to.”

This is no longer the case with Bill C-58.

He went on, “We can't even go to a court. It's one step forward, two steps back.”

We have seen a lot of one step forward and two steps back with the government. My fear is that the openness and transparency the Liberals ran on are not there anymore. We have seen that the finance minister cannot even answer a simple question. He will not even answer a simple question. Quite frankly, after seeing this display we have been seeing over the course of the last several months to questions being asked, how can we have any faith? If the finance minister will not even answer a simple question, how can we expect the whole of government to be open, honest, and transparent?

I am saddened by what I see, quite frankly, as a new parliamentarian. I know the other side is going to say that there were circumstances in the past when similar issues happened. We are not talking about circumstances in the past. The Liberals were the same opposition that stood and talked about the egregiousness of the actions of previous governments. They ran to be different. They said that they were going to impose real change. We have seen nothing to suggest anything different. We are seeing a government that is more inward. We are seeing a government that is controlled from the top down. We are seeing a government where the Prime Minister's Office runs everything. Not just on this issue but on multiple issues, anything but what they said has come true.

Conservatives are not going to support Bill C-58. I certainly call into question the finance minister. I call into question his ability to manage the financial affairs of the country, given the circumstances we have seen over the course of the last several months.

Despite their campaign promises, the Liberals have failed to increase government openness and transparency with this bill. As I have said, it is no surprise. This is effectively a government that chooses to publish when it is accountable to Canadians. It is not being accountable all the time. It is going to pick and choose when it wants to be accountable to Canadians. In practice, what the Liberals have effectively done is give themselves the power to refuse to respond to access to information requests they find embarrassing. Under the principle of openness and transparency, should not everything be responded to?

I understand that there might be matters of national security that are not in the public interest, but this is something different from what they ran on, as far as openness and transparency goes. With the changes proposed by the Liberals, less information would be available to Canadians. Moreover, the Liberals would do nothing to address unacceptable delays, so we would continue to see that information punted down the field and would have unacceptable delays in when that information would be put forward to Canadians.

I spent some time talking about Bill C-58, but in the context of openness and transparency, I cannot emphasize enough the egregious nature of the issue we have been dealing for the last couple of months with the finance minister. Again today there was zero accountability, zero transparency, and zero openness. It is a pattern that has evolved with the Liberal government over the course of the last two years. It should concern all of us. It certainly concerns stakeholders who have an interest in this. However, it is not just a concern to all of us who are here to represent Canadians. It is a concern to all Canadians, because it is the small stuff that leads to the big stuff. If we cannot get simple answers to simple questions in this place of openness and transparency, how can we expect to get that information from a government that proves, day after day, that it is not interested in openness? It is not interested in transparency and accountability, in spite of the fact that it ran on that very thing.

They said they were going to be different. The reality is, and we have seen it over the course of the last two years, that nothing could be further from the truth. With the display of the finance minister over the course of the last couple of months, and certainly today, there is not much faith in the ability of the government to be open, transparent, and accountable. That is why Bill C-58 is flawed. We continue to be concerned about the actions of the finance minister and how the Liberal government and these Liberal backbenchers can continue to endorse the display we are seeing here on a daily basis.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Vancouver Quadra, who has been doing a great job as parliamentary secretary on this and other files.

These amendments address concerns raised by the Information Commissioner and other stakeholders, including representatives of indigenous claims organizations. We have taken these concerns seriously and are open to moving forward with them. We want to make sure that the system cannot be abused and that a request cannot be declined when it is a legitimate request.

The call for a vexatious clause in this has come from the ethics committee in the past. In fact, the Information Commissioner has called for it in the past. It is important that it be properly and narrowly defined. There are eight provinces and the three territories that have a similar clause.

I also agree with the amendment that would provide the power of the Information Commissioner, up front in the process, to either agree with or reject the use of a vexatious clause in the denial of a request. I support that, and I believe it should be up front. That is why the parliamentary process informs and strengthens legislation. It is why I demonstrated very early that I was open to amendments that would help to strengthen the legislation.

Beyond that, within a year of the passage of Bill C-58, we would have a mandatory full review to assess these changes and inform future changes. This is a work in progress—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the President of the Treasury Board, but I cannot, because I do not know what bill he is talking about. Bill C-58 would do the opposite of what he just said it would do.

Here is what the Liberals promised would be in this legislation. They promised that access to information would apply to his office and to the Prime Minister's Office. It does not. They promised that the bill would apply appropriately to administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts. It does not. The government promised that the bill would empower the Information Commissioner to order the release of government information. It does not.

That is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of the Information Commissioner who appeared before us at committee and moved recommendations to fix Bill C-58. It is somewhat offensive to hear the Treasury Board President talking about respecting the work of committee, because the Liberals struck down amendment after amendment. These were amendments that were based on the testimony we heard at committee, from not only the Information Commissioner, but representatives from first nations communities and the media.

The Liberals promised a number of things, one of which was to rely on evidence. On all of these measures that I just outlined, Bill C-58 is “regressive”, and that is also according to the Information Commissioner.

Who does the member expect us to trust, a government that will not answer simple and direct questions day after day, or the Information Commissioner who is the watchdog and works on behalf of Parliament and all Canadians to make sure we get the information we need to hold government to account?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

moved that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to speak on Bill C-58, which would amend Canada's Access to Information Act.

As we developed these reforms, we were guided by the principle that government information belongs to the people it serves.

We remain committed to that principle, which was introduced for the first time in the Access to Information Act in 1983.

Now 34 years later, our proposed reforms would advance the original intent of the act in a way that reflects Canada's technologies, policies, and legislation. This is not a one-off exercise. Rather, we have kicked off a progressive ongoing renewal of the ATI system, one that will protect Canadians' rights of access to government information well into the future. Our efforts began over a year ago.

In May 2016, I issued a directive suggesting openness by default in government.

Open by default means having a culture across government in which data and information are increasingly released as a matter of course, unless there are specific reasons not to do so. Now, with the amendments proposed in Bill C-58, we are taking the next step. These amendments would create a new part of the act relating to proactive disclosure, one that effectively puts into practice the idea of open by default. Proactive disclosure would apply to more than 240 departments, agencies, and crown corporations, including the Prime Minister's Office, ministers' offices, senators and members of Parliament, institutions that support Parliament, administrative institutions that support the courts, and over 1,100 judges of the superior courts.

We also added to the legislation the proactive publication of information that we know is of interest to Canadians and that provides greater transparency and accountability with respect to the use of public money.

This will include travel and hospitality expenses for ministers and their staffs and senior officials across government, contracts over $10,000, and all contracts for MPs and senators, grants and contributions over $25,000, mandate letters and revised mandate letters of ministers, briefing packages for new ministers and deputy ministers, lists of briefing notes for the minister and deputy minister, and briefing binders prepared for question period and parliamentary committee appearances.

Of course, this does not absolve us of our responsibility to strengthen the request-based system. We know that the access to information system has been the subject widespread and warranted criticism. In fact, demands on the system have grown massively in recent years. That is why we are developing a guide to provide requesters with clear explanations of exemptions and exclusions, investing in tools to make processing information requests more efficient, allowing federal institutions with the same minister to share request processing services for greater efficiency, and increasing government training to get common and consistent interpretation of the application of ATI rules.

In addition, the proposed bill gives the Information Commissioner new powers, including the power to order the release of government records. This is an important advancement that was first recommended by a parliamentary committee studying the Access to Information Act back in 1987. Our government is acting on it and Bill C-58 would change the commissioner's role from an ombudsperson to an authority with the power to order the release of government records.

We are taking steps to help government institutions eliminate requests made in bad faith, which are detrimental to the system.

By tying up government resources, such vexatious, bad faith requests can interfere with an institution's ability to do its work and respond to other requests. Let me be clear. We have heard the concerns expressed about how we must safeguard against the abuse of this proposed measure. A large or broad request, or one that causes government discomfort, does not, of itself, represent bad faith on the part of the requester.

I would like to address the amendments made at committee. Our government believes in working with parliamentarians through the committee system for the good of all Canadians. I was happy to see that the committee passed over a dozen amendments, which serve to further strengthen and clarify our government's intent to strengthen and reform our access to information regime.

For example, one amendment removes the ability of departments to decline to act on a request simply because the request does not specify the subject matter, type of record, or time period. It gives the Office of the Information Commissioner the power to approve or reject upfront a department's request to decline to act on a request. It clarifies that a department can only decline to act based on the record already being available if it is the identical record.

These amendments address concerns raised by both the Information Commissioner and other stakeholders, including representatives of indigenous claims organizations. The amendments further underline the fact that we want to ensure that the system cannot be abused and cannot be used to decline to act on legitimate requests.

The committee also passed an amendment giving the Information Commissioner the power to publish the results of her investigations and to publish their orders. This is an important strengthening of the commissioner's powers.

The committee passed an amendment that imposes a 30-day deadline for the proactive disclosure of mandate letters.

This is just the first phase of our access to information modernization. In fact, Bill C-58 includes a mandatory review of the act every five years. The first review will begin no later than one year after this bill receives royal assent. What is more, it will require that departments regularly review the information being requested under the act. This will help us understand and increase information that could be proactively disclosed.

After 34 years, Canada's Access to Information Act needs updating. This is going to be an ongoing work in progress as we have an evergreening, modernization and strengthening of the Access to Information Act. We look forward to continuing our work to help make government more open, transparent, and accountable.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in relation to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is again based on recommendations from the Information Commissioner, and I just want to read from her text. This one sentence distills very clearly why this amendment is being made. This is a quote:

Proactive disclosure requirements, where the government chooses what is disclosed, are not the same as subjecting these entities to the right of access, where requesters can choose what is requested and are entitled to independent oversight of government's decisions on the disclosure of information.

What I am proposing to delete here, I gather, is identical to another motion to delete. The purpose of this deletion is to remove what's found at section 91, which removes from the Information Commissioner any jurisdiction over those identified pieces of information, such as spending limits, grants and contributions, briefing materials, and so on. The government under Bill C-58 is proposing that it will automatically disclose such information, but without allowing the Information Commissioner to check on what it's doing.

This provision and my deletion would allow the Information Commissioner to have oversight over the proactive disclosure requirements that the government is bringing forward.

I see no harm in it. I certainly hope I'm on a roll here. Thank you.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay. If that's what Bill C-58 overarchingly seeks to do, then this is what our attempted amendment clarifies, unless we have the amendment wrong, which sometimes happens.

[Ruth Naylor, Executive Director, Information and Privacy Policy Division, Chief Information Officer Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Bill C-58 currently puts the burden on the government institution.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you.

The amendment is identical, because, like Mr. Cullen, I'm very persuaded by the evidence of failing to strike the right balance for transparency and the recommendations of the Information Commissioner. These do hang together. They are found in her recommendations 18, 19, and 20.

This amendment speaks to the suggestion she made in recommendation 18. When we look at the actual precision of underscoring that for greater certainty, this application is de novo, is a new proceeding; that is, it goes to the heart of where she finds the problem in moving from the model we have now to a new model, which she has labelled—the result of what's being proposed in Bill C-58—as a regression.

In an effort to try to improve the legislation as.... I'm so impressed with the work that the Information Commissioner did. On so many points, as Mr. Kent has mentioned, she found that this bill, which was supposed to be improving our access to information in Canada, is actually going in the opposite direction.

I can see which way this is going to go, but I appreciate the chance to speak to it, Mr. Chair.

I would urge that the committee support deleting the clarity that insists this is de novo review.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Of course, because the three amendments, improvements to the bill, hang together, work together, I realize I'm not going to necessarily have the satisfaction of understanding why colleagues are voting against it, with a small caveat. The intention remains to give the Information Commissioner the power that she needs, in this case to get the information we need as policy-makers to make decisions.

I would again refer my colleagues to some of the legislation recently introduced around violence against women, which was entirely achieved under access to information, which under Bill C-58 could have been deemed as frivolous requests from Ms. Doolittle at The Globe and Mail. The reason that the national inquiry into murdered and missing aboriginal women actually has a figure as to how many murdered and missing women have disappeared in this country was also done only through access to information. This bill would also threaten the release of that information. There's also the transfer of Afghan detainees. These are things that matter.

I know that this is not a piece of legislation that we have natural and many constituencies to, yet all constituencies are affected by the ability to get information from government. That's the only way you can hold government to account. Otherwise, it is anecdote and conjecture.

I won't re-emphasize the point about the court's order-making powers. That was established in my previous arguments.

I will turn it over to Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thanks again, Mr. Chair. As you said, when Mr. Cullen's motion is disposed of, then I won't be able to speak to this one.

I will speak, very briefly, to the difference between judicial review of the commissioner's order and what Bill C-58 presents, and why Bill C-58's dealing with judicial review, having a review not of the commissioner's order but of a government decision, is a regressive step, in the words of the Information Commissioner.

As someone who used to practise law, the difference is really clear to me. Judicial review of an order means the record that was there when the commissioner made her decision is the record that will be examined in the review. What's being proposed here is that the court will look at a situation de novo—clean slate, no record. It creates no incentive whatsoever for an institution, if they want to hide information and delay release, to move forward. In fact, with a de novo hearing, they can stall. They can provide new information and new arguments.

In other words, it's a significant regression over where we are now. The point of this bill, I thought, was to improve the situation for access to information. I do hope that the commissioner's recommendations around the orders being reviewed will be given serious consideration by the government.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

This goes back to that interpretation piece, where we had some distance between what the Treasury Board president and the Information Commissioner were saying was the reality. NDP-27, NDP-28 and NDP-29 hang together because it allows for the oversight model that was recommended by the Information Commissioner and the ethics committee, who had studied this before.

The current government has claimed itself to be a government that will make policy based on evidence. This is the evidence before us in terms of allowing proper oversight when things essentially escalate. Let me quote one more time from the commissioner's special report to this committee:

The Commissioner recommended adopting an order-making model where the Commissioner can issue an order disposing of the issues raised, with orders subject to judicial review by the Federal Court.

The minister, I think, attempted to say that this is exactly what Bill C-58 does. But in fact it doesn't do that. If the ethics committee prior to us recommended this order-making power, and made the recommendation very clear, if the Information Commissioner also recommended this as the power she needs to get information to Canadians, and if evidence is supposed to be what is guiding us as a committee and this government, then we strongly feel that NDP-27, NDP-28, and NDP-29, allowing for that to exist in the real world, is important. If it's not, I think we're sending forward a bill that at this point is becoming fatally flawed. The commissioner came before us and told us she doesn't have the proper powers to do her job sufficiently right now. The previous committee studying this made this explicit recommendation. So I just don't see how this committee can say that we somehow know better, because we don't.

I think these things hang together properly. They are based almost entirely on the experience of our Information Commissioner and the prior experience of the ethics committee in studying this legislation.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

The amendment is that Bill C-588, in clause 17, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 10 the following:

(3.1) The Information Commissioner may publish the report referred to in subsection (2). (3.2) However, the Information Commissioner is not to publish the report until the expiry of the periods to apply to the Court for a review of a matter that are referred to in section 41.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the advice, but through you to the clerk, as the government has heard this advice from the Information Commissioner, and it's essentially a technicality that we're relying on to be unable to amend the bill this way because it may invoke spending later on, if this is deemed a good thing for Canadians and is deemed a good thing by the Information Commissioner, and is the practice of Bill C-58 if it were to become law, the implication and the use of mediation would be at the purview of the government of the day. It doesn't have to be deemed in through act of law.

Thank you for your reference. We can move on.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes. Okay.

As you have seen with the premise of many of our amendments to Bill C-58, they are based on the testimony we had, the witnesses who came forward and testified, particularly the Information Commissioner, who's most familiar with this act.

One of the things she brought forward in testimony was the need for an aspect of mediation. I'll quote her testimony on November 1: “The reason why I'm recommending that there be a formal provision for mediation is because sometimes some complainants particularly do not wish to participate in the mediation process. I think that the mediation process is extremely helpful in resolving complaints in a more timely way. I think that would be helpful. It also puts focus on the mediation process with institutions as well.”

Resolving things through mediation seems to me, especially when there's a conflict between the applicant and whatever ministry they are dealing with, a way to make real the duty to assist aspect of current access to information law. If there's a duty to assist, and there's a conflict of interpretation, then NDP-22, this amendment we've moved, new clause 13.1, would allow a formal mediation function in the course of an investigation.

That's essentially our amendment. I think it would help Canadians, and I think it would also help government in releasing information that's both helpful and appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Good afternoon, everybody.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, meeting number 77. Pursuant to order of reference of Wednesday, September 27, 2017, we are considering Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Right now, we are at NDP-22.

Mr. Cullen.

Ethics

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we all wondered how the Liberals were going to try to change the channel from the Morneau Shepell fiasco. Who knew they would be using a massive tax haven scandal to get our minds off their massive ethics scandal. To make matters worse, the Liberals have been hiding how much money is lost to these tax havens. For years they fought against the release of the so-called tax gap in Canada. Just like Bill C-58, their no access to information bill, the Liberals deny basic information that is owed to Canadians.

Therefore, I have a very simple question. Will the government finally tell Canadians how much money its millionaire and billionaire friends actually owe this country?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Mr. Rankin, this is another ruling from the chair.

Bill C-58 removes a moot subsection from section 24 of the Access to Information Act. The amendment seeks to repeal section 24 of the act. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the chair, due to the very technical modification it makes to section 24, the scope and principle of the bill don't allow for a complete elimination of the section. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

We'll move on.

(Clause 11 agreed to)

Next is NDP-17.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

This may be another example. There are only a couple left, Chair, where we've tried to narrow the categories.

The legislation, Bill C-58, adds reference to disclosure where “solicitor-client privilege” is involved. This would be confirming that the commissioner has the ability to deal with matters of solicitor-client privilege, but also would add that the disclosure is withheld only if the:

disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the interests of the Crown.

There's a phrase lawyers use called “lawyer-washing”, whereby you simply bring a lawyer into a meeting, call it solicitor-client, and that's the end of access.

This amendment is to say, yes, it's solicitor-client perhaps on its face, but only if it's injurious to a demonstrated interest of the crown would the information be withheld. I realize it's another effort to narrow the exemptions, and you consider that in your judgment to be contrary to the scope and principles of the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

There's another ruling from the chair.

Bill C-58 makes adjustments to section 11 of the Access to Information Act, which deals with fees. The amendment seeks to repeal section 11 of the act. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to in committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” In the opinion of the chair, Bill C-58 allows for modifications to the fees provisions of the act, but the scope and the principle of the bill don't go as far as to allow for a complete elimination of fees. I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Rankin.

Once again I have a ruling. Bill C-58 creates a new part 2 in the Access to Information Act for specific entities, creating two distinct regimes. The amendment seeks to import into part 1 entities for which part 2 is created. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766: "An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill."

In the opinion of the chair, having two distinct regimes for distinct entities is a fundamental principle of the bill. I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

That is, as expressed by yourself, your opinion as chair, so I'm not able to challenge it, except to say that we're here to amend a statute called the Access to Information Act. It seems to me that the key to that statute is the scope of that statute.

The principle of openness is simply being extended to other agencies controlled by the Government of Canada, so it would seem to me that should be within the scope of our deliberations. The government chose to bring Bill C-58 in to amend the act. This is simply in the spirit of that, to extend it to cover other government institutions. I would submit that it is within the scope, but of course, I defer to your ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

For each amendment, yes, there is.

I will read it for this particular amendment.

The definition of “government institution” in the Access to Information Act is not modified by Bill C-58. The amendment seeks to expand the definition by relaxing the conditions required for corporations to fall under the act. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the chair, the scope of the bill is limited by the current definition of “government institution”. I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible.

Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

The objective of this is to be consistent with the recommendations made by this committee in May 2016 to extend the coverage of the legislation to deal with a plethora of quasi-autonomous, non-governmental organizations, subsidiary crown corporations, namely those entities for which the government has 50% or more but that are not covered by the existing definition. That is the objective of the amendment before you. I think you'll see that it's consistent with the ethics committee's recommendations 1 and 2 of May 2016. Chair, I think it's consistent with the principle and scope of Bill C-58 in that this is an amendment to the Access to Information Act. We're simply trying to extend its coverage as this committee has recommended in the past.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues may have noticed that the official opposition presented no amendments. Just let me say at the beginning that after hearing the testimony of the President of the Treasury Board, a myriad of witnesses, and, most importantly, the commissioner herself, the official opposition has decided that Bill C-58 is beyond redemption.

That being said, hope springs eternal, and we will enthusiastically participate in the consideration of amendments. We know the President of the Treasury Board has indicated he may roll back a couple of the elements that the Information Commissioner has termed “regressive”. We look forward to participating.

Finally, it's interesting to note that Bill C-58 is composed of 58 pages of text. The Information Commissioner's condemnation of Bill C-58 amounted to 48 pages of text, and we have before us now amendments taking up 75 pages of text. I wanted to make clear that this is the reason we in the official opposition believe that despite the exercise before us, BIll C-58 is beyond redemption. The status quo would be preferred.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

It's four o'clock, and it's time to get going.

Welcome, everybody, to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 27, 2017, we're considering Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

If there are any questions that need to be answered or if we have questions as a committee, we have with us today from the Department of Justice, Sarah Geh, director and counsel general. From the Treasury Board Secretariat, we have Ruth Naylor, and we have Riri Shen from the Privy Council Office. Thanks for coming.

I've been asked by each party for a one-minute opening comment.

Go ahead, starting with Mr. Kent.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member obviously is interested in Bill C-58, our government's landmark legislation to modernize Canada's Access to Information Act. This is really important, because for 30 years governments have talked about modernizing access to information but have not done it. The Conservatives promised it in 2006. They did not do anything. In fact, they were the only government in the history of the British Commonwealth to be found in contempt of Parliament for not providing information. Our government is raising the bar after 10 years of darkness under the Conservatives.

Access to Information

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps repeating that his government is the first in 30 years to make improvements to access to information. However, the Information Commissioner was very clear when she said the Liberals' Bill C-58 is regressive and that the status quo would be better than what the Liberals are proposing, meaning that Stephen Harper's government was more open and accountable than the current government.

Canadians were promised more accountability and transparency. Will the government work with us and help themselves by actually keeping an election promise?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, we are the first government in more than 30 years to modernize the Access to Information Act. As I said in my first speech on Bill C-58, our intention is to raise the bar for openness and transparency. We are open to amendments for improving the bill and we look forward to working will all hon. members to improve this bill. We will continue to raise the bar—

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite the Liberals' promises to be more open and transparent, what we have is an Information Commissioner who is getting a growing number of complaints for requests for information that are being denied before Bill C-58 is even passed by the House. It is completely unacceptable. The bill has not even become law yet. However, the commissioner is proposing amendments to improve the bill.

Will the Liberals keep their promises and work with us, the NDP, and with the Information Commissioner to truly improve access to information?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That is coming from the party of the sponsorship scandal, Mr. Speaker.

The Information Commissioner dropped a bombshell yesterday. The Liberals' new no access to information bill, Bill C-58, will make things even worse than they were under Stephen Harper and Jean Chrétien. Ethics, cash for access, and open government were all promises made, and all promises that were broken. From the sponsorship scandal to missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls, all of this came to light through access to information.

Will the minister listen to civil society, immigration groups, and first nations, and fix this bad bill?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, “Failing to Strike the Right Balance for Transparency” is the punchy title of the Information Commissioner's report, which indicates that the Liberals are once again breaking their relatively clear election promise to make representatives of the Prime Minister's Office and other ministers' offices subject to the Access to Information Act.

They could have accomplished that with Bill C-58, but the bill falls far short of the mark.

Why is the Prime Minister backtracking rather than forming a government that is truly open and transparent?

[Suzanne Legault]

Correct. Bill C-58 does provide for the Information Commissioner to be notified if there is to be a recommendation that will become an order. It gives them time to actually decide whether or not to challenge the decision in the Federal Court, which is exactly the same regime that we have now, which has worked for 34 years.

[Suzanne Legault]

I disagree with his comments that the current Bill C-58 changes the interpretation of the personal information exemption or changes the balance between access to information and the privacy of information.

[Suzanne Legault]

I just don't think it's going to help the government's public policy objective of fostering open government.

This committee has done an extensive study on the amendments that should be made. I certainly have done an extensive study on amendments that should be made. These are meant to foster and develop a culture of openness within government institutions. The bill that's before us, Bill C-58, addresses some of the concerns that access to information professionals have in responding to access requests within government institutions. That's really evident. However, does it address a requester's desire to access easily and in a timely manner government information? It doesn't. It doesn't address any of the recommendations that both this committee and I have made in relation to exemptions, in relation to timeliness, in relation to full coverage, or in relation to full order-making power. It doesn't do that.

The government is stating that this is the first phase. My hope—and it is my most sincere hope—is that the work of this committee and Parliament will ensure that this first phase moves the yardsticks forward in matters of access to information. Even if it's just a little bit forward, forward is a positive result. If it goes backwards, then that's regression.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Finally, to get your specific characterization, you said that Bill C-58 is a regression of existing rights. How would you characterize it with regard to open government? I take from what you just said that it would be an affront to the concept of open government.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you again, Chair.

I'd like to come back briefly to the matter of fees. You reminded us that in 2015-16, the government collected a total of under $400,000 in fees, which certainly meant the expenditure of considerably more than that in collecting and processing. You also say in your statement that Bill C-58 not only reintroduces fees but leaves the door open for a variety of ways to increase fees. I wonder if you could speak to that.

[Suzanne Legault]

I would agree with you that if Bill C-58 is not amended in a significant manner, I would much prefer to keep the status quo.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay.

The point of this is to hold government to account. That's the whole point of the act and the whole point of your office.

I have a request in to the Pacific Pilotage Authority that I've used in this committee as an example. It is over 300 pages, most of it redacted. It was about an incident that happened in my riding. I asked so that I could relate it back to the people I represent, to tell them what happened. I can't tell them what happened. Even under the current rules, I have to appeal this.

We just heard the Prime Minister talk in the House of Commons during question period about how much he respects you—not you specifically, but all the office-holders, including the Ethics Commissioner. Your recommendations for this act to do its job are very specific. If it is not amended, Bill C-58 does not follow the principle of “do no harm” under legislation, that you shouldn't introduce bills that make things worse. Your broad assessment is that this bill is broadly regressive, broadly unhelpful to Canadians trying to get information that they deserve and need. Is that right?

[Suzanne Legault]

Based on what C-58 does, yes, it could be denied, because it could generate a large number of requests. It could be denied because it's not specific enough and doesn't meet the criteria of section 6.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

However, if it's required in law and if it's not there up front, then the request can be denied under Bill C-58.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I have a question about this whole notion of “vexatious” or “too many documents”. What is too many?

You mentioned “a large number” in your submission. Who determines what “a large number” is? Your office has about 1000 pages as a benchmark; above that is considered large, and below that, not, but I notice that Treasury Board thinks it's 500.

What worries me in Bill C-58 are these subjective terms. The application of “vexatious”, “too large”, or “inconvenient” to government is defined by whom? Can you help us out there?

[Suzanne Legault]

I have been the information commissioner for eight years and, to my knowledge, there have been very few such cases. That is really on the margin of the access to information system.

That said, I want to come back to what Mr. Baylis was trying to convince me of earlier. It is true that there are very rare cases where the access to information system may be abused. The only provision in Bill C-58 that addresses requests that are frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith is proposed subclause 6.1(1)(d). In an early phase of amendments to the Access to Information Act, that provision is certainly appropriate under the circumstances, as it enables institutions and the information commissioner to deal with these issues.

[Suzanne Legault]

As I don't have the newspaper article you are referencing on hand, or the date, or the particular file, it is difficult for me to answer the question intelligently.

At first glance, nothing in Bill C-58 focuses on political interference.

We have conducted a few investigations in those circumstances. Since then, I have not heard of anything like that happening in government institutions.

[Suzanne Legault]

I'm the Access to Information Commissioner. What I can say is that if Bill C-58 and proposed section 6 remain as they stand, it will be a lot more difficult for first nations to access the information they need to establish land claims and to establish some past events they might have been involved in and that they need to document in order to resolve.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I want to go back to the question that preoccupies me, and committee members could forgive me.

I represent a constituency in northwest British Columbia with approximately 40% first nations people. Some of the treaties are still unresolved. One took 135 years to resolve. There's a great deal of hope and promise with the new government, because there was this commitment to reconcile—a word that has been so stretched in its application that I'm wondering about its meaning anymore—on specific things like issues around residential schools and the horrors that went on there, and around reconciling land disputes, which are at the heart of enfranchisement for first nations people.

If Bill C-58 were to become law, from your perspective as commissioner, would the ability to reconcile, to resolve, to settle cases, be enhanced or diminished based on the information first nations would be able to pull from the Government of Canada?

[Suzanne Legault]

What I am saying is that what is being proposed in the new section 6 in Bill C-58 is a regression of existing rights.

Under the current legislation, if I made an access request for all records related to “sponsorship budget”, I would be able to have my access to information request processed. If I made an access to information request in relation to all records related to Afghan detainees, I would be able to get my access request responded to. Under Bill C-58, it would not be responded to.

[Suzanne Legault]

I'm saying that if committee and Parliament decide that there really has to be some measure of involvement of the Privacy Commissioner under C-58, it should be first in terms of consulting the Privacy Commissioner during investigations under my legislation, so it should be at the discretion of the Information Commissioner. I say this because of what I highlighted in my remarks, which was that most cases are resolved at the very early stages of investigation.

The way Bill C-58 is currently drafted, it's basically open to a government institution to decide to notify the Privacy Commissioner as soon as they receive the notice of a complaint. If that occurs, then I “shall” consult with the Privacy Commissioner. In that respect, that would really impede the investigation and affect its integrity. If it is at the discretion of the Information Commissioner to consult, only in very few cases would there be contentious issues between the two offices. We really have a long history, over 34 years, of these two offices functioning together in the interpretation of that section. There have been very few instances of disagreement, so that's why.

Bill C-58 already provides that if there's going to be an order, during the time for the government to respond, or the time before the order becomes a deemed order, there has to be a notification to the Privacy Commissioner, and there is an opportunity for the Privacy Commissioner to bring the matter to court. That process is already provided for in C-58.

What the Privacy Commissioner recommends, if I understood correctly, is that even at the level of a recommendation, he would have to be notified. That's what we have now. We have that regime now. We make recommendations to institutions on a regular basis. Very few instances deal with recommendations to disclose personal information, and I have no obligation to consult with the Privacy Commissioner. That's been the case for 34 years.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'd like to come back to the disclosure of personal information. I'm sure you saw the presentation from the Privacy Commissioner before us, and heard his arguments that Bill C-58 would disrupt a balance that he sees between your two offices. He invokes the quasi-constitutional nature of his office, which I assume you would counter with invoking the quasi-constitutional nature of your office and Canadians' right to access to information.

He recognizes your significant experience over the years, but his qualification, his reluctance, would not seem to offer a positive response to your suggestion of discretion. Do you think some mention of discretion in the application and your decision on his inclusion in the process would be a solution?

[Suzanne Legault]

The other aspect of the proactive disclosure proposed in Bill C-58 can certainly support what you are saying. If issues threaten to jeopardize the safety of individuals or judicial independence, it would be appropriate to apply exemptions. The legislation provides for exemptions in cases where individuals' safety may be in jeopardy. I proposed that exemptions also be provided to protect judicial independence. However, since that is really a constitutional principle, I presume that judges could make revisions if they believed that judicial independence was at stake, even if that is not indicated in Bill C-58. This is really my opinion. Like my colleague, I am not an expert in this area.

In addition, when we were preparing for our appearance today, we did not have access to that witness's submission to the committee. We simply based our review on what he said before the committee, as well as the committee's reports. We did not have all the information, so we could not analyze it in detail.

That said, I wanted to discuss this issue before the committee because he is the only witness to have raised it. In my opinion, his arguments deserve the committee's attention. The recommendations he made—publishing total amounts per court rather than for each individual judge—are a happy medium. I think they are worthy of the committee's consideration.

[Nancy Bélanger, Deputy Commissioner, Legal Services and Public Affairs, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada]

I'm not an expert on constitutional law or on judicial independence. However, I can tell you that some of the information is already public. For example, salaries are provided under the Judges Act. Right now, total amounts are disclosed. In addition, under the Judges Act, judges' salaries are disclosed on an individual basis. For example, the salary of a superior court judge is already known.

What Bill C-58 proposes is to publish judges' names and the cost of their participation in conferences, their travel expenses, their hospitality expenses, and so on. What you heard from that witness is that very specific and individualized information on judges can undermine the independence of the chief justice's court administration. The chief justice is in charge of assigning judges to various places. In addition, according to the witness, publishing that information can compromise judges' personal safety.

I believe that the committee must take that seriously and do the work needed to see whether constitutionality and judicial independence are really at stake under the circumstances.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

That was a bit of a philosophic speech. That said, care should still be taken when bills are drafted.

I want to congratulate you. You were really brave to sound the alarm on Bill C-58.

I hope that our committee will be able to make the recommendations needed to amend the bill. If that does not happen, you will understand that it's because our party does not have a majority.

Thank you.

[Suzanne Legault]

I am here to testify on Bill C-58. I explained in my report my concerns with regard to this bill and I made recommendations. Anything beyond that is outside the scope of my testimony.

[Suzanne Legault]

The provision that provides an exemption for personal information has existed and been interpreted for 30 years. After all, it is a mandatory exemption. It reflects the fact that personal information belongs to the individual and not to the government. So it is appropriate to have a mandatory exemption and notices provided to the privacy commissioner pursuant to section 8 of the Privacy Act.

What I take issue with is that Bill C-58 proposes requiring the information commissioner to consult the privacy commissioner in all cases where institutions have given notice to the privacy commissioner. I think that will make investigations conducted under the Access Information Act virtually impossible. As I explained, it will hurt not only the efficiency, but also the integrity of investigations. That is why I have a lot of difficulty with the proposals of Bill C-58.

[Suzanne Legault]

That is why I have made recommendations to improve Bill C-58. I think that the recommendations truly focus on preventing some of the negative impacts of Bill C-58. I really hope that the committee will take them into consideration and that the government will consider all of the committee's recommendations to improve this bill.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Legault, thank you for being here.

Like many Canadians, I was shocked to see the new version of the Access to Information Act presented in Bill C-58. If it had existed in this form in the early 2000s, the sponsorship scandal could have never been exposed. To keep information in that great darkness is an attack on Canadian democracy. Some 15 years later, this bill contains provisions that will make it even more complicated for Canadians to find out what is happening in their government.

What should we do, Ms. Legault?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Do you get requests from first nations organizations for access to information, things about settling treaties or residential schools? Are these typical?

We had some testimony from Peter Di Gangi in terms of his concerns about Bill C-58. They're opposed to the bill. You should find yourself in good company. We're still trying to find witnesses who like the bill, outside of the government.

[Suzanne Legault]

There are already a few examples provided in the special report. One only has to glean through the published access to information requests that exist, which are publicly available.

Any request that does not provide subject matter, type of record, and timeline would be denied under the Access to Information Act under the new provision in Bill C-58. The government has stated that it won't happen this way, that somehow there will be some good measure applied to the interpretation of these sections—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm sure the example of the sponsorship mess isn't the most happy one for my Liberal colleagues to use. We are trying to make this real for Canadians. Why does this matter? Many Canadians don't deal with the Access to Information Act; they don't file complaints.

There are other examples in which the information would not have come to the light of day if Bill C-58 had been law. We've had testimony at this committee about Afghan detainees, the F-35, or costs for the war in Afghanistan. Those types of things were garnered only because journalists, or other Canadians, used the Access to Information Act to get information from the government that, in those cases at least, it didn't want out, but because the law required it, it had to be revealed.

I would appreciate it if, either now or later, you could cast backwards and say, if access to information had been under this provision, this, this, and these stories could not have come to the light of day. Would you be able to do that for the committee?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The minister's office says, “We publicly disclosed. They exempted these important pieces that might be damaging or unhappy for the government”, and that's the end of the story if Bill C-58 becomes law as it is.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Therefore, if they apply exemptions to that briefing book—they redact it, or they just don't disclose it in the first place—under Bill C-58 you wouldn't be able to go in and say, “What did you exempt, and why? What is the information contained in there?” and then make a call for whether the public should have access to that information.

[Suzanne Legault]

Bill C-58 does not do that.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

We don't have to look to some imagined future to see what potential damage Bill C-58 could do in terms of access to information—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay, I'll pick up where we left off from Mr. Kent's questioning.

Is it your testimony that government departments are already beginning to apply Bill C-58 in the denial of information to Canadians?

[Suzanne Legault]

They're all important.

One of the things that the government promised was to have ministers' offices covered by the Access to Information Act. This piece of legislation does not do that. I have said that this was one of the priorities in the first phase of amendment. I have said publicly that at the very least the government should ensure that ministers' offices are covered under the access act. I would think that would certainly be a top priority.

With the proactive disclosure scheme that's being proposed under Bill C-58, although I fully support proactive disclosure, the concern I have with the current regime is that it results in an important regression of existing access rights in relation to ministers' offices. This is a real concern of mine. Proposed section 91 basically says that the Information Commissioner does not have jurisdiction over that part 2, which is all the proactive disclosure.

Everything that's in part 2 right now, all of this proactively disclosed information, is currently subject to the Access to Information Act. With regard to lists of briefing notes, QP preparation, briefings to heads of institutions, all of this material is currently subject to the Access to Information Act. If the government institution applies exemptions to that information, those exemptions can be reviewed by the Information Commissioner.

Under Bill C-58, if the government applies exemptions to the proactive disclosure documents, those exemptions cannot be reviewed by anyone. I think that's a very real concern. Those would be two of the most important points.

The third one that is really important are the criteria that have been embedded in Bill C-58 for anyone who wishes to make an access to information request. Aside from my own recommendation in that respect, you have heard from many requesters who are basically saying that this would be a major regression.

When I was preparing for this committee, I went back to the request that was made by Daniel Leblanc, the journalist who uncovered the sponsorship scandal. That request would not have met the new requirement under Bill C-58. That's a perfect example of how new section 6, as it is currently worded in Bill C-58, would amount to a massive regression. I have that request somewhere, but it essentially reads something along the lines of “all records related to the sponsorship budget from 1994 to the time of the request”, which was 2000. That would not meet the test under section 6. That would be denied. I think that's a huge problem.

The News Media association did a recent audit of the federal government to assess the government's performance. In doing this audit, it sent 29 requests to federal institutions. When I looked at those 29 requests, several of them would not have passed the test under the new section 6. Something like 41% of those requests would not have been valid requests.

Last night, before I left my office, one of my directors of investigation told me that an institution had refused to respond to a request, and we had a complaint because the subject matter of the request was not in the request. Allison here, who is the executive director of investigations, has completed an investigation in which an institution is already applying the criteria in Bill C-58, which are not even in force yet, to deny requests for information.

Those are only two that I have complaints about so far. That's the concern I have with the criteria in new section 6.

I'm going to take all your time if I continue, but there you go. I have only mentioned three.

[Suzanne Legault]

I think the public will be best served if amendments are made to Bill C-58 to address some of the deficiencies that I've highlighted in my report.

[Suzanne Legault]

As I've proposed in my special report, I really don't have an issue with having a provision that would deal with frivolous and vexatious requests or requests made in bad faith. I do take issue with the various components of that and the various ways by which an institution can deny or can decide not to respond to an access request under Bill C-58. That's laid out in my report.

In terms of the provision for frivolous and vexatious requests, which is proposed paragraph 6.1(1)(d), I don't have any issues with that provision. When I issued my recommendations, I was making my recommendations under the basis of a true order-making model, and I recommended that this would be subject to an appeal to the Information Commissioner. Under the Bill C-58 model, which I do not consider to be a true order-making model, I would recommend that permission be sought from the Information Commissioner before an access request is denied on the grounds of being frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

[Suzanne Legault]

I went to Newfoundland, by the way, and I met with the Newfoundland commissioner and with various stakeholders involved in the application of the new law. There hasn't been enough time to see if the Newfoundland model works or not and whether there's more judicial review being conducted in court in Newfoundland.

What I can say from my perspective is that under the current regime, we usually resolve most of our cases before going to a formal recommendation under the current section 37 of the act. When we get to those cases, there are less of them. There are around 15 cases a year that actually go to that level. Most of the cases are resolved before that.

When we get there, in most instances the government institutions agree with our recommendations. There are very few cases that end up going to court. That's under the current regime. I don't see that this is going to change under the regime being proposed by Bill C-58. That's why I don't see that there's going to be this shift in power, this shift in balance, that the minister spoke about—that there would be more reluctance from institutions to take the Information Commissioner to court—because that's the current situation. When we get to that final level, essentially there are two things: either the government is strenuously opposing the disclosure because it wants to delay the disclosure, or we have a disagreement on the interpretation of the law. Those are usually the cases in which we end up with those formal recommendations.

I really don't see that changing under Bill C-58. What would happen is that if the government institutions agreed to abide by my recommendation, then it would become an order after a longer period of time. I normally give them 15 business days. Now we're looking at a longer time period before the order becomes an actual deemed order. For me, the difference is really that Bill C-58 gives the government more time before it discloses information following my recommendation.

In terms of who takes whom to court, under the current regime, if the government refuses disclosure following my formal recommendation, I have the ability to take the matter to court with the complainant's consent. Under Bill C-58, it is the government that will take me to court—or, rather, the Information Commissioner. It won't take me personally, but the Information Commissioner.

[Suzanne Legault, Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada]

Good afternoon.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Honourable members, thank you for inviting me to appear before you to discuss Bill C-58.

I have closely followed your work, I have reviewed the testimony of the various witnesses, and I have read the submissions you have received during your study. I have taken these into account for my submission today.

As you are aware, persistent calls to reform the Access to Information Act have been made ever since its adoption. In the 30-plus year history of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, my predecessors and I have documented multiple challenges and deficiencies with the act.

In March 2015, I tabled a special report in Parliament where I proposed an in-depth reform of the Access to Information Act. Included in this report were 85 recommendations that would resolve recurring access to information issues and create a culture of openness.

During this committee's 2016 study of the act, I identified the recommendations from my special report that should be prioritized in the first phase of the government's reform.

My recommendations from that appearance are still the priorities I would recommend today to modernize the act. They are also recommendations the committee made in its final report.

First, we recommend extending the coverage of the act to include the Prime Minister's Office, and administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts.

Second, we recommend legislating a duty to recommend the decision-making process in government.

We also recommend reducing delays.

Moreover, we recommend maximizing disclosure of government information by amending the advice and recommendations exemption and the exclusion for cabinet confidences.

In addition, we recommend strengthening the oversight powers of the information commissioner by adding to the act a true order-making model, with the certification of orders as if they were issued by the Federal Court.

Finally, we recommend including in the act a mandatory review of the Access to Information Act in 2018, and every five years thereafter.

Since then, I have also recommended to the Minister of Justice and to the President of Treasury Board, by letter dated October 8, 2017, that an amendment be made during the first phase of amendments to provide for a clear provision preserving the ability of the Information Commissioner to review records over which the exemption of solicitor-client privilege is claimed by government institutions. This recommendation followed the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary.

Bill C-58 fulfills two of these seven priority recommendations: that is, the mandatory review of the act every five years, and the recommendations related to solicitor-client privilege.

On September 28, 2017, I tabled a report in Parliament entitled “Failing to Strike the Right Balance for Transparency”, which details my concerns over Bill C-58 and my recommendations to improve the bill.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have on that report, but for now, I will focus my remarks on some of the issues that have been raised during your study and that were not addressed in detail in my special report.

First, in relation to proactive disclosure and judicial independence, the committee has heard from a witness representing the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association. This witness raised concerns that the proactive disclosure found in Bill C-58 with respect to judges could interfere with judicial independence or could compromise the security of the judges. The Canadian Bar Association, in its written submission, has also raised similar concerns.

When I tabled my report “Striking the Right Balance for Transparency” in 2015, suggesting amendments to modernize the act, I recommended extending coverage of the act to the bodies that provide administrative support to the courts, not to the judges themselves. I recognized that judicial independence is a cornerstone of our judicial system and that certain records should be excluded from the purview of the act.

Bill C-58 proposes to proactively disclose individualized information relating to incidental expenditures and representational, travel, and conference allowances, including the judges' names. This, according to the association that presented before this committee, could jeopardize the independence of judges and compromise their security.

In order to address these concerns, the association suggested that expense information according to the categories of reimbursable allowances set out in the Judges Act be published according to each court's expenditures.

In my view, this recommendation is reasonable and should seriously be considered by this committee. Currently the expenditures related to these categories of information are not available to the public.

As well, the association's recommendation that the decision of whether judicial independence could be undermined by the publication of the proactive disclosure documents could be made to reside with the chief justice of the court concerned, and should also, in my view, be considered by the committee.

The second aspect that I want to address—and I think you have to be patient with me and bear with me—is in relation to personal information. I thought, in preparing the remarks for today, that I would actually go into some detail—basically, to go back to basics in a way—to explain how the exemption for personal information is addressed under the Access to Information Act.

Based on the testimonies presented to the committee and committee members' questions, it is useful to clarify how the exemption for personal information is applied under the Access to Information Act.

The personal exemption is found at section 19 of the Access to Information Act. It is a mandatory exemption. It states that the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under the Access to Information Act that contains personal information.

Personal information is defined in section 3 of the Privacy Act and is incorporated into the access act by virtue of section 19. It states that “personal information means information about an identifiable individual that is recorded in any form including” such things as information related to race, religion, addresses, fingerprints, and so on.

Section 19 of the access act provides the following instances in which disclosure of personal information is authorized: the individual to whom the information relates consents to the disclosure, the information is publicly available, or the disclosure is in accordance with section 8 of the Privacy Act.

Section 8, in turn, contains a list of instances in which personal information can be disclosed. In particular, subparagraph 8(2)(m)(i) states that personal information may be disclosed for any purpose where, in the opinion of the head of the institution, the public interest in disclosure outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure.

The head of the government institution shall notify the Privacy Commissioner in writing of any disclosure of personal information prior to the disclosure, under paragraph 8(2)(m), and the Privacy Commissioner may, in turn, if he deems it appropriate, notify the individual to whom the information relates.

Paragraph 8(2)(m) was applied over 7,700 times by government institutions in 2015-16. This would have triggered mandatory disclosure requirements by institutions to the Privacy Commissioner.

Of the requests completed by government institutions in 2015-16, the exemption for personal information was applied by government officials to more than 28,000 requests. That's about 39% of the total number of requests. The exemption for personal information is the most frequently cited exemption by institutions.

These decisions on disclosure are made by government officials on a routine basis.

In terms of complaints to my office, this exemption was cited in over 300 complaints last year, and this is pretty consistent year over year. This makes up 52% of all the exemption complaints that my office reviews. It is important to recognize that the personal exemption is used almost invariably with other exemptions in any complaint to my office. However, most issues related to the personal exemption provision are resolved at the very early stages of our investigations and are very rarely contentious.

Indeed, since I have been commissioner, we have dealt with over 13,000 investigations. I have issued a formal recommendation to release personal information in seven cases.

During that time, there have been a total of 21 cases in court related to the personal information exemption under the access act. Of those, 19 were brought forward by third parties, not by the Information Commissioner, and two of those cases were brought forward by my office. Although the Privacy Commissioner can intervene in these cases, the current Privacy Commissioner has never done so.

Bill C-58 incorporates the Privacy Commissioner into the Information Commissioner's investigative process in two instances. First, if institutions notify the Privacy Commissioner of a complaint to my office, the Information Commissioner will have a positive legal obligation under Bill C-58 to seek representations from the Privacy Commissioner.

Will institutions feel compelled to notify the Privacy Commissioner? If so, there will be a positive legal obligation to involve the Privacy Commissioner in all of these investigations by the Information Commissioner. No timelines are provided for in this process. We know that this will affect over 300 investigations per year that not only deal with personal information but with many other investigative issues.

Second, the Information Commissioner may consult at her discretion—this is in Bill C-58—when she intends to issue an order that personal information be disclosed.

The Privacy Commissioner, in his submission, proposes to expand his role in access to information investigations further than Bill C-58 already does. He recommends making consultation with his office mandatory when the Information Commissioner intends to issue an order or a recommendation in all instances involving disclosure of personal information. He also recommends that the Privacy Commissioner be able to seek judicial redress when the Information Commissioner makes not just an order, but also a recommendation to disclose personal information.

My colleague argues that this involvement of the Privacy Commissioner in the Information Commissioner's investigations is necessary because Bill C-58 changes the balance between access and privacy rights. He argues that the Information Commissioner is a champion of one side of this balance, and therefore the Privacy Commissioner, whom he describes as the champion of privacy, must weigh in to ensure that balance is maintained. Respectfully, I disagree.

Bill C-58 does not alter the exemption for personal information that currently exists under the law. It does not significantly alter the definition of personal information. It maintains the test for public interest disclosure and the obligation for institutions to notify the Privacy Commissioner should they decide to disclose based on public interest.

It is true that the Information Commissioner is a champion for transparency in public policy debates. I am, however, first and foremost, a regulator. As such, in conducting the investigations under the legislation, I must apply the law as it is written. The law related to this exemption has not changed. My investigation will consider the same legislation that it has considered for the last 34 years.

The exceptions that allow disclosure are at the discretion of the head of the institution. When we conduct investigations in relation to this, our investigative work reviews whether the head of the institution has exercised their discretion in a reasonable manner. The Information Commissioner does not substitute her own exercise of discretion for that of the head of the institution.

As I have explained in my special report, given that Bill C-58 does not provide for an actual order-making power, the shift in balance advanced by both the government and the Privacy Commissioner is not grounded in the new provisions of Bill C-58 and is at best entirely speculative.

Any mandatory obligation to consult the Privacy Commissioner is, in my view, not required, and will hinder the efficient investigation of access to information complaints. Most importantly, it will impact the integrity of investigations under the Access to Information Act. This can occur in at least two circumstances.

First, since the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is also subject to the Access to Information Act and therefore subject to complaints to my office, a mandatory obligation to consult with his office would create a conflict of interest.

Second, it is common for requesters to seek information under both the Information Act and the Privacy Act. They use both acts to maximize the amount of disclosure they will obtain from government institutions. It would directly affect the integrity of the investigations under the Access to Information Act should the Information Commissioner be obligated to disclose information related to these investigations to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

In sum, for all the reasons above, I do not recommend that the Privacy Commissioner be involved in the investigation of access to information matters when the exemption for personal information is at play, given the existing safeguards that already exist in our respective legislation. The recommendations in my report in this regard should be followed.

However, should the committee consider it necessary to involve the Privacy Commissioner into the investigations of the Information Commissioner, I recommend, first, that consultation with the Privacy Commissioner should be at the discretion of the Information Commissioner, as is provided for already in Bill C-58 under proposed new section 36.2.

Second, I recommend that notice to the Privacy Commissioner be given when the report of an investigation sets out an order requiring the institution to disclose a record or a part of a record that the head of the institution refuses to disclose under section 19 of the Access to Information Act. In essence, I recommend maintaining proposed new subsection 37(2). Finally, new subsection 41(4) of Bill C-58 could be maintained to allow the Privacy Commissioner to apply to court for a review of orders of the Information Commissioner related to section 19.

Mr. Chair, I have been pleased to follow your work and to hear during the minister's appearance that the government is open to hearing amendments from this committee on Bill C-58. My report contains 28 recommendations to improve Bill C-58, and I encourage you to consider them in reviewing this bill.

Thank you for your study.

I am now ready to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics meeting number 75. Today we're speaking about Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Today we have the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, Suzanne Legault. Just for information to the committee, the presentation is going to be a little bit longer than the 10 minutes; it's around 20 minutes. Also, I'll announce that we have some committee business at the end of the meeting. We only have one presenter today, so we may exit earlier than we planned.

Go ahead, Commissioner.

[Robert Ramsay]

From CUPE's perspective, I believe that one of the most major deficiencies with Bill C-58 is what is not in Bill C-58. There are a number of issues in the current access to information legislation that are inadequate. Members from all parties have acknowledged this over the years. There have been multiple studies and multiple recommendations. Canada's international counterparts have sped ahead, while Canada's act has stayed the same for a very long time. There are many political reasons for that. I think that this represents an opportunity to address those issues, and they're not in Bill C-58.

One that we are most concerned about, because it is central to our work, is access to information around the provision of public services, whether those public services are provided by government or in co-operation with a private entity. Currently, under the legislation, the so-called trade secrets and commercial and economic information that belong to a third party can be excluded under that blanket language.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Ramsay, I think you indicated that a lot of Bill C-58 was unacceptable. I can tell you that you're in very good company with the Centre for Law and Democracy, the Canadian Association of Research Libraries, media organizations, academic experts, and most notably, the Information Commissioner of Canada, Madam Legault, whose report is certainly the most scathing that I've ever read in my 30 years of looking at this legislation. You're in good company in saying that.

You mentioned in an answer to another question that you wanted a harms-based test for the exemptions under the act. If you had to list your most significant concerns, would the failure to address that be the main problem with Bill C-58?

In your judgment, could you tell us what are the most significant problems with this bill?

[Robert Ramsay, Senior Research Officer, Research, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Good afternoon. My name is Robert Ramsay. I work as a senior research officer with the Canadian Union of Public Employees at our national office here in Ottawa.

I want to start by thanking the committee for this opportunity to present our thoughts on Bill C-58. We look forward to seeing our recommendations as well as the serious concerns expressed by the witnesses in previous sessions reflected in your committee work.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, or CUPE, is the largest labour union in Canada. We represent 650,000 workers across the country in sectors as diverse as health care, social services, child care, municipalities, schools, universities, and transportation, among others. Our members provide a range of vital public services in thousands of communities, where they and their locals are engaged civic partners.

Since our founding in 1963, CUPE has been one of the strongest and most consistent voices defending public services in Canada. We know that robust, well-funded public services serve Canadians best and that the privatization of these services leads to higher costs, as Auditors General have revealed when they gain access to the full range of information about a privatization project. Privatization, whether through asset sales, P3s, outsourcing, or social impact bonds, also represents a real threat to the quality and level of access that public services should provide. As such, CUPE has serious concerns about Bill C-58, both about the parts of the current Access to Information Act that it proposes to amend and about the existing deficiencies that it fails to correct.

First, this bill leaves intact sections 18 and 20, which exempt from disclosure any material or information that falls under the broadly undefined category of trade secrets of either the government or a third party. The language removes from public scrutiny any financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information that has what is called “substantial value” or is reasonably likely to have substantial value in an undetermined future.

The current language allows the government to refuse to disclose third party information that was treated confidentially by that third party. It exempts from disclosure, in a preposterously broad limitation, any information that “could reasonably be expected to be materially injurious to... the ability of the Government of Canada to manage the economy of Canada”. The scope of information that can be exempted from public disclosure under this language is virtually infinite: contracts with private security or accounting companies, pharmacological research, reports by consultants on proposed government actions, records of foreign investment, information relating to the health and safety performance of a third party entity providing public services. These are some of the possible exemptions under sections 18 and 20, and they are also examples of material and information that must be accessible to Canadians if access to information legislation is to be meaningful.

Certainly we understand that there are legitimate grounds for non-disclosure, such as national security and personal privacy, and that access requests can sometimes require judgment calls by government officials. These exemptions, however, like those in other sections that hide from view the actions and decisions of the PMO, cabinet, and ministers' offices, are overly broad, not subject to a test of real harm, and not subordinated to a meaningful public interest override.

We must note as well the dangerous ways these exemptions intersect with other legislation this government has proposed in what others more cynical than we are might characterize as a war on transparency. For example, Bill C-22 gives the staff of the Department of National Defence the authority to decide what is excluded from disclosure without any independent review. In Bill C-44, section 28 of the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act expands exclusions to include information about proponents, private sector investors, and institutional investors in infrastructure projects, again with no independent review.

The Canada Infrastructure Bank Act provides a clear example, in fact, of the regressive nature of the current legislative trajectory. Not only does the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act lay out overly broad additional exemptions, it also places final decisions before cabinet, essentially shrouding the entire process in darkness, out of the reach of the Information Commissioner, the Auditor General, and even the federal courts.

Let us provide a concrete example. CUPE recently filed an access to information request for information and material related to the government's participation in the private REM light rail project in Montreal, specifically for the reports and analyses prepared by a third party consultancy called Blair Franklin Capital Partners. This is a project to which the government has committed 1.3 billion public dollars, and it is something the government has indicated the Canada Infrastructure Bank may take on as one of its first projects.

Is this a good investment? What information has the government relied on to make that decision? Were environmental, health and safety, or accessibility concerns integrated into the decision? What is the business model and the business case? What is the projected fee structure, and will it be regressive or restrict access?

Answers to these questions are central to the public's understanding of this particular public investment. In other words, the public interest is immense. However, when we received a response—after a delay, of course—Infrastructure Canada invoked section 18 to redact virtually all of the records, making the entire 613-page disclosure incomprehensible and useless.

Rather than apply the exemptions narrowly and with respect for the public interest, it has become common practice for the government to redact by default, to exclude by default. This is an application that runs counter to the stated aims of the act and the bill under review, and counter to international standards of open government.

While there may be legitimate exemptions for disclosure of third party information, they would need to pass the test of real harm in each case. It is not legitimate for government to refuse disclosure simply because the information is related to a third party interest.

A recent report by the Vancouver-based Columbia Institute, entitled “Canada Infrastructure Bank and the Public's Right to Know”, notes that there is virtual unanimity among information commissioners across Canada that private entities that receive public funds or perform a public service or public interest function must be covered by access to information legislation. This is the emerging consensus internationally as well.

Here, though, this government has moved in the opposite direction by establishing a regime in which information on how our public services and public infrastructure are provided, how they are funded, how these decisions are made, and even who is involved in the work can be hidden behind a curtain of third party privilege. CUPE submits that the government instead needs to ensure that access to information under sections 18 and 20 faces far narrower exemptions that are subject to a test of actual harm, to a strong public interest override, and to review by the Information Commissioner, and that this act take precedence over any other act, such as the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act, that seeks to unreasonably limit the public's right to know.

We would also like to take a moment to echo the serious concerns of your previous witnesses. Proposed section 6, as written, creates new hurdles to gaining access by establishing requirements for the structure and content of requests that void the government's duty to assist and that defeat the very purpose of the act. Proposed section 6 also would allow the government of the day to create unilaterally a “do not respond” list of troublesome Canadians who always seem to want to know something and ask too many big questions. The determination that an access request is frivolous, trivial, vexatious, or made in bad faith is one that cannot and should not be made by the government of the day to whom the information request is made. This is a subjective determination that is necessarily rife with conflict of interest.

Another barrier to access is cost. Bill C-58 leaves open the possibility of government requiring new and onerous costs for access. Where is the promise for a nominal $5 fee with all other costs voided, and for the $5 fee itself to be refunded if timelines are not met?

We also agree with other witnesses that Bill C-58 represents a missed opportunity. There are serious problems with the current legislation, problems that the current government correctly identified while in opposition and that remain wholly unaddressed in the proposals before you. Canada, despite its leadership in other areas, sets a very poor example globally with the current act. According to the global right to information index compiled in part by the Centre for Law and Democracy and based on 61 indicators, Canada is ranked 49th out of 111 countries on the quality of its access to information laws.

News Media Canada has criticized this government's approach to access to information as being “even worse” than the previous government's. Your own outgoing Information Commissioner has called Bill C-58 “a regression of existing rights”, as has been mentioned many times at this committee. We urge you to take her 28 carefully considered recommendations.

To summarize, we submit that the law must apply to private third parties who receive public funds or perform a public service function. All exemptions must be discretionary in practice. The Information Commissioner's office must have at its disposal a full tool box of real order-making powers and the authority to enact penalties. We agree with Democracy Watch that the appointment process for the Information Commissioner must be changed so that it is open, merit-based, and not controlled by the very ministers the commissioner will be reviewing.

In conclusion, we cannot recommend that Bill C-58 proceed as written. It is, quite simply, bad legislation. It makes access more difficult rather than improving it.

Instead, CUPE calls on the government to review the problems that these hearings and previous commentary have identified, to research the best examples from your provincial and international counterparts, and to draft amendments that have as their guiding principle what Mr. McArthur, the acting commissioner from B.C., called “access by design”: an act that facilitates access rather than blocks it and that leads to a government that is truly open by default and closed only in the narrowest, independently defensible circumstances.

Thank you again for the time. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Pierre Bienvenu, Lawyer, Senior Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada, Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association]

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association to give its views on Bill C-58. My name is Pierre Bienvenu. I'm a lawyer in private practice at Norton Rose Fulbright, and I have long represented the association in relation to judicial compensation and benefits, and other constitutional law issues.

The association is composed of judges appointed by the federal government at the various levels of courts around the country. It has around 1,000 members, representing approximately 95% of all federally appointed judges, including judges of the superior courts, appellate courts, the Tax Court of Canada, and the federal courts.

Members of the committee, the provisions of Bill C-58 that cover judges are of grave concern to the association. The judiciary was not consulted prior to the bill's being tabled in Parliament, and the association therefore welcomes the opportunity to address this committee on questions that it considers fundamental. I should mention that the association has shared the submission I am presenting to you today with the Canadian Judicial Council, and the council has indicated that it endorses this submission.

Let me say at the outset that the judiciary acknowledges that Bill C-58is pursuing important objectives of transparency and accountability. However, there are compelling reasons that these objectives, in the case of judges, must be pursued by means that differ from the means adopted for elected officials and members of the bureaucracy.

The part of the bill relating to judges would require the publication of individualized information regarding a judge's expenses, including the judge's name, a description of the expense, the date on which the expense was incurred, and the total amount of the expense. The expenses in question are those reimbursable under the Judges Act as so-called “allowances”. There are provisions in the bill proposing to allow the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada and the commissioner for federal judicial affairs to withhold publication if publication could interfere with judicial independence, could compromise security, or contains information that is subject to privilege or professional secrecy.

There are three basic points I want to make here today.

The first is that Bill C-58 proposes to apply to judicial expenses a regime that, insofar as accountability is concerned, is duplicative of control mechanisms that already exist in relation to reimbursable judicial expenses.

The second is that the proposed expense publication regime is unsuitable for judicial expenses and raises profound concerns for all judges, but particularly for judges on national courts who are required to travel extensively.

My third point is that the important objectives of the bill can be achieved by other means that do not violate judicial independence.

These points are developed in a written submission, a copy of which I've provided to the clerk of the committee, and which I invite members of the committee to read. I have time only to say a few words on each of them.

Bill C-58 is duplicative in relation to federally appointed judges because there are robust measures already in place to ensure that judicial expenses are legitimate, reasonable, and subject to independent verification. The categories of expenses that judges may incur in performing their functions are set out in the Judges Act. Judges cannot seek reimbursement of any expense falling outside of these defined categories.

In addition, there is a federal official, assisted by his own staff, whose responsibility is to review each and every judicial expense claim to determine whether the submitted expense falls within a category set out in the Judges Act and whether it was properly incurred and is reasonable. That person is the commissioner for federal judicial affairs, and for the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada it is the registrar of the Supreme Court.

I come to my second point, which is that there are two fundamental problems with the proposed regime as it would apply to judges. The first is the granularity of the information required to be published, tying named individual judges to identifiable judicial expenses. The second is the designation of a member of the executive to make a final decision as to whether the publication required by the bill could interfere with judicial independence.

Allow me to articulate the first concern by reference to expenses incurred by judges of Canada's national courts, such as the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal, and the Tax Court of Canada. National courts are a service to Canadians and an expression of our commitment to our country. Judges of these courts are required to reside in the national capital region, but they must travel extensively, as they sit on cases across the country. As a result, they have significantly higher expenses than their colleagues at courts that do not require such extensive travel. Even among judges of national courts, some will travel more than others as a consequence of assignment decisions by their respective chief justices.

The point is that the total expenses of a judge may stand out for the reasons just given, but those expenses would have been incurred not by choice but by reason of service on a national court and the assignment decisions of a judge's chief justice. It is grossly unfair, and indeed unacceptable, that the burden of standing out from the lot by reason of high travel expenses be borne by an individually named judge, as opposed to the court to which he or she belongs.

Please also consider that by definition, the judicial function results in at least one party being dissatisfied with the result. The potential for mischief in the use of publicly available individualized expense information is enormous, and unlike persons working in other branches of government, judges may not defend themselves publicly when they stand attacked. There are also real concerns about the security of individual judges if where they stay and eat while travelling on judicial duties or where they gather for legal education conferences were publicly disclosed.

There is a glaring constitutional defect in the safeguard clause in proposed section 90.22 in Bill C-58. That section, coupled with proposed section 90.24, proposes to give the commissioner and the registrar final say on the question of whether the principle of judicial independence could be undermined by publication. The registrar and the commissioner are members of the executive branch. It is not acceptable from a constitutional perspective to give them the responsibility to make a final determination of such a question.

I have presented the problems. I now turn to solutions. This will be my third and final point.

There are ways of balancing the bill's important objectives against the constitutional requirements of judicial independence. The commissioner could publish expense information according to the categories of reimbursable allowances set out in the Judges Act and according to each court. For example, the commissioner could disclose that judges of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice spent x dollars as a whole on legal education and conferences during the period, while judges of the Federal Court spent x dollars as a whole on travel. It would be easy for the public, based on that information, to derive figures on a per-judge, per-court, and per-expense-category basis, which would attain the bill's transparency objective, all the while preserving judicial independence and not compromising the security of individual judges.

As regards the safeguard clause, the decision on whether judicial independence could be undermined by publication could be made to reside with the chief justice of the court concerned.

I thank you for your attention and remain available to answer your questions.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Yes. In the new version of Bill C-58, the one we are studying, are there any provisions that could adversely affect the way in which your departments operate, in your opinion?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

You would at least have to give people the guarantee that access to the information would be private. If they can do that kind of research on themselves, perhaps they could also do it on other people. That is a little touchy. However, I feel that it still could improve the system.

In Bill C-58, have you seen any provisions that could adversely affect the way in which your two departments operate?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much for being here.

I think there's been a lot of discussion about duty to assist, so I would like some clarity from you in what it means for those people who try to seek information under Bill C-58. For procedural purposes, because I have never filled out an access to information request, could both departments take me through the procedure step by step, including how you receive the request, how you evaluate the request, and where you intercede to provide a duty to assist, so I can understand how the whole process works from beginning to end?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Other than the ministers, I think you're the first panel we've had—maybe there have been others I missed—that like this bill. Very few who use access to information to seek information from government like this legislation at all; maybe they can find a few worthwhile nuggets.

With the little time I have left, I'm trying to stick to particulars. I can only work in specifics. You're dealing with migrants coming across the border. Right now we're setting up winterized trailers or something for them. If you offered advice to the minister, would it shield him from Bill C-58? If you said you think the cost estimate is going to be $100 million to set up a bunch of trailers and you provided that as advice to the minister under the current legislation, is that shielded from a future ATIP request?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm not sure that's [Inaudible--Editor] though, if you follow me, if they may be concerned about the same embarrassing documents being slipped out.

The ministers were before us. They tried to make an equivalency between proactive disclosure and access to information, as if they were equivalent.

I'd offer that those are false equivalents. Who's going to argue against the notion of government offering up more information by default? However, when we we seek to correct government behaviour, curb waste, or any of those things that happen in government, it's a very large institution with a very large budget. The idea that they're equivalent seems like a false equivalency in my mind.

Mr. Mundie, you seem to think Bill C-58 is okay. I just went through the commissioner's report and added up as she went through it piece by piece. She saw 13 categories in this bill as regressive, three of them as neutral, two of them positive, and two of them outstanding.

Is she wrong? You seem to pass it, to think it seems okay. She's looking at it from the perspective of the public seeking information. She sees 13 negative, three neutral, two positive, two outstanding. Is she wrong?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Briefly, there's been a great deal of discussion over frivolous and vexatious and good faith.

I wonder if, rather than going into a long prologue, you could address your perceptions of frivolous and vexatious requests and in requests made in good faith, as referenced in Bill C-58.

Is frivolous and vexatious an issue for you today?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

You would agree in that case with his position that Bill C-58 confers order-making powers in an unwise way, in a way that would disrupt your balance.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you.

Last week we had an appearance by Mr. Therrien, the Privacy Commissioner. One of his key points was that he sees Bill C-58 as a disruption to the balance between his office, himself as commissioner, and the Information Commissioner.

You've spoken to the balance that you try to achieve within your agency and the department. I'm wondering whether you believe there is potential for disruption of an existing balance, in either of your situations.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to all of you for appearing before us today.

First, I have a general question for the agency and the department. The Information Commissioner has quite roundly considered Bill C-58 to be a regression of existing rights.

I would like to get your opinions, Mr. Mundie and Mr. Olsen. How would you characterize Bill C-58 in the Information Commissioner's terms?

[Michael Olsen, Director General, Corporate Affairs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Chair, my name is Michael Olsen. I'm the director general of corporate affairs and chief privacy officer at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Accompanying me today is Audrey White. She's the director of access to information and privacy at IRCC.

I thank you for welcoming us here today and giving us an opportunity to discuss Bill C-58, an act to amend the access to information and privacy acts. IRCC has had the opportunity to appear before this committee on two previous occasions to discuss this review.

Mr. Chair, I want to discuss our department's performance first and then move into a discussion about the proposed amendments to the act.

In 2012-2013, the department received 30,124 ATIP requests. Since that time, the number of requests has more than doubled. Over the course of 2016-2017, we received more than 63,000 ATIP requests, representing a 23% increase from the previous year. For the current year, we are again seeing a 23% increase in the number of requests received.

In 2016-2017, our last year of reporting, IRCC received more access to information requests than any other federal institution. IRCC represents approximately half of all ATIP requests received by the Government of Canada.

Despite this increase in volume, IRCC was able to maintain a compliance rate of 79% for access to information requests and 68% for privacy requests. The ATIP division has been efficient in managing the volume of requests received in order to meet the legislative deadline.

IRCC has launched a number of initiatives in an effort to improve its performance and to address current challenges. Although these initiatives have increased productivity year over year, we continue to create strategies aimed at decreasing our backlog and improving our compliance rate.

The majority of ATIP requests received and processed within our department concern immigration case files. The department holds personal information on millions of individuals and collects significant amounts of personal information annually, due to applications for citizenship, passports, permanent and temporary residence. This in turn has a direct effect on the growing number of ATIP requests received by IRCC.

Mr. Chair, a total of 165 official complaints against the IRCC were filed to the information and privacy commissioners last year, representing less than 1% of all requests processed during that period. The duty to assist is taken seriously at IRCC. The ATIP division notifies requesters of possible delays in service. We act proactively to minimize the number of complaints.

ATIP also offers diverse training in person and online to IRCC employees on the importance of safeguarding privacy and protecting personal information. Mr. Chair, as the chief privacy officer at IRCC, I'm pleased to announce that we'll be having our second annual privacy day on November 1. This will provide a forum to spotlight key privacy issues in a complex and rapidly changing technological environment. Most importantly, privacy day demonstrates our continuous efforts to develop a culture of privacy institution-wide as well as our commitment to increased privacy vigilance. At IRCC, protecting privacy and personal information is paramount.

Bill C-58 provides new proposed subsection 6.1(1), which provides government institutions the ability to refuse requests that are vexatious or in bad faith or missing key details. This new power is discretionary, and IRCC will continue to exercise judgment appropriate to the spirit of the legislation.

As I mentioned, IRCC is committed to the “duty to assist” principles embedded in the act. We already process requests that lack specific details, either because they are unknown, unnecessary, or unspecified. Where necessary, ATIP works with requesters to clarify the scope of the request and to obtain missing information. We would only consider refusal in exceptional circumstances where, for example, all “duty to assist” options had been exhausted, processing the request would be impossible, or processing the request would impose a significant burden on IRCC that could not be reasonably managed through time extensions or other provisions of the act.

Mr. Chair, I thank you again for the invitation to provide IRCC's view on this important subject and for welcoming us here today.

I look forward to any questions you or the committee have. Thank you.

Speaker's Ruling

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-24, which amends the Salaries Act.

I have had the great privilege of representing my riding in the House of Commons since January 23, 2006, and the royal treatment that the Prime Minister and his ministers have been indulging in since they took office in 2015 is completely unheard of. It is insulting to the Canadians that we are.

Since this Liberal government took office, no one has been spared. The regions, families, companies and every sector of the economy are hurting. It is important to point that out. Everyone is hurting except, of course, the Liberal's little clique. Canadians never expected that they would be misled like this after the election.

I would first like to tell the people of Lévis—Lotbinière that only the Conservatives will continue to fight to put an end to the Liberals' improprieties and to show Canadians that the old Liberal culture shell games that have always benefited the Liberals are still going strong. We will fight back against the practices of Liberal ministers, such as the Minister of Finance, who is currently showing a clear lack of ethics . He is gouging Canadians to build his family empire on the sly in a nice safe tax haven in Barbados.

There is a great deal more that could be said about the Minister of Finance, but I will simply offer him a piece of advice. He may not like having his personal spending discussed in the House, but Canadians expect those who hold high office in the Canadian government to adhere to the principles of transparency, accountability, and trust, in accordance with the spirit of the Conflict of Interest Act.

All of us here in the House, including all the ministers in this government, are required to comply with this act. There is a Canadian legal principle that stipulates that a person cannot plead ignorance of the law to avoid compliance.

This Liberal government is unique in Canadian history for its boundless hypocrisy. Worst of all, its word means nothing. It is truly appalling. Bill C-24 creates eight new Liberal ministerial positions, including five for ministers of state who were appointed after the 2015 election and three as yet unspecified.

Members may recall that this time last year, we found out that preferential treatment was being given to supporters willing to make a contribution to the party in exchange for access to ministers, who were all too willing to prioritize the interests of a minority over the common good.

Bill C-24 will eliminate the positions of regional development agency ministers and transfer their many responsibilities to a single minister, one with special privileges, naturally. We are very concerned about Canada's regions. Indeed, how can a single minister be expected to replace 5 other ministers and fully grasp the situation in every region of a province, for instance Quebec?

I have had the privilege of visiting Quebec's regions and I can say that, like everywhere else in Canada, our situation is unique. This summer, the Prime Minister said that appointing a minister from Toronto to oversee all the regional development agencies would do away with the sort of politics that we always had. What a joke.

We have known for a long time that Toronto is the one pulling the country' strings, not the Prime Minister's Office, which explains the finance minister's huge influence. He is one of the government's untouchables, though we cannot understand why.

Worse still, when the Prime Minister said he was putting a minister from Toronto in charge of ACOA because of the kind of politics in Atlantic Canada, that was a defamatory insult to Atlantic Canadians. Since the government did the same with the Quebec regional development agency, can we infer that the Prime Minister's attitude toward Quebeckers is just as cynical?

The Liberal-dominated committee responsible for studying Bill C-24 did not hear from a single witness about the plan to cut regional development minister positions. That kind of political manoeuvring from a government that claims to make its decisions based on evidence is not acceptable. Unlike the Liberals, the Conservatives will fight for appropriate regional representation and authority without insulting Canada's regions.

The most basic right in a democratic country is the right to be heard. This kind of thing is unprecedented. Bill C-58, which limits access to information in Canada, is yet another example of the Liberal Party's conceit and lack of transparency. Canadians are ashamed of this government.

The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates only heard from a government house leader and a teacher during the course of its study. That is an insult to the intelligence of Canadians and our most fundamental right of expression as full participants in the decision-making or policy development process.

Since when is a decision like this made in Canada? The arrogance it must take to have the audacity to make such an important decision without consulting the grassroots, those who understand the situation in every region.

As if that was not enough, Bill C-24 also amends the Salaries Act to grant equal salary to all ministers, giving junior ministers the same salary as ministers with more important portfolios without having new responsibilities. This is a bit surprising. Given the government's poor record, we wonder if anyone over there is actually working in the right direction here, in other words, working to ensure our economic prosperity in Canada.

On this side of the House, we believe that taxpayers’ money belongs to the taxpayers, not the Liberal Party. I prefer making my own investments rather than the Liberals making them for me. The announcement by the government of a new minister does not mean additional rewards for friends, and these budget allocations will not benefit all Canadians. Our official critics on this side of the House are more productive, and at no additional cost to Canadians.

Moreover, the Minister of National Revenue does not even know what is happening in her own department, as she has said so well in the national media and as I heard her say again last night. Clearly, the net is tightening on the Minister of Finance.

What we have here is a careless government. They have given up on defending democracy, accountability, their commitments, protecting everyone regardless of status, their responsibilities and the common good, all to benefit a minority. Most reprehensibly, they have given up on future generations, whom they leave in a financial abyss. By delighting in showering today's taxpayers with money, the government is misleading voters, because governments never really give money away, as they can only do so by mortgaging our children’s future.

Currently, the Liberal debt represents $2,500 more per year for a family with two adults and two children. This means that, for the next 30 years, because the government has told us that we will undoubtedly have a deficit for the next 30 years, an extra debt of $100,000 per Canadian family will be left to future generations by this government opposite. That is shameful. Only the Conservatives can ensure a financial balance that will eliminate the deficit by not living on credit at the expense of our future generations.

We can never say it enough: the Liberals, who believe they are above the law and have to be caught out before admitting their mistakes, have no claim to the label they gave themselves; they are anything but a responsible, open, and transparent government. The mistakes that led them to explain themselves before the Ethics Commissioner are multiplying, but there is worse: now they want to play a guessing game with Canadians. With Bill C-24, the Liberals are also asking Parliament to approve the appointment of three mystery future ministers. What nonsense.

I often rise to seek answers from the government. Like many, I remain in the dark, surrounded by the Liberal fog, a thick fog that will very soon mix, I’m afraid, with marijuana smoke. I will close by saying that too many Liberal decisions remain unjustifiable, irresponsible, unethical, and illogical. It costs too much to elect a Liberal government with a parade of preferential ministers, when it is us, the official opposition, who do all the work in Canada.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

As you have laid it out here and you suggested in your remarks, this is a reason to enshrine the constitutional nature of privacy in the act itself, in Bill C-58 amendments.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to you and your staff, Commissioner, for appearing before us today.

I'd like to focus on your disagreement with the Information Commissioner with regard to consultation, and although you see an improvement in Bill C-58 in terms of strengthening the relationship, there is still disagreement.

I'd like to ask you about the past, or coming to the present, do you often meet with your counterpart to discuss some of these issues, your concerns, her concerns?

[Daniel Therrien]

That's another point that goes to the Access to Information Act being a means to a broader end. On that point, my understanding is that my colleague the Information Commissioner has sought provisions allowing for refusing to investigate complaints based on their having a vexatious or frivolous nature. She has not recommended, I believe, based on her special report, that she is opposed to other access limitations provided in proposed sections 6 or 6.1 of Bill C-58, including the need for complainants or requesters to identify in some manner the information they are seeking. The Information Commissioner herself is in favour of the concept of “frivolous and vexatious”, but not other limitations.

As a fellow commissioner, having to balance the desire to respond positively to complaints under my act, the Privacy Act, for personal information, and to do that in an effective manner, I can see the need for “frivolous and vexatious” as a ground to refuse to investigate certain complaints. Moreover, I would see that this is something that would make sense to give to departments as well, as long as, as the bill provides, there is a review of the decision by the relevant commissioner. So I'm not opposed to the notion of the concept of frivolous and vexatious.

The other limitations are new, and I'm not opposed to them in principle, on the basis that perhaps some requests could be so voluminous that they would impede the normal workings of a department. The question for me goes back to the objective and purpose of the act. Is it linked to transparency and accountability to answer that request or not for a number of reasons. I'm not opposed to the concept of the limitations, but the language in the wording of the limitations deserves close consideration.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

I think that's an important point to get on record.

A second aspect of Bill C-58 that is quite concerning is that it would give the government new grounds on which to deny access to information requests. Specifically, it would provide the power to decide that a request is frivolous or vexatious. The argument we heard in Parliament in favour of that provision was the example of an ex-spouse requesting a former spouse's address and work hours. It strikes me that this information should already be protected as personal information and that there's really no need to empower the information officers to determine that the request itself is frivolous or vexatious, but I'm curious what you think about that.

[Daniel Therrien]

It's true that the identity of officials or other people may sometimes have to be protected and that, in other cases, it is unreasonable to protect them.

I imagine that there may be differences of opinion, and the circumstances are important. I'll talk to you about the provision of Bill C-58 that states the purpose of the act, because I think it's important to the question you're asking. The purpose of the act is amended to read that the purpose is “to enhance the accountability and transparency of federal institutions in order to promote an open and democratic society and to enable public debate on the conduct of those institutions”.

So there will be cases where information affecting a political position or topic x from the public service will be disseminated, which is very much in the public interest. Do the individuals involved in this policy need to be identified? I think the new purpose of the act is helpful in answering this question. It's a tool that did not exist previously.

In the example you gave, would knowing the identity of the public servant enhance the accountability and transparency of federal institutions? It may, or it may not.

Would it promote democratic debate? It may, or it may not.

The purpose of the act is very helpful here in answering these questions. Sometimes, the public debate can be complete, quite democratic, without the need to identify the individuals involved. Sometimes, it will be quite relevant to know the individuals involved to judge the merits of someone's point of view, in order to have an open and informed democratic debate.

[Daniel Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee,

thank you for inviting me to provide my views on Bill C-58.

First of all, I want to say that we support the government's commitment to open government, and we see this review of the Access to Information Act as welcome and long overdue. Making more government information available to the public is crucial to fostering transparency, accountability, and trust.

The OPC has frequently championed transparency. For example, as part of Privacy Act reform, but also in our submission to Treasury Board Secretariat on revitalizing access to information, we expressed support for open government, particularly in enabling informed citizens to participate fully in democratic debate. However, it is recognized internationally that open government can and should only be achieved in conjunction with appropriate privacy protections, for societal acceptance is predicated on trust that privacy will not be unduly infringed.

The online environment requires rigorous de-identification techniques to be applied and validated by experts prior to disclosure. The OPC and Statistics Canada can play key roles in minimizing the inadvertent release of personal information by government in the course of implementing open data initiatives.

We are confident that access and privacy are parallel goals that can be reconciled. The Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act have long been considered by the Supreme Court to be a “seamless code” of informational rights, the combined purpose of which is to carefully balance both privacy and access.

The court has further held that the personal information exception to access is mandatory and “should not be given a 'cramped interpretation' by giving access pre-eminence over privacy”.

Our previous comments on the Access to Information Act focused on the importance of maintaining this balance. We spoke in favour of maintaining ATIA's public interest exception that permits the disclosure of personal information only where the public interest clearly outweighs a claim of privacy.

We had also recommended that the definition of “personal information” not be amended. We are pleased that Bill C-58 leaves these concepts unchanged.

We further recommended that Parliament defer changing the Information Commissioner's power to order the disclosure of personal information until a legislative review has been done of the Privacy Act and its interplay with the Access to Information Act.

Nonetheless, Bill C-58 proceeds to confer upon the Information Commissioner order-making powers, including in respect of personal information disclosures. This would significantly and clearly disrupt the balance struck in the current legislation. We acknowledge that Bill C-58 takes limited steps to restore balance, primarily through notification requirements and legal recourse against formal OIC orders. However, this falls far short of maintaining the required balance, as privacy would be impacted outside formal orders or through OIC recommendations or institutions' decisions to disclose personal information to avoid OIC orders. I would not be notified or given the opportunity to intervene in such cases, even though the OIC and OPC may diverge on key legal issues relating to the balance of both rights.

For example, the offices may disagree on the degree of risk of re-identifying anonymized information or metadata, which could be determinative in assessing whether it constitutes personal information that should not be disclosed. The commissioners may also diverge on whether personal information is publicly available and whether the public interest clearly outweighs a privacy invasion, particularly in light of the new purpose clause in Bill C-58, which the Information Commissioner finds concerning, but which I find helpful.

Recently, in response to the bill before you, the Information Commissioner has taken issue with the proposed obligation to consult the Privacy Commissioner. She says consultation is unnecessary as the OIC has years of experience in interpreting the relevant provisions. This is very unfortunate, and clearly inappropriate as the Supreme Court has recognized the—quote, unquote—“central role” of my office in protecting privacy.

It is true that the OIC has significant experience in interpreting the personal information exception to access, but that experience has been developed as a champion for access rights. To ignore the views of other actors who have a legal role in ensuring the balance between access to information and other rights plainly makes the case that, as legislators, you must recognize in Bill C-58 the role of the OPC as privacy champion. Furthermore, this should be extended to all situations where privacy is in need of protection. The quasi-constitutional nature of the right to privacy is another reason to enshrine this role in the bill before you.

To restore the balance between access and privacy in Bill C-58, I propose two legislative solutions.

First, the bill should require mandatory notification of and consultation with the OPC in all cases where personal information is at real risk of being disclosed without the individual's consent, and not just when there is a formal order about to be issued. The point would not be to consult in every case in practice. Although the obligation to notify and consult with the OPC would be the rule, this obligation in the interests of resource efficiency would not apply to lower-risk situations where the OIC and the OPC had agreed that consultation would not be necessary. This type of agreement would support collaboration with the OIC to ensure the best balance between these two fundamental rights.

Second, I recommend that Bill C-58 give the OPC the opportunity to seek judicial redress in all cases where personal information is at material risk, and again not only those where an order has been made. Again, this right of redress would not be exercised in every case in practice, but only where necessary to protect privacy and to develop jurisprudence that would guide both commissioners, departments, and citizens on the applicable law.

To bring further clarity to my proposals, I have attempted to put them in statutory language. I believe you have these texts before you now.

Mr. Chair and the committee, with your indulgence I will spend a few more minutes to explain—I think that's crucial—why this bill disrupts the current balance between access and privacy.

The current balance upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in several judgments is based on a number of factors including, first, the substantive provisions of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, including the definition of personal information, the fact that the personal information exception in the access act is mandatory rather than discretionary, and the wording of the public interest exception, which requires that the public interest and disclosure “clearly outweigh” privacy invasions in order to prevail.

As a result, the Supreme Court held that as the law now stands, the combined purpose of the two acts is to protect both privacy and access rights and strike a careful balance between the two. The court even added that as things stand, privacy is paramount over access.

The second consideration, the roles of the two commissioners currently, one being the access champion and the other having a central role in protecting privacy, both being ombudspersons who can only make recommendations and not orders, and the role of departmental heads who ultimately have the discretion to decide on exceptions in general and specifically when the public interest and disclosure clearly outweighs privacy.

It's important to understand that while Bill C-58 maintains some of these factors, which are important for the Supreme Court in maintaining the balance, it changes others, notably the roles of the Information Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner and their authority to make binding orders. Changing the balance between the roles of the two commissioners and departmental heads may well have an impact on the interpretation of the substantive provisions. Giving the OIC the authority to make these orders could well mean that the OIC's interpretation will prevail between disclosure in the public interest and privacy.

The problem is not that the OIC is inherently unfair or unknowledgeable—it's true that they have experience—but rather that it is a champion of one side of the balance. Someone needs to speak for the other side, particularly when the Information Commissioner in her special report on this bill is on record as saying it is unnecessary and inappropriate to consider the other side.

The OPC will rarely be involved according to Bill C-58, despite having a central role according to the Supreme Court. The bill provides that the OPC will be notified only in the case of formal orders and only in these cases will we be able to see judicial redress. Yet, privacy may be at risk not only where OIC formal orders are made, but in other situations. Departments are much more likely to comply with the OIC's interpretation, knowing that the OIC ultimately has the authority to make binding orders. As government officials acknowledged to you last week, it is only in very rare cases that departments will use their resources to challenge OIC orders.

Similarly, when the OIC makes a recommendation under the new regime, or even when discussions take place between the OIC and departments during the investigation of a complaint, departments are much more likely to comply with the OIC's view, knowing that the OIC can ultimately order the department to accede to its interpretation of the law.

Bill C-58 ultimately creates an incentive to give access pre-eminence over privacy, which is contrary to the Supreme Court jurisprudence. I am deeply concerned about this and have suggested a few simple solutions to this poor balance.

Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to answering your questions.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

In B.C.'s legislation, you mentioned the reasonableness review. It's a JR with reasonableness There are other judicial reviews that are de novo.

The Information Commissioner has indicated some concern about the ability to enforce the order-making powers that should be granted pursuant to Bill C-58. In your legislation, I think it's section 59.01, it explicitly says, “the commissioner may file a certified copy of an order”.

Do you think that the federal commissioner ought to have the same power?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

While they're still in office.

I have a question for our friends here. I'm looking at this notion.... You identified flaws in the bill as it stands right now. First of all, I don't know if you've read the Information Commissioner's recommendations to the committee on ways to fix it...access to the PMO.... You've got it. Do you support what she's recommended to the committee broadly?

Okay, that was a nod yes.

You mentioned that one good thing is that the mandate letters are public. I'm reading the mandate letter for Mr. Brison, who sponsored this bill, one of the few witnesses we've had who fully likes it. In the end, his mandate letter says, “...the Information Commissioner is empowered to order government information to be released and that the Act applies appropriately to the Prime Minister’s and Ministers’ Offices....”

In his mandate letter that is now going to be by default publicly disclosed, and that is good. They're not following.... There's some irony here somewhere that the one thing that's going to be made public is an example of one thing that they're just not following in the design of their own Bill C-58.

My question is the same for you. Does Bill C-58 move us forward? Does it move us backwards as it is? What would be the one or two main amendments to give it some chance of improving access to information for Canadians?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

We all hope for good intentions by everybody in government and all folks working in politics.

I did an ATIP on the sinking of the Nathan E. Stewart. You'll remember the ship that went down near Bella Bella. This is what I got back. This is the unified command situation report, by the way, a publicly available document, but my ATIP looks likes this. What happened? When did it happen? Who was there? Who didn't show up? I can find these, but my ATIP proved this, hundreds of pages of this.

I have a question for Mr. Taylor-Vaisey.

Is it fair to say access delayed can be access denied? If a government simply doesn't want something to be revealed, be it embarrassing or costly in some way, is simply just running the process...? We heard about four years waiting on scientists being muzzled, and two years since this government took power....

Is that another form of accessibility delayed? Is transparency delayed transparency denied? Are those fair statements?

Does Bill C- 58 make things worse or better as it's written right now?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thanks to you all for appearing today. It's obvious from each of your presentations that you've expressed very clearly your general agreement with the commissioner herself in terms of her characterization of Bill C-58 as regressive, and with any number of amendments required to develop the sort of fulsome legislation that you've all recommended.

I'd like to make a few comparisons. I'll start with you, Mr. Taylor-Vaisey. Let me just say that I remember fondly the original founding moments of the first incarnation of the CAJ back in the seventies. What has been the experience of your membership with the B.C. commissioner's office as opposed to the federal office?

[Kathleen Walsh]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for having Evidence for Democracy here today.

We're very pleased to be here to discuss Bill C-58 and we're happy to see that the Access to Information Act is being revitalized for the first time in a long time—and actually for the first time within my lifetime.

Evidence for Democracy is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization promoting the transparent use of evidence in government decision-making. E for D works with parliamentarians, public servants, scientists, and the public to ensure that the best available evidence and science make it into policy, and in a method that is transparent and open.

Robust evidence and facts underpin our democratic process. When Canadians do not have access to the science and evidence created and used by government, we cannot effectively hold our governments to account and our democracy suffers. As many of you are aware, access to scientific information in government has not always been available. When scientists are muzzled, cannot speak to the media, or fear for their employment if they speak about their research, our democracy is greatly impacted.

This government and many other members have worked hard over the last two years to ensure that government science can be openly communicated to the media and to the public. We're pleased to see these positive steps forward; however, this is only one part of being able to access government information. The ambitious undertaking of revitalizing the Access to Information Act is certainly another part of it. The revitalization of this act was long overdue and is an opportunity to truly modernize it, improving accountability and trust between the government and the Canadian public.

It is our opinion that there are serious flaws with Bill C-58 as it stands now; however, we recognize the opportunity to change and strengthen it. Our recommendations are similar to those of the other witnesses today: to focus on proactive disclosure, the denial of requests, and the ability for the Information Commissioner to order records.

On proactive disclosure, the decision to make ministerial mandate letters open by default was a commendable step by this government. We're pleased to see it enshrined in Bill C-58 and look forward to the normalization of this practice. These mandate letters have helped us as advocates and researchers to understand government priorities and desired changes. This is a positive step; however, it does not go quite far enough.

Evidence for Democracy, like many, interpreted the access to information reform presented by the Liberal Party in its election platform as including the ability to ATIP ministers' offices and the PMO. We are disappointed that this is not part of Bill C-58 and are concerned that proactive disclosure, while laudable, in its current configuration does not reach far enough.

We're deeply concerned that proactive disclosure of information is not overseen by the Information Commissioner. We see the information commissioner role as an incredibly important one and do not want to see parts of access to information legislation removed from that office's oversight. It is imperative that proactive disclosure be under the purview of the Information Commissioner.

Additionally, there must be shorter timelines for disclosure specified in the act, and it should allow for individuals to still request access to information.

We agree with this committee's recommendations, particularly recommendation number 23, that purely factual or background information, information on, and a record of decision made by cabinet or by any of its committees on an appeal under the act also be disclosed.

Furthermore, the ministers' offices and Prime Minister's Office must be required to respond to access to information requests. Proactive disclosure on its own is not sufficient; right to access should be extended to these offices.

With that, I will hand it over to Katie Gibbs, my colleague.

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the committee for inviting the CAJ today.

I'm Nick Taylor-Vaisey. I'm the president of the Canadian Association of Journalists. I'm here today in that capacity and do not speak on behalf of my employer, which is Rogers Communications and Maclean's magazine.

Today I'm speaking to you from Toronto, but our national board represents almost every corner of Canada. The CAJ is a truly national association of working journalists with members all over the country and across all forms of media.

Before I offer you our thoughts on how this committee could proactively improve the access to information reform on the table in the form of Bill C-58, I'd like to spend just a few seconds telling you about the CAJ.

The CAJ was founded in 1978 as the Centre for Investigative Journalism, a non-profit organization that encouraged and supported investigative journalism. Over the years we broadened our mandate and now offer high-quality professional development, primarily at our annual national conference, and also outspoken advocacy on behalf of journalists.

Our members include some of the most dogged investigative reporters in the country, journalists who have read freedom of information laws back and forth and have actively used them to inform their stories. They serve the public interest by digging up information their readers require to be informed citizens.

As you know, because you see it every day, excellent journalism reshapes public policy and improves people's lives. An effective access to information law allows journalists, and by extension the broader public, to be better informed, and at an even more basic level a good law serves the public's right to know.

This committee is well aware of the need for access to information reform. You've studied this issue exhaustively and have made important and necessary recommendations to the government. You now have before you a bill that the government has called “the most comprehensive reform of access to information in a generation”.

Of course, the Information Commissioner's opinion is different. She has said that Bill C-58 “would result in a regression of existing rights”. Heather Scoffield from the Canadian Press told you earlier this week that her Ottawa bureau, one of the most active in Canada when it comes to using the law—journalists like me are usually pretty jealous of the CP bureau's work—is “alarmed” to “see more ways for the government to turn us down and deny us information”.

The CAJ hopes the committee will work to change several damaging aspects of Bill C-58.

The first is that the government promised to expand the number of offices, including ministers' offices, that were subject to the act. Instead, Bill C-58 subjects ministers' offices to increased proactive disclosure. You'd be hard pressed to find a journalist who doesn't celebrate increased proactive disclosure. The problem is that governments control what is proactively disclosed, and a strong access to information law actually shifts that balance of power to the public. The CAJ urges the government to keep its election promise and subject ministers' officers to the right of access.

The second point is that Bill C-58 would allow departments to decline to act on requests deemed “vexatious” or “made in bad faith”. Both the Information Commissioner and this committee recommended that the government add a “bad faith” clause to the law. The proposed clause, however, could kill requests that don't include narrowly defined criteria, including the specific subject matter of the request, the type of record being requested, or the period for which the record is being requested.

Now, as journalists go about their work—our work—they will not always have all that information at their disposal. To dismiss those requests that lack only certain details as vexatious or in bad faith is an unnecessary overreach. The CAJ, like the Information Commissioner, urges the committee to remove these amendments in clause 6 from Bill C-58.

The third point is that Bill C-58 doesn't give the Information Commissioner effective order-making powers. The bill does technically enshrine order-making power, but the Information Commissioner has criticized the toothlessness of that element of Bill C-58. She's also suggested a different approach that would enact real enforceability, and the CAJ supports those recommendations. Of course, Mr. McArthur just spoke in some detail about that particular element of the bill.

The last recommendation is that Bill C-58 is a step backwards on fees for access. Early on in its mandate this government made a decision to waive all fees except for the mandatory $5 application fee. Bill C-58 reintroduces those fees and only says that they “may be prescribed by regulation”. Fees act as a barrier to access, and the CAJ believes the government should follow its interim directive of 2016.

Ultimately, journalists are hoping for an access to information law that shifts the culture within government, including that of both political actors and the broader public service. Bill C-58 will not get there. It adds new restrictions to the right of access and, outside of more government-managed proactive disclosure, won't instill a culture of openness by default. Journalists will spend more time clarifying or appealing requests, often with no clear path to a resolution, and sometimes at a significant financial cost.

Access to information coordinators, who are often caught between journalists and citizens who want information and government officials who don't want to give it up, will continue to have one of the most unenviable jobs in the public service.

Thanks for your time. Once the witnesses have finished their statements, I'm of course happy to answer your questions.

[Drew McArthur, Acting Commissioner, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia]

Thank you very much.

I want to talk about the proposed reforms to the Access to Information Act from the B.C. perspective. I think I will start by characterizing the scope of the act, which is the ideal of openness and transparent access to information, so the public can be involved in the debate. However, we find most of the act is focused on exceptions to access, so I find it a bit ironic that the bulk of the act is about exceptions, as opposed to access, and openness, and transparency.

With that opening perspective, the same thing exists in British Columbia, but in terms of right of access and making requests for information, proposed Bill C-58 suggests to require the requester to specify the subject matter, the type of the record, and the period for which they are requesting.

The federal commissioner's position has been that she feels the current requirements in the act are sufficient. B.C.'s law requires an individual to request records in writing, to provide sufficient detail for an experienced employee to identify them, and to submit their requests to the public body the applicant believes has the information. In other words, there is a duty to assist in B.C. and that is enshrined in our legislation, so you can't just turn away an applicant. You must assist them in getting the records that they are looking for. In some cases, if a request goes to the wrong ministry, it can be transferred to the correct ministry, rather than saying there are no responsive records.

In order to refuse an access request, Bill C-58 will allow institutions to decline to act on a request if it does not include enough detail, if the person has already been given access or can access by other means, or in circumstances where the volume of pages could interfere with operations. The federal commissioner is also concerned about that because she believes it's overly broad.

In B.C., public bodies must apply to my office for an authorization to disregard a request and we will then review that. Public bodies have a duty to assist applicants and as part of that duty, they may ask the applicant for more information about what records they are requesting for the purpose of assisting that individual. However, they cannot ask why they are requesting it.

Public bodies can charge an applicant fees to respond to a request, except when that request is the applicant's own personal information. This increases the public body's duty to assist, as the fees assist in some level of cost recovery, but typically not entirely, for some requests that would otherwise appear disruptive to operations, but just because it might be disruptive to operations does not mean that the public body must not respond to the request. Quite often, our office does receive complaints around the fee structure that a public body proposes to charge and often those are at issue in terms of gaining access to the records.

As it relates to the coverage of the Prime Minister's Office, Parliament, and courts, the issue is that the Prime Minister's Office, Parliament, and the courts are not covered under Bill C-58. It does provide for mandate of proactive disclosure of certain records for those entities, but with timelines longer than the regular access requests. The commissioner has no oversight over the information that those entities would disclose proactively and an institution can decline to respond to someone, if they are requesting information that the institution has already disclosed.

In B.C., our law applies to the office of the premier, to the ministers, and to cabinet records, but not to court records. The access to records held by these government departments is not unfettered. Exceptions do exist and they are clearly in our act.

For example, our act prohibits a public body from disclosing information that would reveal the substance of deliberations of the executive council or any of its committees, including advice, recommendations, policy considerations, draft legislation, or regulations submitted or prepared for submission to the executive council or any of its committees.

The government receives many access requests for records held by those government departments each year and the records are fundamental to the accountability and to the object of access to information.

Bill C-58 proposes to insert the words “to enhance the accountability and transparency of federal institutions in order to promote an open and democratic society and to enable public debate on the conduct of those institutions”. That's proposed to be put in the purpose clause. If that's the purpose, then access should be extended to those offices where those decisions are made.

On order-making power, the proposal is that the courts would review the Information Commissioner's order de novo, allowing for submission of other information and other facts after the investigation by the Information Commissioner. In B.C. we have full order-making power and orders can be registered with a supreme court. These orders are produced by adjudicators after an investigation and mediation process. It's a separate process. The two do not overlap.

In most cases, parties do not apply for a judicial review of our orders or a decision of my office, although they can. In B.C., with limited exceptions, such as in cases where a public body is claiming solicitor-client privilege over records, the courts have determined that the appropriate standard of review of my decisions is reasonableness. They review all our decisions and our orders on that basis.

If Bill C-58 were to be implemented in B.C., it would not provide incentive for public bodies to be meaningfully engaged with our office in the investigation or mediation phase. We resolve probably 95% to 99% of our investigations at the investigation mediation phase and rarely have to go to orders. That's a much better process for the applicant and the public body.

In other areas of concern, there is the transition period. Parts of the bill that relate to complaints to the Office of the Information Commissioner and the commissioner's power to investigate would not take effect for a year. It would only be applicable to those complaints received after that effective date. In British Columbia, our act was amended in 2011, and it came into force immediately upon royal assent. That just removed any uncertainty between applicants and government about their requirement to respond under those new conditions.

I will make a little note on information management. The government is now telling my office that they get requests for access to information that may involve hundreds of thousands of pages. They're not allowed to ignore those requests because of the size. In fact, we've encouraged them to start to disclose on a staged basis. But I note that if the information systems designed by government ministries to manage their operations also included thoughtful consideration of the requirement for access to information and transparency of their work, the work taken to respond to requests would be much easier and simpler as the information systems would already be anticipating that the information might be having to be disclosed.

It doesn't help in today's world but as we're designing our information systems going forward it's as if we say privacy by design to protect personal information, but it's access by design to enable the transparency and the delivery of those records to people who have a valid reason to know them.

I'll end there.

Thank you.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Chair, as I said, I was conscious of having very good and important witnesses in front of us on Bill C-58. This is the mechanism that we have. As I said at the beginning, I don't wish to belabour this.

The frustration and question for many Canadians whom we hear from is what exactly the rules are and how the interpretation of the rules manifests in real life for us as public office holders.

We have a case in front of us that I think helps illustrate some of the problems with the act. We put a motion before Parliament. I'm not sure whether any colleagues here spoke to it, but when colleagues of mine spoke to it, all we got from the benches opposite was a speech about everything except ethics, everything except the ethical guidelines and the code.

We tried in Parliament in debate. We tried in question period to ask simple and straightforward questions about disclosure, about ownership, about conflicts of interest. I think it's a fair assessment to say that we haven't received answers. I watched the finance minister last night in front of the media on CBC. He was asked very straightforward questions—nothing scatological, nothing like “Have you sold your shares”, for example. Again, there was no answer.

If committees aren't the place to charge that, if Parliament is not the place to charge it, if speaking to the media is not the place to discharge this, then where is? At some point the government can't say in their mandate letters that ministers must “bear the fullest public scrutiny”—I think that is the call, the commitment for each of the ministers of the crown. The opposite has been true: we don't have full public disclosure; we can't know what ethical rules have been broken. We also can't know that simply saying “the Ethics Commissioner gave me this advice”, when we don't actually hear from the Ethics Commissioner as to what the process is when an MP goes before her and says, “This is my financial arrangement”....

I have pertinent questions, and I think all members likely have pertinent questions for her asking how she manages conflicts of interest. How does she manage, for example, when the conflict of interest shield is your own chief of staff, whom you hired? Is there not a dynamic and a tension there, that a person whom you hired is now responsible for telling you “no, no, and no” and not explaining it?

These things, for which we think there are legitimate places within the ethics act to guide us, and in the members' code, I would argue, which can be exploited simply by doing something quite common—well, not common for most middle-class people, but simply common in business, to set up a numbered account.... Then suddenly our ethics code no longer speaks to it. Well, that's no good.

I think that if the finance minister wants, and I think he is sincere in this, to focus on his job, which is to run and administer and regulate the financial sector—in which he has holdings, by the way, but regardless—the best way to do so, in my experience, is to clear the air, to come forward, to tell us everything. If he says there's no conflict of interest, then there should be no problem in clearing the air, in being transparent, which is also in his mandate letter.

We have found the opposite to be true, in debates in the House, in question period, and in his dealings with the media. We turn then to committee, because committee is a deliberative place, where we put people here in front of us and ask them questions.

I hear Nathaniel's concern about politicization, but to vote against this, to say that we're not interested in hearing from the Ethics Commissioner, that we're not interested in hearing from the finance minister, is in fact an act of politics. It's to say these things aren't important, when clearly they are for everybody watching.

If there is some amendment they seek to move on this, if there's some other way to crack this nut, we're very interested in the conversation. To simply reject efforts to fix the loopholes in the act, however.... It's hard to draw any other conclusion than that the government is not sincerely interested in getting to the bottom of this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

I call the meeting to order. Good afternoon, everybody.

This is meeting 73 of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 27, 2017, we are studying Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I've been told that MP Cullen would like to make a motion at this time.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

Let me get back to you, Mr. Di Gangi, for one last question. I'm thinking of the residential school nightmare. I have constituents in my riding who are still seeking records. They know that they went to a residential school. They know they were taken, but unless they can get the document, the proof that they were taken, they are not due for compensation or recognition from the government.

How would Bill C-58 help or hinder their ability in their very particular cases to be able to come to some sort of peace in their minds as to what the government will admit to?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Under Bill C-58, those experiences would have been how...? If Bill C-58 had been law, and these provisions and the specificity were required, and the determination and going to court, and all the rest...?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes, collectively. You might be one of those vexatious people.

In terms of having that information available to those different nations across Canada, is it possible to get to any point of nation-to-nation, of reconciliation, of settling of things, if government holds information back and makes it harder and harder, as Bill C-58 seems to do, to get information out to first nations people?

[Peter Di Gangi, Director, Policy and Research, Algonquin Nation Secretariat, National Claims Research Directors]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

I'd like to start out by quoting a Federal Court decision from 2006 that related to a judicial review of an access request that had gone to Statistics Canada.

What the court said was this:

It would be absurd and wrong if the Crown had the evidence the Aboriginal people required to prove their land claim, but the Government was entitled to suppress it. This would be inconsistent with section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

With that, I'd like to introduce our presentation.

I represent a group of organizations, first nations, and tribal councils that carry out research for first nations largely to document claims, grievances, and disputes between them and the crown. This can be for the purpose of specific claims, which is a federal government policy related to lawful obligations of the crown, but also for aboriginal title issues, treaty disputes, and litigation generally. Together we submit hundreds of ATIP requests formally and informally every year. We know from experience what will facilitate or hinder access to information.

Our interests are twofold. First, the majority of evidence related to claims, disputes, and grievances of first nations is held by the crown. It's the defendant in these cases, but it's also the one that holds the evidence. There's an inherent conflict of interest there. That's part of the reason paragraph 8(2)(k) of the Privacy Act was inserted when they did the original legislation in 1982. It mentions that if you're a bona fide researcher for a first nation, you get access to information that would otherwise be deemed as covered by the privacy sections of the act, so there are exemptions for the purpose of documenting first nations research into claims. It's gone to the Federal Court, and the Federal Court has confirmed that it's a legal duty beyond what many Canadians have a right to. It triggers the fiduciary duty of the crown—the honour of the crown, as they call it—and the Federal Court has indicated that it sits within section 35. There are some significant issues there in terms of the right to access when it comes to first nations documenting their claims.

Another reason we need access to federal records is for public policy issues, to obtain information directly affecting a political, social, economic, or cultural interest. For example, between February 2015 and June 2016, we submitted over 37 ATIP requests and nine complaints to the Office of the Information Commissioner because government was stonewalling. If you were the defendant, you wouldn't want to give up the evidence the other side needed to prove its case, and that's the case with the federal bureaucracy.

In terms of our concerns about Bill C-58, we're opposed to the bill. It's a bad bill. It will introduce significant new barriers to first nations and organizations that are trying to access information to document their claims, disputes, and grievances. It will interfere with their right of access. It will also hinder efforts by Canada to meet the standards of redress for historical wrongs that are articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Also, the Minister of Justice—in the summer, I believe—introduced 10 principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. It breaches those.

I guess our concern is that this government in particular set a very high bar in terms of its relations with indigenous peoples, and it seems to have broken the bar with this bill. There's been no consultation. There's been no consideration of first nations rights or interests. There's been no consideration of any of the briefs or evidence that we've presented to Treasury Board or to this committee. We're really concerned that it seems to be a matter of “say one thing and do something entirely different”.

I'd like to also talk a bit about the process we have to go through. After the original access to information legislation was introduced in the early eighties, the government agreed that for the first stage you would make an informal request to the government agency. Quite often that's what's known as INAC now, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada.

They had the capacity to respond to those requests, and you'd receive the information, and only if there were problems with it would you need to go to the formal ATIP process.

That worked pretty well for a while, but it has fallen into disrepair, and over the years we've seen a gradual rolling back of our access through arbitrary measures and gratuitous use of exemptions by the people at federal departments in responding to our requests. That has meant an increase in formal requests and complaints to the Office of the Information Commissioner.

In June 2016, we only found out very late about the initial consultations on modernizing the act, so we did submit a brief, but it was late coming in. I think your hearings had ended by then, but I believe it is in the record. If not, maybe we can have a chat afterwards to make sure it is.

At that time we presented a range of concerns to the committee. We expressed hope. The mandate letters that had gone out to the ministers seemed good, and focused on transparency and improving indigenous relations. Treasury Board had announced interim directives on access to information in May 2016, but we said at that time that there was a need to consult with first nations and these organizations to make sure that the rights to access were considered, first of all, and acknowledged in the legislation, and that adequate resources were required to respond to requests.

Also, with regard to training, we found that over the past 10 or 15 years, training of staff just didn't happen. You'd make a request, and staff would not understand why you needed the information. First nations claims are a world unto their own sometimes, and you need staff who understand the nature of your request.

Also, we recommended decentralization and encouraged human contact. We were finding over the last few years that we'd make requests and instead of dealing with a human being, we'd get form letters coming back that didn't provide any opportunity to engage.

We also recommended that there shouldn't be a ministerial veto for powers of the Information Commissioner, and at that time we also supported the other recommendations that the Information Commissioner had made in connection with the announcement to modernize the act.

We weren't contacted about our submission. We gave copies to INAC and to Treasury Board. Nobody followed up. We never got any traction on any of that.

Fast forward to this year. We submitted a document to you folks, I believe it was last week, that builds on the presentation we made in the summer of 2016. We've had it endorsed by over 70 first nations and tribal councils, as well as the Indigenous Bar Association and the Assembly of First Nations. They're all very concerned about this bill. The more they hear about it, the more they ask what is going on, and why does it contradict all these explicit promises that the federal government has been so glad to trumpet? It just seems a strange contrast.

We have concerns about Bill C-58. I think you've already heard testimony to this effect, but I'll make a few comments.

It was created unilaterally, without any effort to consult. There's a legal duty to consult first nations. It wasn't followed in this instance. The only time Treasury Board has been in touch with us, and they've been very cordial, has only been to tell us what they're going to do.

The crown has a duty to disclose records to first nations. Instead, this bill will provide many new opportunities for officials to delay or deny information access, not just for claims but for matters that are integral to first nations governance, such as membership records and treaty pay lists.

Clause 6 is of significant concern, and I'm sure others have explained their concerns as well. We believe this is going to provide legislative justification for the suppression of evidence that we need to document our claims against the crown. The crown is in a conflict. If you give this kind of tool to officials, they'll use it to the max, and we've seen it already under the existing regime, especially, as I mentioned, given that our first route is to make an informal request. Sometimes that comes back with huge redactions, or it might take a year to get the information back, and then we'll file a formal request if the first informal request didn't provide full disclosure. Our reading of the act is that we wouldn't be able to do that anymore. If you've already made a request and received partial disclosure, they could refuse your second request, the formal one.

Again, the act does nothing to address the conflict of interest whereby federal officials are in a position to deny access to the evidence needed to prove claims against the federal crown. There is nothing in the act that deals with that.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you all.

When the President of the Treasury Board visited with us last week, he responded to the criticisms of the commissioner with regard to the regressiveness and to the recommendations of this committee a year ago and to pretty well all of the witnesses who've appeared before us by saying there will be a one-year review once Bill C-58 is passed.

Is one year a meaningful time? Is the government taking this seriously in terms of detecting what an awful lot of people believe is wrong—the shortcomings of Bill C-58? Can you measure those in a year?

[Gordon McIntosh, Director, Canadian Committee for World Press Freedom, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression]

Hi. I'm a director of the Canadian Committee for World Press Freedom. I was asked by the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression to fill in for them this afternoon. We frequently partner with them. The CCWPF is a UNESCO-sponsored organization.

We were gratified that the legislation gives the commissioner the authority to order release of the information instead of having to go to court every time there is a disagreement. That is a step forward.

However, beyond that, we're concerned about a section of the act dealing with nuisance and vexatious requests, and we hope that is amended—if it is necessary at all—so that at least it's up to the commissioner, not a particular department, to release the information.

Overall we regard Bill C-58, as it stands, as a lost opportunity. We agree with the Centre for Law and Democracy that the bill is far more conspicuous for what it fails to do. In fact, we agree with the commissioner that much of this amending legislation is regressive. That was their exact word.

As you know, the government had promised to make itself open by default. Indeed, a promise was made that the ATI law would be amended to include the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices. In Bill C-58, the Prime Minister's Office and the offices of ministers and others remain off limits to information requests made under the act. In what the BC Civil Liberties Association calls a “bizarre sleight of hand”, the PMO and ministers' offices will be required to release such things as travel expenses or contracts and other documents designated for proactive disclosure, but it's strictly at their discretion.

Some might claim this fulfills a promise. We find that curious. It's a situation in which Canadians would be entitled to certain types of information, but they just couldn't ask for the information. That may make sense to somebody, but I don't think it makes common sense. It's logic worthy of a script from Yes, Minister and Sir Humphrey Appleby, or more worthy of Mackenzie King: transparency if necessary, but not necessarily transparency.

We are, however, glad to see that the ministerial mandate letters are under the proactive disclosure section in the legislation. That's a step forward for Canadian transparency in government. We're glad it's being codified for the sake of permanence.

Let me conclude by saying that updating federal legislation to the information law in Canada remains very much a work in progress. We urge this committee to make improvements. Bill C-58 is a big step toward finishing the job. We realize this is going to be a long haul.

Thank you.

[Duff Conacher, Co-Founder, Democracy Watch]

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a presentation to the committee.

My presentation will be entirely in English, because there are many technical terms in this political issue. I should practise my French a lot more so that I could use those terms.

I will not go into some of the details that Cara Zwibel has already provided on behalf of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, because Democracy Watch is in full agreement with the points made during her presentation. I'll focus instead on a few other areas of concern.

First of all, with regard to the bill overall, the bill breaks the promise that the Liberals made in the open government section of their 2015 election platform, and it also takes steps backwards—big steps backwards—in access rights. The Liberals have also failed to keep their international open government partnership commitments, as weak as those commitments were.

Tens of thousands of voters have sent messages through Democracy Watch's open government campaign page calling on federal parties to make key changes to the act. The public has been consulted numerous times. I have here the report of the task force from 2002, and also my submissions made in 2009, which resulted in a unanimous committee report, and that can only lead me to question what has happened to the Liberals since 2009, because in 2009 they agreed to several of the changes that are not included in Bill C-58.

In 2011 and 2013, twice through the international open government partnership process, the public was consulted and interest groups were consulted. The Information Commissioner consulted and issued a report in late March of 2015, recommending many key changes. The Liberals consulted on their 2016-2018 open government partnership plan.

The result of every single consultation has been a broad, strong call from the public and citizens' groups to make several key changes that are not included in Bill C-58.

To be credible, the Liberals on this committee must agree to the key open government changes to Bill C-58 that many groups and past committees and reports have called for over the past 15 years. The act and the open government system have been reviewed several times, and there is a consensus on key changes that must be made. There is simply no justifiable reason for any further delay in making the changes. If these changes are finally made, the current federal law, which really should be called “The Guide to Keeping Secrets Act”, will finally become a real access to information act.

I will talk about just a few of the changes that Democracy Watch believes are key and about the Open Government Coalition as well.

First of all, any type of record created by any entity that receives significant funding from or is connected to the government or was created by the government and fulfills a public interest function should be automatically covered by the law, as in the United Kingdom.

As well, all exemptions under the law must be discretionary and limited by a proof-of-harm test and a public interest override, as in B.C. and Alberta.

Also, every entity covered should be required to create detailed records for all decisions and actions, to routinely disclose records that are required to be disclosed, to assign responsibility to individuals for the creation and maintenance of each record, and to maintain each record so that it remains easily accessible, as in the United Kingdom, the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand.

Fourth, the access to information law and system should allow anyone who does factual or policy research for the government to speak to the media publicly about any topic they are researching and the findings and conclusions of their research without being required to first seek approval from anyone.

Then, to go to the overall system and enforcement, severe penalties should be created for not creating records, for not maintaining records properly, and for unjustifiable delays in responses to requests.

The order-making power of the Information Commissioner is rather meaningless without any consequence or penalty for violating the law. Like any law, the Access to Information Act is just nice words on paper. Enforcement is key, and penalties are key in terms of effective enforcement. It always seems that when politicians write rules that apply to themselves, they leave out penalties, while imposing huge penalties on others for similar activities.

The Information Commissioner should be given explicit powers to order the release of a record—as in the United Kingdom, Ontario, B.C., and Quebec—and to penalize violators of the law with high fines, jail terms, loss of any severance payments, and partial clawback of any pension payments if the person resigns to try to escape a penalty.

As well, the Information Commissioner should be given the power to require systemic changes in government departments to improve compliance, as the commissioner in the United Kingdom has.

The funding should be increased to solve backlog problems instead of increasing administrative barriers such as set out in proposed sections 6 and 6.1—and Ms. Zwibel summarized very well the problems with those sections—and/or limiting requests in any other way, including fees.

Parliament must be required to review the act, as set out in this bill—one of the few key measures made—every five years.

Another key, and I'll end on this, is that the commissioner's appointment process must be changed before the new commissioner is appointed. The rules have not set up a merit-based, open, transparent, independent appointment system for cabinet appointees. The ministers still control the appointment process entirely.

I am disclosing today that I've applied to be Information Commissioner, I have 30 years' experience working with provincial and federal laws, and I have not even been contacted in response to my application. I am sure there are many others the government does not want to be commissioner—because they will be a watchdog—who are also well qualified and have not been contacted.

Ministers control this entire process still. That's not an independent or merit-based system. It's political and it's partisan. It has to stop. This government is going to select an Ethics Commissioner, Commissioner of Lobbying, Information Commissioner, RCMP commissioner, Chief Electoral Officer, and Commissioner of Official Languages through a process that's political and partisan. You don't end up with watchdogs with that kind of process, as we saw with the fiasco over the attempt to appoint a former Ontario Liberal cabinet minister as official languages commissioner in the spring.

The process must change to be actually independent and merit-based, and that means having a commission made up of people who are non-governmental, who will do a merit-based search publicly and come up with a short list. The cabinet should then be required to choose from among that short list.

There have just been recommendations made by such a committee for Supreme Court judge positions that are coming open. If it's good for Supreme Court judges, it's good for the judges of ethics, transparency, whistle-blower protection, official languages, the RCMP, and elections law in Canada. The same process should be used as for Supreme Court judges, and if the Liberals try to appoint these lapdogs that they want to these key democratic, good governance, watchdog positions, you better believe that Democracy Watch and many people in the public will resist every step of the way. Change the system before the new commissioner is appointed and give it over to an independent commission that will recommend a short list, as you're doing with Supreme Court justices. That was a good move. Do it with all judges of whether the government is following the law, please.

I welcome your questions. Thank you.

[Cara Zwibel, Acting General Counsel, Fundamental Freedoms Program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

My name is Cara Zwibel. I'm the acting general counsel at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

I'd like to thank the committee on behalf of the CCLA for the opportunity to appear before you in relation to your study of Bill C-58. While time will not permit me to comment on all aspects of the bill, I hope to highlight a few of the most significant concerns that the CCLA has about the proposed changes to the Access to Information Act.

In brief, I'm going to speak about new barriers to making requests for information, the absence of a public interest override, the order-making power that's been given to the Information Commissioner, and the new proactive publication requirements.

Before I get into the bill's substance, I want to emphasize how important a strong access regime is to a vibrant democracy. Without information about how our government functions, we simply cannot participate meaningfully in our democracy on a daily basis nor can we make informed choices at the ballot box. The transparency that can be facilitated by way of a strong access regime is also a vital means of ensuring that those in government remain accountable.

The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that access to information is a right that derives from the charter's protection of freedom of expression, and arises where it's “a necessary precondition of meaningful expression on the functioning of government”. CCLA submissions on this bill are grounded in those principles.

I think we're all aware that the Access to Information Act has been in need of a major overhaul for many years. I would remiss if I failed to tell the committee that CCLA is deeply disappointed with Bill C-58. It is not the comprehensive reform that's needed, and frankly, it's no answer to say more is coming down the road. We have been studying the need for a new regime for many years and have benefited from this committee's own study and comprehensive recommendations as well as those of the Information Commissioner. Now is the time for action.

The proposed amendments in Bill C-58 do not address a number of the long-standing concerns related to the act. In particular, the long list of exceptions and exemptions have not been narrowed or addressed in any way. There is no right of access in relation to ministers' offices, even though this was one of the promises made by the government prior to the election, and the bill does not create a duty on government offices to appropriately document decisions, a tool that would help to ensure that the kind of information Canadians may want and are entitled to will exist.

Although the act includes a new articulation of purpose and even a new long title that suggests greater openness, in our view the changes in the act may impose new barriers to individuals seeking information about their government. There are a few ways in which it would be harder for individuals seeking access if the changes proposed in Bill C-58 are adopted.

First, while the government initially promised to get rid of all fees except for the initial $5 filing fee, the bill does not do this. Instead, it eliminates some of the existing limitations on fees that are articulated in the act and moves the fee-setting function to be done via regulations. Fees are barriers to access. While we believe they should be eliminated, if they are going to be retained, they should at least be clearly limited in the act itself. For example, the act could specify what categories of items would be subject to fees or which categories an institution could not charge fees for. While we can appreciate the reluctance to specify dollar amounts in legislation itself, deferring the entire question of fees to be dealt with by regulation is of serious concern and a strange way to proceed in a bill about openness and transparency.

Another way in which Bill C-58 can make access harder for individuals seeking information is set out in proposed section 6, which delineates the items that must be included in a request for access, and proposed section 6.1, which grants heads of government institutions the right to refuse requests that are non-compliant.

Very often, requesters know the kind of information that they want, but not necessarily the types of records or where that information will be found. They may not know the dates that they should be searching for or what form the records may take, and since the bill also eliminates the need, the obligation on institutions to publish Info Source, to publish the types of records that they create, even less information will be available to help a requester figure out how to appropriately frame more requests.

If you have ever made an access to information request, you know that if you're dealing with a professional access person in a government institution, very often they will work with the requester to figure out how to frame the request. The amendments in the bill suggest that a request that is not framed properly can simply be refused. I know the committee will be hearing in the next session from the National Claims Research Directors about how these requirements may frustrate the resolution of historic claims of many first nations communities. CCLA shares these concerns.

There appears to be no clear benefit to be gained from these amendments, but very real risks to the right of access. We urge the committee to remove those new requirements.

In addition to the right to refuse access to records if the criteria in section 6 are not met, there are other new grounds for refusing a request articulated in proposed subsection 6.1(1), including where the request is too large or complex, such that it will unreasonably interfere with the operations of the government institution, or where the institution's head finds the request to be frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith.

It isn't clear from the bill what would guide a government head in applying these criteria or how clearly the reasons for refusal will be communicated to the requester. There may be very valid and important requests that could be turned away based on their complexity or size, such as requests relating to how our prisons function or to operations at our borders. The fact that these requests may require a lot of work does not mean that there is no right of access.

The overall tenor of these amendments is that providing information to the public about a government institution is a chore or an afterthought and reinforces the notion that the information belongs to the government rather than the public. Providing access to the public should be seen as a core function of government institutions. The new rights of refusal send the wrong message to requesters and to access officers.

In addition to the new barriers that the bill creates for requesters, I also want to discuss the exemptions and exclusions under the act, and here I want to focus on the absence of a public interest override.

In our view, a public interest override is an important safeguard that should be included in the act.

The application of exemptions and exclusions, which is largely untouched by this bill, is complex and will be rendered more so by some of the changes proposed in the bill. However, beyond the technical and legal interpretation of all of the provisions in the act, the fundamental question at issue in an access request is whether the public has a right to know. A public interest override is a mechanism to ensure that this question gets answered and that it gets answered correctly. There are some provinces that have such an override in their legislation. We encourage the committee to look at those models and to consider an amendment to the bill to insert a public interest override.

Next, I want to address the order-making power that has been given to the Information Commissioner. That the commissioner be given the power to make orders is something that CCLA and many other organizations were in favour of and have been requesting for a long time. We believe strongly that the commissioner needs this power, but the scheme in the bill grants it and at the same time undercuts it. In particular, where judicial review of the commissioner's order is sought, proposed section 44.1 of the bill specifies that the review will be de novo, that no deference will be given to the commissioner's decision, and that the government department can rely on new reasons for refusing the access.

Frankly, I simply can't understand the rationale for framing the order-making power in this way. This approach places a greater burden on our courts, it ignores the significant expertise that resides in the Information Commissioner's office, and it doesn't provide government departments with any incentive to put their best arguments or information forward initially, either to the requester or to the Information Commissioner.

It will allow for a more drawn-out process, and thus may frustrate a requester's intent by ultimately producing stale information, if information is ever produced.

The commissioner needs robust order-making powers, and review should be of the commissioner's order. We recommend amending this aspect of the bill.

Finally, I want to comment on the new proactive publication provisions that apply to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Good afternoon, everybody. I call this meeting to order.

This is the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, meeting number 72. We're dealing with Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I'd like to welcome via teleconference, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Cara Zwibel; from Democracy Watch, Duff Conacher; and from the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, Gordon McIntosh.

We'll start with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Go ahead.

[Jennifer Dawson]

Bill C-58 in no way impacts exemptions and exclusions. As such, the current situation would not change.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I’m asking you this because in 2011, we saw situations where entire sections of memoranda had been redacted, for instance when environmental situations were concerned, given the policies of certain groups.

If Bill C-58 is passed, would it still be possible to redact almost all those memoranda that would be publicly released?

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It’s my turn to greet you and to bid you good afternoon.

I would like to follow the example of my colleague Frank Baylis and ask a very general question. As we all know, Bill C-58 concerns the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

Certain departmental documents are labelled “PROTECTED”, “SECRET”, or “TOP SECRET”. Do they continue to be accessible? What does Bill C-58 provide for these types of documents?

[Jennifer Dawson]

The focus of what has been brought forward in Bill C-58 is strongly aligned to the government-specific mandate commitments.

That question of exclusions versus exemptions is something that can be considered in that first full review of the act, which would be one year within the royal assent of the bill. I don't have a view to offer on that particular recommendation, but we observe that there definitely is an intent to undertake a full review that would go much more broadly than the amendments that are proposed today.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you.

Moving to questions, among the recommendations of this committee last year that were not implemented, specifically recommendation 23 said:

That the mandatory exemption for Cabinet confidences would not apply to: purely factual or background information; information in a record of decision made by Cabinet or any of its committees on an appeal under an act; where consent is obtained to disclose the information; and information in a record that has been in existence for an appropriate period of time as determined by the government and that this period of time be less than the current 20 years.

Was there anything unworkable or inappropriate in that recommendation that the government has chosen not to include in Bill C-58?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I agree that given the two hours with the Information Commissioner, who is actually the most relevant to Bill C-58, that an hour for the Privacy Commissioner would be appropriate.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Ministers, I began my questions referring to what the Information Commissioner has characterized in her response to Bill C-58 as failing to strike the right balance for transparency.

Chair, I'd just like to table for the record in both French and English the Information Commissioner's report. In that report, it's interesting that she concludes by doing a very basic grade of Bill C-58 with passes and fails. She found that five elements of Bill C-58 are positive. She found that 15 elements of Bill C-58 are, in fact, regressive. Could you respond to that?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

First of all, by putting into this legislation a mandatory five-year review, it will ensure the Access to Information Act never becomes as out of date as it is today, 34 years after it was first introduced.

We believe that after one year of this bill receiving royal assent, we will have a better understanding of what some of the changes in Bill C-58 made to the act, some of the differences those changes have effected, and it will help inform future changes. We will have a better idea of some of the impacts of the changes, including what we intend on doing in terms of strengthening the technology, the resources, and the training.

We are committed as a government to a more efficient and responsive access to information regime, one that is consistent with open and transparent government. We will have a better idea after one year of this bill receiving royal assent as to what other changes we can make to further strengthen it. The Access to Information Act and its regime ought to be an evergreening process that our government and future governments on an ongoing basis look at to find ways to strengthen the access to information regime for the Government of Canada. I think we'll learn more. Also, technologies change, approaches change, and we learn from other governments. That's part of our role as a co-chair of the Open Government Partnership, that we are learning from and sharing practices with other countries as well.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

You heard my question, though. Has it ever been misused? I think Minister Brison would be more comfortable answering it than perhaps you would be.

My suggestion is that, using, as Mr. Kent suggested and all the experts coming before us say, when a reporter is going after a question on something that's sensitive, one way governments in the past.... There are two ways. You can Post-it note it, as some previous Liberal governments did at a certain sponsorship time—you put a Post-it note on it and don't write it down, and you can take it off later. Another way is to provide advice to ministers whereby they are no longer subject to this.

I guess this becomes a question of whom to believe. We have the Information Commissioner who says that previous committees that sat around this table and looked at the act made recommendations, as did the commissioner. You ignored those recommendations in this new Bill C-58.

I'm not sure it's really time to pop the champagne corks when the commissioner says that this bill would instead result in a regression of existing rights.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

The aspect of Bill C-58 that gives the commissioner the authority to order disclosure from government departments also prevents the commissioner from doing it if cabinet confidence can be invoked. All of the access to information experts in Canada, in different provincial situations, say that represents the biggest black hole of access to information in Bill C-58.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Well, you certainly disappointed the Information Commissioner of Canada.

With regard to the proactive disclosure provisions in Bill C-58, which is something of a bait and switch, I think, in terms of what it qualifies, it is actually a false promise to the opening of ministerial offices. Remember, the Liberal campaign promise was to ensure that access to information applies to the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices, as well as to the administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts. The proactive disclosure provisions don't come anywhere close to that, and compounding that broken promise are the conditions involving requests for information that your government may determine to be frivolous or vexatious.

The experts are unanimous in these criticisms. It's not only the Information Commissioner.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Karina.

Mr. Kent, Bill C-58 for the first time provides the commissioner with order-making power. The first time that was called for by a parliamentary committee was in 1987. We're the first ones to actually provide that. It was in 1987 that a parliamentary committee called for the application of the Access to Information Act to ministers' offices. We do, through proactive disclosure, and for the first time ever, we're even applying it beyond that, to the administrative offices supporting the courts and to Parliament.

Peter, we've known each other quite a while. Your party, the Conservatives, actually committed in its platform in 2006 to modernize the Access to Information Act. You had 10 years to do it, and when asked in the final days of your government why it wasn't done, Tony Clement said, “Well, we didn't get around to it.” We're doing this in the first two years of our government.

Beyond that, Peter, your government was the first government to be found in contempt of Parliament for not providing information to Parliament, the first government in the history of the Commonwealth—

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Ministers, for appearing with us today.

The same week that we began debate on Bill C-58, the commissioner issued an extraordinary document entitled “Failing to Strike the Right Balance for Transparency“. I'll just very briefly read into the record a couple of paragraphs from her opening statement. She goes into great detail in the rest of the report.

The Commissioner said:

In short, Bill C-58 fails to deliver. The government promised the bill would ensure the Act applies to the Prime Minister’s and Ministers’ Offices appropriately. It does not. The government promised the bill would apply appropriately to administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts. It does not. The government promised the bill would empower the Information Commissioner to order the release of government information. It does not.

The final line that I'll quote, Ministers, is the most telling. The Information Commissioner of Canada writes:

Rather than advancing access to information rights, Bill C-58 would instead result in a regression of existing rights.

Minister Brison, could you respond?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

One of the things Bill C-58 does provide to the Information Commissioner is order-making power for the first time. In terms of the application of her authority over the proactive disclosure part of this legislation, that's something on which I would look forward to receiving—we would look forward to receiving—a recommendation from this committee. We're open to recommendations from the committee on some parts of this, and that could be one of the recommendations you could consider.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Since we're on the topic of proactive disclosure, the Information Commissioner has asked for authority or jurisdiction to police proactive disclosure. I would imagine that if there are redactions in relation to the material that is proactively disclosed, the Information Commissioner would look to make sure those redactions are accurate and in accordance with the law. She says that she doesn't currently have that authority as Bill C-58 is drafted, and wants it. I wonder what would you say to her?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Nathaniel, one of the things we're looking at—and something we'll be guided by as a government in the future—is that as we see the volumes grow for request-based areas of information, that will be a signal to our government, and we'd hope to future governments as well, to move those areas into proactive disclosure, and as such reduce the burden on the request-based system. That's one of the reasons that the review is every five years, with the first one beginning within a year after this legislation receives royal assent. It will enable us to observe the impact of the changes that are part of Bill C-58. It will also enable us to look at future expansion of proactive disclosure in other areas.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Thank you very much, Minister Brison.

Mr. Chair, colleagues, committee members, thank you for inviting me to appear alongside my colleague, Minister Brison, to address Bill C-58. I'd like to acknowledge that Allen Sutherland from Democratic Institutions is here.

I want to acknowledge the important work of the public service in putting this bill together.

The Government is taking measures to maintain the openness, the transparency and the accountability of our democracy. To this end, we have introduced Bill C-33 in order to increase voter turnout and to enhance the integrity of our electoral system.

We've also put forward Bill C-50, which would make political fundraising more transparent.

As Minister of Democratic Institutions, I have also acted to help protect our electoral system from cyber-threats.

Earlier this year, I asked the Communications Security Establishment, or CSE, to undertake the very first assessment of threats to our democratic process. Since the release of the report, in June, the CSE has communicated with political parties and with provincial and territorial chief electoral officers to provide them with advice against cyberthreats.

Today, I am here with you to discuss Bill C-58. This legislation includes long-overdue amendments to an access to information law that has not been updated since it passed almost 34 years ago. The amendments to the act being brought forward by my colleague, Minister Brison, would help to significantly update and improve how Canada's access to information laws function.

Right now, I would like to focus in particular on how Bill C-58 would impact three areas: the offices of the Prime Minister and his ministers, members of Parliament and senators, and the administrative institutions that support Parliament and parliamentarians.

The bill would require the Prime Minister’s Office and ministerial offices to proactively disclose a variety of documents, including mandate letters, transition handbooks, information packages for ministers and their deputies, as well as information regarding travel and accommodation costs for ministers and their exempt staff.

It would also require disclosure of contracts over $10,000.

Information prepared by departments for question period and parliamentary committee appearances would also be subject to the act.

As you know, some of this information is already proactively disclosed by ministerial cabinets. However, this practice is not consistent and is not set out in the law. The aim of this bill is to obtain uniform disclosure from all cabinets. It would require the public release of those documents for the first time.

Of course, exemptions and exclusions under the law would still apply in the case of requests concerning certain issues, such as personal and national security issues.

Bill C-58 also extends the act to senators and members of Parliament. For the first time, this disclosure will be formalized in law. Bill C-58 also applies to institutions that support Parliament. I am referring to organizations like the Library of Parliament, the parliamentary budget officer, and the Senate and Commons administrations.

We’re improving the openness of these offices while ensuring security laws and parliamentary privilege.

Bill C-58 will make it possible to achieve the necessary balance while implementing measures that will contribute to modernize the Access to Information Act. Canada’s democratic institutions will thus increase their transparency and accountability.

To conclude, Bill C-58 will significantly advance the availability and efficiency of the Access to Information Act as it is related to the Prime Minister's office and ministers' offices, parliamentarians, as well as the institutions that support Parliament.

The reforms proposed in Bill C-58 are an important step in the ongoing review and modernization of the Access to Information Act, and I look forward to working with all members to enhance accountability.

With that, I welcome your questions. Merci.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am delighted to be here with you today and with your committee.

I am joined by Parliamentary Secretary Joyce Murray as well as my colleague Minister Gould, and as you mentioned, Jennifer Dawson from TBS.

I want to thank members of the committee for your work and your consideration of issues around Canada's access to information system.

As we developed these reforms, we were guided by the principle that government information belongs to the people we serve.

We remain committed to this principle, which the Access to Information Act first enshrined in law in 1983.

Now, 34 years later, our proposed reforms advance the original intent of that act in a way that better reflects today's technologies, policies, and legislation.

This is not a one-off exercise. Rather, we've kicked off a progressive, ongoing renewal of the ATI system, one that will protect Canada's right of access to government information well into the future.

Our efforts began over a year ago. In May 2016, I issued an Interim Directive that enshrined the idea of government being "open by default".

Open by default means having a culture across government in which data and information are increasingly released as a matter of course, unless there are specific reasons not to do so.

It's about allowing Canadians to better understand how government functions and to give them the information they need to contribute to a healthier democracy.

The Canadian government is being recognized by global partners for our efforts in this area. In March we were elected to the steering committee of the Open Government Partnership for the first time, and on September 21 Canada agreed to take on the role of lead government chair of the OGP in 2018-19.

The OGP is a multi-stakeholder organization that brings together 75 governments and hundreds of civil society organizations. I can tell you that as a government we are excited to take on this leadership role for Canada over the coming two years as co-chair.

The CEO of the Open Government Partnership, Sanjay Pradhan, called our country “a beacon of openness” last month in New York. Additionally, earlier this year, Canada was ranked number two in the Open Data Barometer survey, which is a global assessment of how governments are using open data for accountability, innovation, and social impact. The report commented on how political will in Canada has translated into strong policy foundations on openness and transparency.

A year ago we eliminated all fees for access to information requests, apart from the $5 filing fee, and directed the release of information in user-friendly formats whenever possible.

Now, with the amendments proposed in Bill C-58, we're taking the next step.

These amendments would create a new part of the act relating to proactive disclosure, one that puts clearly into practice the idea of open by default.

Of course this does not absolve us of our responsibility to strengthen the request-based system. We know that the access to information system has been the subject of widespread and warranted criticism. That's why we're developing a guide to provide requesters with clear explanations for exemptions and exclusions; investing in tools and technology to make processing information requests more efficient; allowing federal institutions with the same minister to share request processing services for greater efficiency; and increasing uniform government training to get common and consistent interpretation and application of ATI rules.

Mr. Chair, we are also following the guidance of this committee.

We are moving to help government institutions weed out "bad faith" requests that put significant strain on the system.

By tying up government resources, vexatious requests can interfere with an institution's ability to do its work and to respond to other requests.

Let me be clear: we have heard the concerns expressed about how we must safeguard against abuse of this proposed measure. We need to get this right and recognize that, while this new tool is needed to significantly improve the system, everything, from sound policy to training and proper oversight, must be done to prevent its abuse.

Our proposed amendments also give the Information Commissioner new powers, including, for the first time, the power to order the release of government records. This is an important advancement, which was first recommended by a parliamentary committee studying the Access to Information Act in 1987. Our government is acting on it, and Bill C-58 would change the commissioner's role from an ombudsperson to an authority with the order-making power to order the release of government records.

We are also giving the Information Commissioner's office more financial resources to do its job.

And that's just the first phase of our access to information modernization.

Bill C-58 includes a mandatory review of the act every five years. The first review will begin no later than one year after the bill receives royal assent. What's more, we require that departments regularly review the information being requested under the act.

Mr. Chair, after 34 years, Canada's access to information system needs updating. This is going to be an ongoing work in progress.

I'd now like to pass it over to my colleague, the Minister of Democratic Institutions. Merci.

[Duff Conacher, Co-Founder, Democracy Watch]

Thank you very much, Chair.

To members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to present to you today on Bill C-50. As mentioned, I am co-founder and coordinator of Democracy Watch and chair of the Money in Politics Coalition, which is made up of 50 organizations with a total membership of 3.5 million Canadians.

The coalition has been advocating changes to the federal and provincial political finance systems now since 1999, and is calling for changes to Bill C-50 to stop cash for access and the influence of big money in federal politics.

The bill, I believe, based on the framework, in that it addresses contributions in some sections and others, can be amended by the committee and sent back to the House, and should be, to make changes to ensure that wealthy individuals cannot use money as a means of unethical influence over politicians or parties, and also to stop the funnelling of donations, which has happened in every jurisdiction in Canada that has banned corporate or union donations but that has maintained much too high a donation limit, such as at the federal level.

The $3,100 a year to a party and its riding associations is much more than an average voter can afford. That amount violates the fundamental democratic principle of one person, one vote. It allows people with money, who can afford to make that maximum donation, to use money as a means of influence.

To think that anyone who is donating the maximum does not get some kind of return on that is naive, based on what we've seen in the past across Canada with various fundraising scandals. Even if it is simply an invitation to a Laurier Club event, that is access that you can only buy, and is therefore undemocratic and fundamentally unethical.

Sports referees can't take gifts from players, so why are politicians continuing to allow themselves, as the referees of what is in the public interest, to essentially be influenced by large gifts of money, property, or services, up to $3,100 annually, in terms of what can be given to a party or a riding association?

The coalition and the more than 11,000 voters who have signed the petition on change.org are calling for changes that will stop big money in federal politics and stop cash for access. These are to lower the donation limit to $100, as in Quebec; strengthen enforcement and penalties for violations; and only bring back per-vote funding or some kind of matching public funding such as Quebec has if the parties can actually prove, and candidates can actually prove, that they need this public financing in order to prosper financially.

These are the major changes that we are calling for.

As well, loans should be limited to the same amount as donations. If donations are limited but loans are unlimited, then federally regulated financial institutions can use loans to essentially buy influence with the parties. Yes, they have to give those loans on the same terms as they loan to anyone else, but giving a loan to a candidate or a party helps the candidate or party.

Clinical psychologists have tested thousands of people across the world, and found in every case that even small gifts have influence on decision-making. One of the best-documented areas is with doctors and prescriptions, even with doctors receiving free samples from drug companies that they don't use themselves but can pass on to their patients. It doesn't save the doctor any money at all, but just giving free samples to doctors has been shown through clinical testing to influence their prescribing decisions, although the doctors deny it across the board.

To think that donations do not have an influence over any politician or party official is to pretend they are not human. Humans across the world have been tested by clinical psychologists in double-blind studies, and it's been found that even small gifts influence everybody.

That's why the solution, the way to stop the influence, is to limit the donation that can be given annually to an amount that an average voter across the country can afford, and that's $100. That's what Quebec has done. It's a world-leading system. The public financing is too high. It doesn't have to be as high as it is. In terms of the donation limit, the fact that a donation above $50 has to be routed through Elections Quebec ensures that funnelling cannot happen and that people are only giving their own money and only giving no more than an average voter can afford.

The too-high donation limit federally also facilitates funnelling, which has been seen at the federal level with SNC-Lavalin. In Quebec, finally Elections Quebec did its job in 2011 and looked back five years and did an audit of donations. It had banned corporate and union donations in the late seventies and there had always been rumours that corporations were funnelling donations through their executives and their family members and through employees and their family members. Elections Quebec finally did an audit in 2011 after the corruption scandal broke there, and they found $12.8 million in donations that had likely been funnelled from businesses through their executives and family members. That was $12.8 million over a five-year period.

Funnelling is happening at the federal level. Elections Canada promised to do an audit four years ago. It hasn't done it yet. If they do, they will find it. It's been found in Toronto and it's been found in every jurisdiction that's banned corporate and union donations but left a donation limit that is too high and that facilitates funnelling, as the federal donation limit does. With the $3,100 limit, you get 10 executives and their spouses to each give $3,100, and boom, you've given $62,000 to a party.

That's big money. That has big influence, and the only way to stop it is to lower the donation limit.

Democracy Watch has filed complaints about the fundraising events held last year and in years past with the Commissioner of Lobbying. We're hoping that the Commissioner of Lobbying at least will stop lobbyists who are registered or should be registered from participating in such events, but Bill C-50, despite making the events transparent, is not going to stop cash for access. MPs will still be allowed to do the events. The staff of cabinet ministers can be at events without it even being disclosed under Bill C-50, so there's not even transparency about a senior government official being at an event, only people who are candidates or party leaders or cabinet ministers. The bill will not stop cash for access. It will not stop the influence of big money.

There is a problem with big money. I will give you just one example of an analysis that Democracy Watch did. It was very difficult to do because of the way Elections Canada discloses the donations, but I did a ton of number-crunching and I determined that in 2015 the federal Liberals received almost 23% of their donations from just over 4% of wealthy donors, who gave $1,100 or more to the party. To do that analysis of what happens at the riding association level is not impossible, but it would take months and months, because Elections Canada doesn't consolidate any of those figures. That's just donations to the party: 23% of the party's money came in from donations from just 4% of wealthy individuals who could afford to give $1,100 or more. That's a cash-for-access system. Those people at the time would have been invited to a Laurier Club event, possibly other events. I'm quite sure if the Access to Information Act were to be extended to ministers' officers, we would find that they get their calls returned more quickly than others, get meetings more quickly than others, get access to staff and senior government officials more quickly than others across the board. We don't have the kind of transparency that would prove that. I hope we will get it through Bill C-58, as the Liberals promised to extend the act to ministers' offices, or through the changes to the Lobbying Act, which has to be reviewed this year.

Within the framework of Bill C-50, I believe it's completely within order under the parliamentary rules for you to make these changes to Bill C-50, because the bill mentions contributions and all the other areas I've talked about.

I have not made a written submission to you today, but there is a news release up today on Democracy Watch's website that will be translated and distributed by the clerk, so you will have all the details.

I welcome any of your questions. Thank you very much.

Bill C-48--Time Allocation Motion

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in this, and we as a party are offended.

There was an agreement made two and a half weeks ago when this session started that we would work together with the government and not be obstructionist, but work to help pass bills that we were able to support.

The result so far is that the government has passed Bill S-2, C-21, C-47, and Bill C-58 all without time allocation, and progress was being made on three more bills, Bill C-55, C-57, and C-60.

There was one bill that we said we had a lot of interest in and would like to have enough time for all of our members to be able to speak, and that was Bill C-48. Now the House leader has broken her word. There is no other way to interpret this. If this is the way she is going to start this session after we have worked in such good faith for the last two and half weeks, all the members know that it will be a case of here we go again: a repeat of the failure we saw in the spring session.

Where in the world is the House leader's integrity and ability to keep her word?

Export and Import Permits Act

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer what I would perhaps call tepid support for Bill C-47, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and to permit the accession to the Arms Trade Treaty.

Unfortunately, while this is a very serious matter, the bill seems to be more of an empty shell than an effective piece of legislation at this stage. Yet again, the Liberals have been extolling the virtue of transparency while completely ignoring the principle in practice.

Members will recall from earlier this week another bill allegedly relating to transparency, the amendments to Bill C-58 that would reform the Access to Information Act. Members stood and pointed out the difference between the rhetoric of transparency and the reality. Today, I note with sadness that our Information Commissioner has done a thorough analysis of the bill, and the title says it all: “Failing to Strike the Right Balance”. That could be the title of this bill as well.

Quite recently, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs claimed:

The goal is to ensure that all states take responsibility and rigorously assess arms exports. States must also regulate the legal arms trade and use transparent measures to combat illicit trade.

The bill is filled with non-information, significant room for intentionally omitted information, and promises to outline regulations at some later date, following royal assent. That is why we call it an empty shell. Most of the key issues to be addressed will not be addressed in this Parliament and will not be open to parliamentary scrutiny during this debate on second reading. Rather, they will be put in somehow later when regulations are made by faceless bureaucrats behind the scenes. That is why we say the bill fails on the issue of transparency. For example, the key criteria of assessment of arms permits are nowhere to be found in Bill C-47. How can we know if export controls will be strengthened in order to protect future exports to states that abuse human rights? Who knows?

I said at the outset that I am prepared to offer unenthusiastic support so we can get this to committee and make it better. We are asked to consider an appropriate course for the regulation of arms exports in Canada and our country's long overdue accession to the Arms Trade Treaty. Shamefully, the Harper Conservatives refused to join the Arms Trade Treaty, which was open for accession as of December 2014. Canada emerged as the only NATO member and the only G7 member not to have signed the Arms Trade Treaty. I congratulate the government for finally taking these halting steps to join the rest of the civilized world.

We are also forced to examine in this debate who we want to be on the world stage and what kind of values we are really honouring, not just on paper but in our policies and practices. We have a prime minister who loves to talk the talk. During the course of the debates and amendments at committee, we will see whether he and the government are prepared to walk the walk.

It is unthinkable and frankly surprising to many of us that Canadian weapons exports have nearly doubled over the last 10 years. After 10 years of the Conservative government, Canada has shifted away from exporting arms predominantly to NATO countries, to exporting arms to countries with notoriously troubling human rights records. For example, according to the defence industry publication Jane's, Canada is now the second largest arms dealer in the Middle East. Arms sales to China, a country with a notoriously poor human rights record, soared to $48 million in 2015. As well, a recent article published in the magazine L'actualité found that in the past 25 years Canada has sold $5.8 billion in weapons to countries with deeply questionable human rights records. This is not a small problem. Human rights violations cannot be tolerated, let alone facilitated.

With all this in mind, I want to commend the current government for finally agreeing to accede to this international treaty. In endorsing this bill, I want to also salute my colleague, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who has done some wonderful work on this issue over the years.

As noted, the bill fails to strengthen export controls, and as written, we would have no idea whether future arms deals with countries that abuse human rights would be prohibited. We have a right to know who Canada is doing business with and under what conditions. When it comes to human rights, it is not enough for us to say one thing and implement policies that allow another.

The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs, speaking to the accession of the Arms Trade Treaty, said, “this legislation will set our standards in law.... I am very pleased that we will in turn raise the bar with a stronger and more rigorous system for our country.”

Forgive me if I am not prepared to take the government's word for it. I agree that we need to set out standards in law, but the bill is proof that the Liberals are still demonstrating a lack of transparency about arms exports and a reluctance to address the disparity between talk and action.

As others have mentioned, there are ongoing allegations of Canadian weapons being used to commit human rights violations in countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Sudan. It was reported in The Globe and Mail earlier this year that the Saudi military appears to be using Canadian-made combat vehicles against Saudi citizens. What are we doing about that? We are not doing very much. Reports indicate that Canadian-made weaponry has been used in the Saudi Arabia-led war in Yemen, one of the world's worst humanitarian situations, which continues to deteriorate, and 6,000 people to date have been killed.

In 2015, the Prime Minister told the media that Canada must “stop arms sales to regimes that flout democracy, such as Saudi Arabia.” That is great rhetoric. Where is the action?

The NDP has called for the Liberals to suspend existing export permits for the light armoured vehicle deal with Saudi Arabia, pending an investigation into its domestic human rights situation, to no avail.

In the bill, the majority of Canada's military exports would remain unregulated. It would set up a legal obligation to report on military exports, which is a good step, but here is the punchline. This obligation would only apply to exports where an export permit was required, so most U.S.-bound exports would be exempt from the bill. Neither the act nor its amendment under Bill C-47 would address the Canada-U.S. Defence Production Sharing Agreement, which exempts Canadian military exports to the United States from the government authorization required for other arms exports. Therefore, we will be asking in committee that exports of military goods to the United States be licensed in some fashion.

It has been said that the United States is our closest friend and ally, but with a regime change occurring south of the border, it seems to me that this reflects an outdated way of thinking. It should be subject to the same rules as other countries. Indeed, the reason for that is that sometimes Canadian arms are sold to the United States and are used to commit human rights atrocities, an example of which was published, with respect to Nigeria, on September 13 of this year. We think that is important.

We believe there have been some positive moves on the issue of diversion, and we salute the government for that, but we believe that Canada must formalize diversion as a criterion in our export control systems.

It is a good start that Bill C-47 requires annual reports to Parliament, but the job is only half done as long as it does not include exports to the United States. How can Parliament hold the government to account if the bulk of our exports are excluded from the export permit system and from the resulting annual reporting?

We would suggest, as we have said for many years, that there be a new standing committee to oversee arms exports. The Liberals voted that down. We asked them to consider the U.K. experience and see if we could get on board for that so we could actually provide parliamentary oversight, notwithstanding the deficiencies in the bill.

For far too long Canadians have had too little information about our arms exports to countries with troubling human rights records. Any measures taken that fall short of ensuring the highest standards of accountability are doing a disservice to Canadians and to the vulnerable people who are affected by our policies.

Human rights are not optional. It is not enough for our Prime Minister to go on the international stage and talk the talk. It is now time to walk the talk and give parliamentarians and Canadians the tools they need to ensure that we are doing our part on arms trade exports around the world.

Access to Information Act

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-58.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from September 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not only does Bill C-58 not extend the Access to Information Act, but it goes even further by giving departments loopholes so they can refuse to process access to information requests on the grounds that, for example, they were made in bad faith or would create too much work for public servants. The government cannot do things like that.

I have submitted plenty of access to information requests about fracking and shale gas. Of course the departments got annoyed at me for pestering them, but why did they not disclose that information themselves? Because they did not want to.

It could easily happen again. The government will disclose the information that makes it look good, and any information that could be harmful or embarrassing to it will be tucked away where no one can get at it. This is utterly unacceptable. These are not the actions of a transparent government that respects the people. It needs to change its attitude.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we gather today to debate Bill C-58, we should be mindful of the fact that this is international Right to Know Week. As we gather here, in another part of town the Information Commissioner is holding a full-day conference on declaring that access to information is a fundamental human right. In that case, I wonder if my colleague would agree that our human rights are violated when Bill C-58 falls so short of being true access to open government and access to information.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, because in my work as an MP I often have to obtain information beyond that provided by the government.

It is very important to me to speak to this bill. I have come to realize that Canadians across the country, including the constituents of Drummond, often seek information to which they do not necessarily have access. It should be known that the government decides to voluntarily disclose some information, but not all. I discovered this when I was elected in 2011. I was looking for a lot of information about shale gas and fracking, because that was a hot topic in the riding of Drummond and across Quebec at the time. I realized that the federal government at the time had conducted research and several studies and put together several review committees, but that not all these reports had been made public.

I ended up having to submit some access to information requests, which is when I realized the limitations of the Access to Information Act. Many passages in the documents I received had been blacked out and made unreadable. Other documents took months and months to reach me. Furthermore, I recently asked a series of questions about the appointment of Ms. Meilleur as official languages commissioner. She eventually took herself out of the running, which I thought was a wise decision. At the time, I asked the government some questions about contact between Ms. Meilleur and officials in the Prime Minister's office and contact between her and officials at Canadian Heritage. Since the answers I received were totally unsatisfactory, I submitted some access to information requests. Right now, I am told, the wait time to receive even a partial answer from Canadian Heritage is 105 days. For the Treasury Board, it is 90 days, and for the Department of Justice, it is 120 days.

I am not going receive my answers before the new commissioner is appointed. It is easy to see how important it is to have access to this information. I would like to congratulate all the members on the ethics committee for the work they did. They conducted a study and issued a number of recommendations. The ethics commissioner made the same recommendations. The time was ripe for this debate, seeing as this law has been on the books for more than 30 years and never been reviewed. It is worth noting that the sole reason we have this bill is to fulfill one of the Liberals' election promises. The Prime Minister promised during the campaign that he would review the Access to Information Act and extend this act to cover the Prime Minister's office and the ministers' offices.

Unfortunately, I do not see that anywhere in Bill C-58. I asked my Liberal colleagues about this, and they told me it had been extended to ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's office, but proactive disclosure does not mean extending the Access to Information Act to the Prime Minister's and ministers' offices. It is not the same thing. Proactive disclosure, as the word "proactive" implies, means that people choose what they want to disclose, but often, what people want is the information the government chooses not to disclose. That is the difference, and that is why the Access to Information Act is so important.

Earlier, I shared some examples to do with shale gas, fracking, and the appointment of an official languages commissioner who apparently had ties to the government. In cases like those, it is important for people to have access to information that the government chooses not to disclose for various reasons.

I have some other concerns about this bill. For example, it adds new loopholes. As I mentioned, for various reasons, information can be blacked out or entire reports can be nothing but blank pages. The pages exist, but all that is provided is blank pages. That is a problem we have already.

Now there will be a new loophole allowing departments to decline to process requests that they deem overly broad, that they feel would seriously interfere with government operations, or that they think are made in bad faith.

I will come back to those last two very important elements. Obviously, if the government deliberately decides, for example, not to disclose large quantities of research and studies conducted by Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada on fracking and shale gas and I request it, a lot of work will need to be done to gather and process all of that information. I am not asking for it because I am acting in bad faith or because I want to interfere with the government's work. I am asking for it because residents of Drummond and Canadians paid for that information. It should already be available. However, I have to go through the Access to Information Act to give people access to that information. The government cannot start saying that this will create too much work. Of course if the government does not disclose information proactively, then it will create a lot of work for itself down the road.

The government could also determine that the request was made in bad faith. No definition, details, or explanation is provided in that regard. That means that anyone can decide that a request was made in bad faith. If I ask a question about the connection between the current government and Ms. Meilleur's appointment as official languages commissioner, my request could be deemed to have been made in bad faith, when in actual fact it is extremely important that Canadians have that information in order to make sure that the Liberals do not make the same mistake again.

This is completely unacceptable, and that is why we will be voting against this bill. For a government that claims to want to be transparent and to improve access to information, this bill is not going to work at all.

I would like to talk about the battle that the NDP has been waging since the mid-2000s to improve the Access to Information Act. My former colleague, MP Pat Martin, tried a number of times to improve the Access to Information Act. Unfortunately, the Conservative government at the time thwarted all of his attempts. It was really disappointing.

We have nothing against the government's much-vaunted proactive disclosure. It is good in principle. However, proactive disclosure is not the same thing as the Access to Information Act. Obviously, if we already had more proactive disclosure, we would not have to submit so many access to information requests. However, the fact remains that the government could still, at any time and for any reason, decide not to disclose certain information. That is why the Access to Information Act is so important. It needs to be revised and improved. This bill will not do the trick, and that is why we need to fix it.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during their respective campaigns, the Liberal government and the Conservative government before them promised to amend the Access to Information Act, specifically by expanding the act to apply to the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices. After the Conservative government failed to take the necessary steps to modernize the act, the Liberal government is making an attempt with Bill C-58, which seeks to amend the Access to Information Act,1983.

This law is essential because it allows Canadians to apply to federal institutions to get access to information on the government and on government institutions. With Bill C-58, the government's goal is to amend access to information, the Privacy Act and other acts that deal with the same subject.

Canada was a pioneer in access to information. We were one of the first countries to pass legislation about information, in 1983. Today, with this bill, the government is seriously compromising access to information.

The bill has many problems. Many recommendations from the Information Commissioner and from the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics have not been considered.

We are asking that all these recommendations be incorporated into the bill, which currently contains so few as to prompt us to wonder whether the government even read their work. It feels like it was all for naught. What is the point in asking expert organizations to make recommendations if those are not taken into account in the government's bill?

Members of the NDP, including the former member for Winnipeg Centre, tried several times in 2006, 2008, 2011, and 2014, to introduce proper legislation modernizing the Access to Information Act. All those initiatives were rejected even though the former government and the current government claimed to want to amend the act.

The NDP tried very hard to propose concrete amendments to modernize the act and allow people to have better access to information. However, the Conservative government and the current Liberal government both refused to listen.

Except for the fact that the Information Commissioner has the power to order the disclosure of information, which is one of the important points that we have long been calling for, and that the bill provides for a legislative review every five years, the NDP believes the bill is inadequate and does not go far enough. That is why the NDP is totally opposed to the bill at second reading.

Despite its election promises, the government does not really want to be transparent and that is unacceptable. I think it goes without saying that Canadians ought to have the right to review the information that the government does not want to publish. Since it governs at their pleasure, it is accountable to them.

The Liberals do not want to extend the act to the Prime Minister's and ministers' offices. Do they have something to hide? The government must set an example and obey the law. It cannot ask Canadians to obey the law if its own members do not. The government is not above the law, nor is it above Canadians.

Why is the government reneging on its promise? I know that this is not the first time that the government has broken one of its promises. The people have every right to wonder how many other election promises the Liberals will break, how much more backpedalling they will do, as they are doing now. The Liberals are hiding behind this bill and that is not right.

I will remind members what the Prime Minister kept saying during the campaign, which is, “A country's information system is at the very heart of the principle of open government.” “Transparent government is good government.”

The Prime Minister himself seems to be saying that the Liberal government is neither open nor good. He also claimed to want to extend the act to the Prime Minister's Office, to other ministers' offices, and to administrative institutions supporting Parliament and the courts. However, once in power, the government had no qualms about breaking this campaign promise, even though it was so important to Canadians, who have been calling for the modernization of the Access to Information Act for a few years now.

Perhaps the government should reacquaint itself with its election promises to realize that it did exactly the opposite in this bill. Canadians are increasingly interested in the government's actions.

In fact, they made 81% more access to information requests in 2015-16 as compared to five years ago, which is their right. Canadians want to know how their money is being spent and how the government acts by having access to some confidential documents. Canadians must be able to have access to information to avoid all sorts of scandals, such as the sponsorship scandal, in which the government lied to the public by refusing to release the invoices from its suppliers.

Canada currently ranks 49th in terms of right to information legislation. The bill would enable it to move up from 49th to 46th place, but this small gain shows full well that this bill does not go far enough. It is just window dressing.

With this bill, the government is making information less available to people. For example, the bill does away with the government's obligation to publish information about government organization mandates. It even gives officials the right to decline access to information requests that they feel, for whatever reason, are made in bad faith.

The NDP cannot support this bill at second reading for two main reasons. First, despite the election promise, it does not expand the act to cover the Prime Minister's and ministers' offices. Second, it does not reflect crucial recommendations by the Information Commissioner and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics produced a report with 32 recommendations, and the Information Commissioner's report contains 85. The government had plenty to draw on, but it included very few of those recommendations in its bill. The Liberals are so proud of their proactive disclosure idea, but it does not really give people better access to information. The government should also provide criteria for deciding whether a request is overly broad or cannot be processed. Departments will also not be required to publish their org charts, their powers, duties, and functions, or descriptions of all classes of documents they are responsible for.

The bill imposes no specific legal obligation to document cases of failure to comply or appropriate sanctions, which was a key issue for the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. This bill also fails to shorten deadlines for access to information, which are currently much too long at up to 200 days, and to reduce the number of extensions.

For example, in April 2016, The Globe and Mail reported that it took more than a year for the RCMP to provide them with statistics for its series of investigative reports titled Unfounded, which revealed that police dismiss one in five sexual assault claims as baseless. What makes the government think it can take so long to provide citizens with this information? This clearly shows that access to information is vital and that it can bring to light certain things that organizations and citizens need to know about.

Naturally, we want the government to extend the act to cover Prime Minister's Office and the offices of other ministers as well, which is a priority for citizens and one of the main changes they have been calling for. We support the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics and the Information Commissioner. We need to modernize the Access to Information Act, but we cannot allow the government to take an authoritarian approach and do away with some of the rights currently provided under the act in its present form.

Canadians do not want their rights taken away. They are simply asking for the act to be modernized, because it is now out of date. Canada was seen as a pioneer in the area of access to information. With this bill, the government is trying to take rights away from people rather than to give them more, as it promised during the election campaign. Canadians deserve answers from the government. It must explain to us all why it has decided to limit access to information from the Prime Minister's Office and the offices of the other ministers and, in its bill, to remove some rights that were, in fact, in the act.

The government must explain to us all why it is not keeping one of its main campaign promises. It is the government's duty to provide explanations to the Canadians who are demanding answers.

In conclusion, access to information is the basis of democracy. Sadly, the government is trying to obstruct democracy with this bill, even though it promised to expand the legislation for Canadians. There was never any question of a bill of this kind during their campaign.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-58 for the first time.

Let us look back at how we got to where we are today. When the Liberals were campaigning in 2015, I believe it was on the tenth day that the member for Papineau, now the Prime Minister, stood before Canadians and said that a government under him would be the most open and transparent in Canadian history. Man, how far we have fallen from those comments. Canadians probably had some hope at that point, but shortly thereafter it was a case of the government saying, “We were just joking, do not take us seriously on things such as the debt perhaps and other areas.”

Early on we heard things in the opposition and Canadians found out through mechanisms such as access to information and others about things such as pay to play. I will refresh the House's memory that early in the government's mandate, in every mandate letter the Prime Minister directed his ministers to conduct themselves to the full extent of the law and to be able to take the most fine-grained public scrutiny. What we have seen to this point is some ministers operating as if they are above the law, and that includes the Prime Minister as well.

Early last year, the Minister of Justice perhaps forgot whether she was representing her riding at a pay-to-play event where a fee was charged for dinner with a a full house of solicitors and lawyers at a Toronto law firm. The House reminded her of the distinction and asked very cautiously whether she was acting as a member of Parliament for her area or the Minister of Justice at the time. I think we saw a bit of retraction there.

We have a Prime Minister who himself is under multiple investigations by the Ethics Commissioner. One thing that keeps coming up—and I am not going to minimize this—is his vacation with the Aga Khan. I do not judge anybody. We work very hard as members of Parliament and people should be able to take their vacations when they can, but our Prime Minister has probably shown disregard for the rules. The rules do not apply to him in terms of public expenditures and he has refused to this point to answer any questions on the huge cost that has been passed on to Canadians as a result. He has deferred the questions and, some might say, blamed the very public servants whom we trust, the public servants who put on their uniforms every day knowing full well that they are going to encounter danger. When we pick up the phone and dial 911, they come running regardless of any illness or stress they are facing, without exception. Instead of answering the question, our Prime Minister has deferred every question on the cost of his trip to the RCMP, perhaps even blaming them for the exorbitant costs associated with it. That is shameful.

This speaks to where we are today with the Liberals who have continually blamed the government and Parliaments of previous years and have asserted that they are “modernizing” the government and this House. They use that term all the time.

Time and again, Liberal ministers and perhaps the Prime Minister himself have stood with their hands on their hearts and used the words “open and transparent” when talking about about consultations on things such as electoral reform and carbon pricing. They were going from coast to coast to coast to talk to Canadians about, let us get this right, a campaign promise of theirs. They were going to reduce the small business tax. Where did that go? I guess we are probably going to be talking about the liberals' unfair tax plan in a mere 45 minutes. That is another broken promise, and it is not open or transparent at all. It is disappointing.

The Liberals campaigned on real change. The second page of their campaign document read:

Together, we can restore a sense of trust in our democracy. Greater openness and transparency are fundamental to accomplishing this.

Those are great words, but we have not seen action by the Liberals. As a matter of fact, the next paragraph stated:

...our objective is nothing less than making transparency a fundamental principle across the Government of Canada.

Where has that gone? It is gone. Everything they are doing absolutely flies in the face of their campaign promises.

Again, they are talking about modernization of the House, doing things better here and better for Canadians. I am going to bring us back to just before we rose in June, the six or eight weeks when the House leader, a mere 18 months into her tenure as a member of Parliament, tabled a document, a discussion paper. She wanted to have a discussion in the House on how we could make the House better and do things better. I have been a member of Parliament for the same time she has, and while we all have ideas on how we can make things efficient and smooth, I would not be as arrogant to think I can put a paper together, put it out in the media, and suggest that we are going to do things better when this House belongs to Canadians. It does not belong to me or the members who are present. It belongs to those in the gallery and those who elect us to be here and represent Canadians.

What the Liberals have done with Bill C-58 under the guise of being open and transparent is to stop what has brought us here. We have a Prime Minister who is under multiple investigations. We have had patronage appointments, as access to information requests have found out. What they want to do is to stop that. They do not want Canadians to know. They want the power to say what is frivolous and without merit. That is unacceptable.

We are smack in the middle of international Right to Know Week, which runs from September 25 to October 1. There are 10 principles of right to know, which I found on the government website. Number one is that “Access to information is a right of everyone.” Number two is “Access is the rule—secrecy is the exception!” We agree. There are certain things that we do not put into the hands of others. As my hon. colleague mentioned earlier, defence issues are one of them, or things that could tip off those with nefarious ideas.

However, simple everyday common information that the public, and indeed the opposition and those who represent the public, require to do their everyday jobs is fundamental. The things they are talking about in Bill C-58 are inherent principles and rights that the public and opposition already have. This does not need to be done.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today for the first time since we all returned home this summer at the conclusion of an intense session.

I appreciate this opportunity to speak to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

This bill will amend the Access to Information Act of 1984—I mean 1983. I am smiling as I say this. You will understand why in a moment.

The amendments to this act will affect every organization that sends information to federal institutions and every person who tries to obtain information.

Think back to 1983. Does anyone here remember who was in power? Who was the Prime Minister of Canada? No, it was not Mr. Mulroney, it was Mr. Trudeau, Trudeau senior. Trudeau senior was in power, he tabled this act in 1983, and today, his son is going to fix a past mistake. The Liberals passed legislation only to realize that it fell short of Canadians' expectations. That historical tidbit is why I was smiling earlier.

Reforming the Access to Information Act is a good idea. As parliamentarians, it is a good idea for us to open our eyes, to want to improve our systems and our laws. Unfortunately, upon closer inspection, it seems that this bill is once again just smoke and mirrors. That is what we are used to from the Liberal government. The bill has no substance. On the surface it appears to be a wonderful thing, but in reality it is a hollow bill.

This reform does not even fulfill the promise that the Liberals made during the 2015 election campaign. They said that they were going to extend the act so that it applied to the Prime Minister's and minsters' offices.

Here is the proposed wording in Bill C-58:

An Act to extend the present laws of Canada that provide access to information under the control of the Government of Canada and to provide for the proactive publication of certain information.

As parliamentarians, we do a lot of research to be able to provide clear and transparent information. I took the liberty of looking up the meaning of the word “proactive”. According to the dictionary, to be proactive means, “to be enterprising, to take initiative or to act on one's own initiative without waiting to be asked or instructed to do something”. The government is proposing legislation absent any accompanying framework.

I also looked up the word “appearance”. Excuse me, I meant to say “transparency”, but it all relates because what the Liberals are interested in is the appearance of transparency. The dictionary defines “transparency” as, “complete accessibility to information regarding public opinion”. If I am smiling yet again, it is because I was pleasantly surprised to see the example that followed, which was, “demanding transparency regarding political party financing”.

As fate would have it, we are talking about a Liberal bill and the dictionary gives an example that talks about transparency around political financing. I mention this in the House because I hope that the people watching at home will question the transparency of the Liberals' fundraising activities.

Let us recall that the Liberals made a promise about this bill during the election campaign, but they also made a lot of other campaign promises that they have not kept. A lot of people probably do not remember a very popular promise in the Montreal region, that of bringing back Canada Post letter carriers and their routes. The promise was made in 2015 and there has been a technological evolution since. I do not know whether the Liberals have evolved, but we in the Conservative Party have evolved.

Mr. Harper, our prime minister at the time, decided to manage public resources very carefully and to provide the same service to all Canadians. To get themselves elected and to play to the crowds, the Liberals promised that they were going to put the letter carriers back on the job. They are still not there. The Liberals also promised to reduce the tax rate for our businesses. I will come back to that later because, in terms of tax rates for businesses and of respecting SMEs, we are now seeing how this government treats the businesses that create jobs in Canada.

The Liberals also said that they would run a slight deficit of $10 billion and that they would get back to balanced budgets before the next election. They went on to waste a bit of money. I have no problem with investments when there is a plan. The Liberals, however, have no plan and they are making huge expenditures with no control or proper management of the public purse. The parliamentary budget officer, an independent officer of Parliament, cannot see the day when Canada's budget will again be balanced. It is comforting to have the Liberals in power.

The Liberals also said that it would be the last election where the current system would be used to choose the 338 members of Parliament who represent Canadians. The Liberals derided the committee, thanked the minister, and then removed her from her portfolio.

We are now talking about tax reform. Small and medium-sized businesses are the key economic drivers in my riding. We do not have a lot of big public multinationals, and in fact they do not represent the majority of businesses in Canada. They are big businesses, but the lifeblood of our regions and the Canadian economy are our SMEs. The Liberals never mentioned this during their election campaign, and today, they are taking away their incentive to thrive. These businesses have the right to prosper. These business owners, men and women, get up early every day and have to deal with the stress of managing their businesses and ensure that they do thrive. When they are able to thrive, they can provide jobs to our middle class, which we Conservatives stand up for. It is important to support our SMEs instead of stifling them. I received a text message from a business in Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier; I actually talked about it last week.

I will be told that I am biased, so I will quote an article from the wise and respectable newspaper Le Devoir from September 15, 2017, written by Shawn McCarthy, president of the Canadian Committee for World Press Freedom:

The Liberals promised that the ATI law would be amended to apply to the Prime Minister's Office and offices of ministers. [Bill] C-58 does nothing of the sort. It maintains the status quo.

When the [Liberal] government released its long-awaited bill to reform the 34-year-old Access to Information Act on a sunny Friday afternoon before Parliament's summer recess, it gave itself a check mark in the promise-kept column.

[Bill] C-58 represents an improvement over the current system. And the Liberals suggest it as a first step, with promises of more sweeping reforms some time later. But why wait?

Anyone taking the time to review C-58 before Parliament resumes September 18 will find the Liberals come up short on election promises made on Access to Information reform in 2015. As the Centre for Law and Democracy noted in a review of C-58, the proposed legislation “is far more conspicuous for what it fails to do.”

Let's look at those promises, starting with one the bill seems to have delivered—enhanced powers for the Information Commissioner. Bill C-58 gives the commissioner the overdue power to order government departments to disclose information.

The government promised to eliminate all ATI fees except the nominal $5 application fee. That promise was delivered before C-58 was tabled.

The Liberals did not need this bill. I will read another section from the article: “The Liberals promised that the Act would apply to the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and offices of ministers. C-58 does nothing of the sort. It maintains the status quo.”

I could go on, but I will stop there by saying that, although it seems good on the surface, this bill has no substance.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is exactly the point. The mandatory review every five years is about making it better. It is about looking at each piece of legislation as we change as a country and as a society, as technology changes, and as opportunities to make things better come about. The mandatory five-year review speaks exactly to that.

This bill has not been reviewed since it was created in 1983. In 2016, the President of the Treasury Board made a commitment and started along this process. I am very happy to stand here and talk about Bill C-58, because I think it is a step in the right direction. Five years from now, we may be back here having a conversation about how our digital world has changed and how Canadians want us to respond to them, and we will be reacting to that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources. The former information commissioner, Robert Marleau, had this to say about Bill C-58:

There are many, many countries that are much better, and some that are not quite as advanced technologically as we are. We are not the shining light, even after this legislation, and we were in 1983. In 1983 most countries looked to us for innovation and transparency, and we've lost that halo.

This is from a knowledgeable, non-partisan observer. Although Bill C-58 includes some welcome efforts at transparency, it falls far short of what provincial governments, such as B.C. and Alberta, are doing in this country. I would ask the parliamentary secretary if she does not agree that the government should do better.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right about subjectivity. The member's subjectivity is possibly clouding the overarching positive aspect of this bill, and that is the ability of Canadians to access information to which Canadians are entitled.

I will reiterate comments made earlier today about the fact that this is a big change for Canadians. Starting about 12 years ago, for a period of 10 years, Canadians waited six, seven, and eight years to actually get information from the previous government, and then, in fact, it was denied.

Bill C-58 takes a new approach. It is open by default, with the opportunity for all Canadians to access the information they are rightfully entitled to.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the government about our efforts to strengthen our access to information system.

This government recognizes the importance of a robust access to information framework. We promised to deliver a modern and responsible access to information regime, because we are committed to upholding and strengthening the democratic principles of openness and transparency.

We recognize that Canadians cannot meaningfully participate in a democracy without having the information they need. Indeed, we believe that information Canadians paid for belongs to Canadians. They have every right to access it.

Bill C-58, a comprehensive set of amendments to the Access to Information Act, is designed to provide the openness and accountability Canadians expect. It would also bring greater transparency, open the doors for greater public participation in governance, and support the Government of Canada's commitment to evidence-based decision-making.

Canada's access to information legislation has not really changed much since 1983, but our world has changed very much since then. The proliferation of personal technology, such as smart phones, has transformed so many aspects of our lives. We recognize that technology in all forms is altering how citizens interact with their government in powerful ways. This change is happening around the world and right here at home. Technology is empowering citizens to act on their expectations that a government be honest, open, and sincere in its efforts to serve the public interest.

Canadians are demanding greater openness in government. They are calling for greater participation in government decision-making, and they are seeking to make their government more transparent, responsive, and accountable. That is why, in April 2016, the President of the Treasury Board issued an interim directive on the administration of the Access to Information Act. This directive requires federal officials to waive all access to information fees, apart from the $5 application fee. It also requires them to provide to requesters, wherever feasible, information in modern and easy-to-use formats, and it enshrines the principle of open by default. This is an important measure.

Being open by default means maximizing the release of government data and information. As such, the interim directive sends a strong message across federal institutions. It says that government information belongs to the people it serves and therefore should be open by default.

Citizens should not have to make the case for why they deserve information from the government. Instead, our government has said that it will make as much information as it can available, subject to necessary limitations, for reasons we all can understand, such as privacy, confidentiality, and national security. This is fundamental not only to the ability to participate in the democratic process but to hold the government to account.

Today, with Bill C-58, we are going further. The legislation proposes to entrench in law, for current and future governments, an obligation to proactively publish a broad range of information on a predictable schedule and without the need for an access to information request. The amendments would create a new part of the act on proactive publication, taking advantage of digital technologies and building on current best practices. This new part of the act would establish consistent requirements for the proactive release of key information across government.

Let me list a few examples: travel and hospitality expenses for ministers and their staff as well as for senior officials across government; contracts over $10,000, and all contracts for MPs and senators; grants and contributions over $25,000; mandate letters and revised mandate letters; briefing packages for new ministers and deputy ministers; lists of briefing notes for ministers and deputy ministers, including the titles of these notes and their tracking numbers; and the briefing binders used for question period and parliamentary committee appearances. This would allow our citizens a greater understanding of government and demonstrate effective stewardship of public funds.

We are doing this because we know that Canadians want us to pull back the curtain on how government spends and the factors that influence the decisions that affect their lives. Canadians expect to know how and why decisions are made on their behalf.

That is not all the bill would do. No access to information regime is complete without powerful and meaningful oversight. We promised Canadians that we would empower the Information Commissioner to order government information to be released. Bill C-58 would do just that. This bill would change the commissioner's role from that of an ombudsperson to an authority with the legislated ability to order government institutions to release records.

We also recognize that this reform cannot be a one-off initiative. We have been witness to many changes in society since the access to information program was established back in 1983. We need to find ways to ensure that the system continues to grow and change alongside us. We cannot allow our access to information practices to become stagnant. A vibrant and evolving access to information regime will support a strong, open, and transparent democracy.

One way to ensure the continued strength of the access to information regime would be to undertake a review of the Access to Information Act every five years, another important feature in Bill C-58. Legislative reviews would provide an important opportunity for stakeholders to have their say on access rights and would help us ensure that the regime continued to meet their needs.

Let there be no doubt. Open and transparent government is the way forward. If citizens understand why their government takes a particular course of action, if they have been engaged from the beginning, if they have access to the same information government has, they will have more confidence and trust in the outcomes.

Canadians have waited a long time to have their access to information regime modernized to meet their needs in the digital age. I encourage my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-58, thereby giving Canadians the kind of access to information regime they expect and deserve.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I must say, that was a rather surprising speech. The Conservative MP started by criticizing Bill C-58 in its entirety. He then talked about a number of other things that have nothing to do with today's topic. For the first time, the Access to Information Act will be extended to include the Prime Minister's and ministers' offices. This bill gives the Information Commissioner the power to order government information to be released for the first time. We are making substantive amendments that will have the combined effect of reducing delays. There are a number of initiatives in addition to the powers of the Information Commissioner.

Does the member not feel that granting powers to the Information Commissioner is an improvement to our current access to information regime?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill C-58.

The bill amends the 1983 Access to Information Act. Amendments to the act will affect organizations that share information with federal government institutions and people who want to access that information. It comes as no surprise that this Access to Information Act reform does not fulfill the Liberals' election promise to apply the act to ministers' offices and the PMO. That is the time-honoured Liberal way of doing things.

What is new here is that the government is implementing a proactive information disclosure regime. Under the new Access to Information Act, ministers' offices and the PMO will have to proactively publish several types of information.

Ethics and transparency matter to me, so I strongly condemn the fact that the Prime Minister is breaking yet another election promise. In fact, I find it offensive.

The Liberal government calls itself open and transparent, but it has once again missed an opportunity to prove it. It has failed to deliver the amendments it promised with respect to access to information from ministers' offices and the PMO.

Under our very eyes, the Liberals are being dishonest with Canadians and are once more seeking to make their decisions behind closed doors in order to make their friends rich and to hold on to power. This also reminds me of the marijuana legislation scandal last November when it was seriously suspected that the marijuana task force report was leaked before it was tabled. As if by chance, this benefited a company operated by the person responsible for the Liberal Party's finances. Oh, yes, that person is the co-founder of a company that produces marijuana and that saw its shares double in a week, even though the final report had not yet been released. We saw that the Minister of Justice was not too co-operative and did not want to face those facts.

Despite all their fine promises during the election campaign, the Liberals have failed to increase the government's openness and transparency. It is no exaggeration for me to add that, since the Liberals took office, even the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has had a hard time overseeing and enforcing the guidelines in the document entitled ”Open and Accountable Government”, which, let us recall, comes from the Prime Minister himself.

This government is known for not walking the talk because it unscrupulously chooses what information to publish and when not to be accountable to Canadians. Once again, it is scandalous to see that only its cronies get preferential treatment.

How can the actions of such a government be described? It is easy, in fact. It is called the art of giving itself the power to refuse to respond to access to information requests when the government considers them embarrassing or shameful.

There is something to be ashamed of when one thinks of the scandal of the Prime Minister and his family vacationing down south at the Aga Khan's home at the expense of taxpayers. We received the information in dribs and drabs and waited more than eight months before finding out how much that luxury of the Prime Minister really cost us.

It is absolutely appalling that the changes proposed by the Liberals will ensure that even less information will be available to Canadians, and that they are obviously doing nothing to address the already unacceptable delays.

Monitoring this government is becoming virtually a full-time job because ethics is a value that it undeniably lacks.

I think the Liberals like to test limits. Not only did they give themselves the power to sidestep their duty to be transparent for Canadians, we know that they like to walk a fine line between conflict of interest and the appearance of conflict of interest, which is unacceptable for our Canadian democracy.

Last December, I had to raise this issue in an adjournment debate seeking to ensure that no preferential access or appearance of preferential access would be granted to individuals or organizations that have contributed to the Liberal Party at the many events where a parade of cabinet ministers have all the time in the world for their special friends who pay for preferential access.

I would like to remind members of the injustice, unethical behaviour, and lack of transparency.

It all began with the relocation costs of two employees and friends who work in the Prime Minister's Office. Their move cost Canadian taxpayers $200,000. Then we happened to get wind of a number of cocktail parties that cost $1,500 to get into, but guests could eat canapés, drink some good wine, and while they were at it, as I just mentioned, have privileged access to ministers and friends of the party in order to talk secretly about matters and issues that have to do with the portfolios of those ministers.

We also learned about the donation from a wealthy Chinese businessman, which made Canada a place where not only are ministers for sale or rent, but so is the Prime Minister. In exchange for a huge donation, he just might be able to get a foothold in our Canadian economy in any way he chooses.

Then there is the scandal involving the Minister of Justice, who turned blue in the face denying leaks from the task force on marijuana. Not only is the Liberal government and its Prime Minister irresponsible, but they are undermining our democracy in every sense of the word.

Once more, the Prime Minister thinks he is above the law and the obligation to be transparent. In our view, the Liberals are being dishonest with Canadians and are again trying to make decisions behind closed doors to make their friends rich and hold on to power.

We see that they have always favoured those who have the means to pay for the luxury of special treatment in true Liberal style.

Since the Liberals are unlikely to vote to put an end to this ethics and transparency scandal and to have the Prime Minister and the ministers take their duties seriously and with transparency, I would like to know what the government plans to do to put an end to this old Liberal practice.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have taken the appropriate steps. The methodology we have used to come to a conclusion on the proposal in Bill C-58 is the best way to move forward on this. We did it in a transparent way. We were able to talk to Canadians about this. I had discussions in my own riding about the best path forward.

This is something all Canadians can get behind. It is easy to understand. I think Canadians understand that this would allow them to have more efficient, transparent, and easily accessible contact with their government so they can better understand the actions we take as their government.

I look at this bill as one that will positively impact not just the current government but future generations of governments to come. As well, it will positively impact Canadians. They will now have a better, more transparent, and more accessible government.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a sincere question, and I very much appreciate all of the member's questions.

She is 100% right that the system is broken. The system is not working the way it should. I am confident in the steps we are taking right now to make the system work better, not only for members of the House but for all Canadians. Concrete measures are included in Bill C-58 that would ensure Canadians have greater access to their government and that future governments, not just the current government, are more transparent.

What is also great is that in five years, which is a component of the bill, we will see how things are going, if the changes we have put in place are having a positive impact, and if there are other ways we could perhaps make the system even better. It will be revised in five years. Hopefully we will all be here at that time to look at what has been done and see how we can make it even better. One of the positive aspects of Bill C-58 is that it would give us the capacity to do that in five years.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

This is not just talk. In the speech I just gave, I mentioned some practical measures that will be taken to ensure that our government becomes increasingly transparent and accessible. We have been waiting for real changes like the ones set out in Bill C-58 since 1983, and I am proud to be part of a government that keeps its promises, a government that is more transparent and more accessible to people across the country.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the government to speak to our efforts to strengthen our access to information regime.

Our government recognizes the importance of a solid framework for access to information. We promised to provide a modern access to information regime because we are determined to preserve and strengthen the democratic principles of openness and transparency. We recognize that Canadians cannot meaningfully participate in democracy without having the information they need. In fact, we believe that the information that Canadians have paid for belongs to them. They absolutely have the right to have access to it.

Bill C-58, a detailed set of amendments to the Access to Information Act, was designed to give Canadians the openness and accountability they expect. Furthermore, it will enhance transparency, foster greater public participation in governance, and support the Government of Canada's commitment to evidence-based decision-making.

Canada's access to information legislation has not changed a great deal since 1983, but our world has changed a great deal since then. The proliferation of personal technology like smart phones has transformed many aspects of our lives. We recognize that technology in all its forms is changing how citizens interact with their government in powerful ways. This change is happening around the world and and certainly here in Canada.

Technology is empowering citizens to act on their expectations that a government be honest, open, and sincere in its efforts to serve the public interest. Canadians are demanding greater openness from their government. They are calling for greater participation in the government's decision-making process. They are seeking to make their government more transparent, more accountable, and more responsive to its citizens. That is why, in 2016, the President of the Treasury Board issued the interim directive on the administration of the Access to Information Act. Under this directive, federal employees are required to waive all access to information fees, apart from the $5 application fee.

Wherever possible, they are also required to provide the information to requesters in formats that are modern and easy to use. This directive enshrines the principle of openness by default. Make no mistake, this is a crucial measure. Being open by default means optimizing the release of government data and information. The interim directive sends a clear message to all federal institutions. Citizens should not have to explain why they need information in the government's possession. On the contrary, our government said that it intends to publish as much information as possible, subject to certain necessary restrictions that we can all understand, such as protection of personal information, confidentiality, and national security.

Here are some examples of information that will be proactively disclosed: travel and hospitality expenses for ministers and their staff, as well as senior officials across government; contracts over $10,000 and all contracts for MPs and senators; grants and contributions over $25,000; mandate letters and revised mandate letters; briefing packages for new ministers and deputy ministers; lists of briefing notes for the minister or deputy minister, including the titles of these notes and their tracking numbers; and, of course, the briefing binders used for question period.

This is fundamental not only to the ability to participate in the democratic process, but also to hold the government to account. Today, with Bill C-58, we are going further. The legislation proposes to entrench in law for current and future governments an obligation to proactively publish a broad range of information to a predictable schedule and without the need for an access to information request.

One way to ensure the continued strength of the access to information regime is to undertake a review of the Access to Information Act every five years, another important feature in Bill C-58. Legislative reviews provide an important opportunity for stakeholders to have their say on access rights, and help us ensure that the regime continues to meet their needs.

In conclusion, open and transparent government is the way forward. Canadians have waited a long time to have their access to information regime modernized to meet their needs in the digital age. I encourage my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-58, thereby giving Canadians the kind of access to information regime they expect.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend speaks to the matters of information in Bill C-58, the considerations included and not included, with the authority of his personal history. Yes, that is exactly the suggestion that has been made, not only by my hon. friend but by experts across the country that, in fact, the appeal process should be directly to the Information Commissioner who, with the authority of the position, would make a decision one way or the other.

It is true that the statistics do not show great continuing volume of frivolous and vexatious questions. However, I can say that there are times, as in our previous government, when certain interest groups will deluge certain ministries with what can only be considered frivolous and vexatious requests.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, two years of Liberal government should put in the past the schoolyard practices of pointing elsewhere when criticism is presented to the litany of broken promises that it is accumulating.

With regard to frivolous and vexatious questions, I agree that there is often occasion for a good number of such frivolous and vexatious requests for information. I found that in my time in government as a minister. It does represent a continuing problem. The various information authorities across the country have pointed out that in fact Bill C-58 does not have that defined right of appeal to the Information Commissioner. The appeal is not formally implanted in this legislation, and it appears that the word of the minister or the individual department will be considered as final. I am sure this will be brought up in review at the one-year point, although I hope that in committee an amendment will be made to provide for a formalized authority for appeals directly.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will begin by reminding colleagues in the House and all of those watching at home that the hallmark of the Liberal government is broken promises.

To the litany of broken Liberal promises on tax cuts and government spending, electoral reform, revenue-neutral carbon pricing, indigenous matters, restoration of home mail delivery, United Nations peacekeeping, and on open and transparent government, to all of those broken promises we now add the broken Liberal promise on reform to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

Bill C-58 is a hefty document. It is 53 pages of amendments to the existing act, definition sections and subsections, terminological changes, and designated duties and exceptions. The President of the Treasury Board tabled a truly weighty bundle of bureaucratese, but it is as light as a feather in terms of undelivered promised content.

To be fair—we in the official opposition do not abuse the meaning of this word, as the Liberals so blatantly do when they recite their speaking points about tax fairness—Bill C-58 does give the Information Commissioner the power to order government departments to release information, but it prevents the commissioner from looking at documents if the government claims they contain cabinet confidences. That represents, in the view of all the experts, the deepest black hole in the ATI system.

When the ethics committee completed its study of this issue last year, chaired by the Conservative member for Red Deer—Lacombe, it made a number of unanimous recommendations in line with recommendations suggested by the Information Commissioner. The ethics committee—Liberal, Conservative, and NDP members—unanimously recommended that legitimate cabinet confidence should be protected. However, at the same time the committee said that much content that is too often shielded on cabinet confidence justifications should be accessible.

Recommendation 23 says:

That the mandatory exemption for Cabinet confidences would not apply to: purely factual or background information; information in a record of decision made by Cabinet or any of its committees on an appeal under an act; where consent is obtained to disclose the information; and information in a record that has been in existence for an appropriate period of time as determined by the government and that this period of time be less than the current 20 years.

All of that advice is ignored in this Liberal bill.

Bill C-58 also falls short on another important recommendation made by the ethics committee, and that involves the matter of a general public interest override. The committee's recommendation stated:

That in the first phase of the reform of the Access to Information Act, the Act be amended to include a general public interest override, applicable to all non-mandatory exemptions, with a requirement to consider the following, non-exhaustive list of factors: Open Government objectives; environmental, health or public safety implications; whether the information reveals human rights abuses or would safeguard the right to life, liberty or security of the person.

That recommendation is also ignored by the Liberals and is not included in Bill C-58.

The Liberals are making much of proactive disclosure provisions in the Access to Information Act provisions. These provisions will require the Senate, the House of Commons, parliamentary entities, ministers' offices, including the PMO, government institutions, and institutions that support superior courts to proactively disclose specific categories of information, such as mandate letters, travel expenses, contracts, documentation on the training of new ministers—and there has perhaps been a deficit in that area with the government—development notes for question period, and boilerplate backgrounders for appearances before parliamentary committees.

That is actually misleading, the so-called opening of ministerial offices to the Access to Information Act.

We remember that the Liberal campaign promise was to ensure that access to information applies to the Prime Minister's Office and the ministers' offices as well as administrative institutions that support Parliament and its courts. The proactive disclosure provisions in Bill C-58 do not come anywhere close to fulfilling that promise.

The BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association has dismissed the so-called proactive provisions as a bizarre sleight of hand, which seems intended to give the false impression of an election promise kept. Compounding the broken promise are the conditions to refuse requests when it comes to requests for information that the Liberals themselves may rule are frivolous or vexatious. Many jurisdictions have provisions to prevent frivolous or vexatious abuses of access to information laws, but that power resides with the Information Commission, not with a minister or department that is the subject of that request.

Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch offered a measured, if critical, assessment of Bill C-58 in saying that the bill proposes good amendments, by requiring a more proactive publication of some information, by giving the Information Commissioner the power to order the publication of some information, but it “does nothing” to fill the huge gaps in the act, as promised by the Liberals.

Stéphane Giroux, president of la Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, offered the federation's assessment of Bill C-58 with droll irony. He said that the most interesting fact for them was to have access to ministers' office documents. However, he concludes it was a false alarm, too good to be true.

A former information commissioner, Robert Marleau, lamented the fact that under Bill C-58, there is no one in government departments to review what they choose not to publish. He said this is contrary to the principle of the act. It puts the commissioner completely out of the loop. If people requested briefing notes previously and parts had been blacked out, they had someone to appeal to. This would be no longer the case, and they cannot even ask in court. Monsieur Marleau concluded, “It is one step forward, two steps back”.

Members will be forgiven if they have lost track of the number of Liberal promises broken, not across the entire Liberal policy spectrum but here in Bill C-58 alone. They may have noticed recently that the Liberals are somewhat sensitive to discussion of the emptiness of their virtue signalling in policy pronouncements. I am sure that this is a phrase that was coined only in the past few years, but it could well have been custom designed for the current Liberal government. Virtue signalling has become a shorthand characterization for the spouting of superficial, platitudinous, supposedly high-minded, morally correct commitments with little intention of fulfilling or living up to these commitments. I am sure members will agree that characterization applies almost top to bottom with the Liberals' 2015 campaign promises. Much was promised, as I detailed in my opening remarks, with regard to tax cuts and government spending, electoral reform, revenue-neutral carbon pricing, indigenous matters, restoration of home mail delivery, United Nations peacekeeping, and open and transparent government; but precious little has been delivered. There have been so many promises blithely broken.

Bill C-58 is a perfect example of virtue signalling in the promises of great reform, transparency, and openness in Canadians' access to information. The reality is, as has been said so often in this debate on Bill C-58, one step forward and several steps back.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Provencher explained it so well in his comment.

Indeed, it is unbelievable to say one thing and to do the complete opposite, and yet, that is exactly what my colleagues on the other side of the House have been doing since the start of the debate. They probably did not have access to the right briefing book because I think even the backbenchers on the government side do not have access to the briefing book that gives real examples of the effects of the changes proposed in Bill C-58.

Perhaps it is vexatious for cabinet members not to give information to members of the Liberal caucus.

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

Madam Speaker, I can tell the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot that I hear a lot of things about tax reform from constituents in her riding.

She is from an agricultural riding, and she knows very well all the impacts this reform will have on the farmers in her riding. Sadly, as it stands, Bill C-58 will not get us all the answers from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that would allow my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to respond to her constituents.

That is the problem right there. They make promises, they crow, they use big words like “proactive disclosure”. That may have a nice ring to it, but “proactive” means that they can decide what information to give. When we want information, it is called vexatious. It is true that it may be vexing for a government to have to respond to opposition requests for information, but these requests for information come to us from Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in turn to talk about this important bill that was supposed to be the centrepiece of the Liberals' election platform in 2015. Since the start of the debate, all kinds of things have been said about Bill C-58 that do not necessarily reflect reality. I feel that it would be in the interests of my Liberal colleagues to properly inform themselves about the content of the bill before them.

For example, we have just heard about the appeal process for requests for access to documents from ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office. Unfortunately, with regards to certain kinds of information, people will no longer be able to appeal to the Information Commissioner. There is a little problem there, I feel.

It has also been mentioned, on a number of occasions, that the bill would give Canadians better access to information from ministers' offices. However, the ministers retain an enormous amount of power in determining what can and cannot be disclosed. It is already a little vexatious to say that ministers' offices do not want to waste their time replying to all kinds of information requests from Canadians. It is absolutely unbelievable to hear such things in this place. We are being told that Canadians ask too many questions and so decisions have to be made as to which requests are going to be processed and which are not. That is more or less what I am hearing from my colleague, and I must say I am a little surprised.

We have to take the time to study Bill C-58 properly. At the outset, it was supposed to be key among the Liberal Party's election commitments. Let me remind them of that commitment; it appeared in the chapter entitled, “Open and Transparent Government”:

We will ensure that Access to Information applies to the Prime Minister’s and Ministers’ Offices, as well as administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts.

It is the promise that got the Liberals elected. It is not the first time that the Liberals have done this. It is not the first time that we have been told that something is going to happen during this government's term and that promises have not been kept. This is one example.

We all remember the promise to run small $10-billion deficits, supposedly in order to invest in Canadian infrastructure and stimulate the economy. We were told that we had to take advantage of low interest rates in order to invest. Two years later, the result is that $25 billion, not $10 billion, has been invested in infrastructure. Moreover, we are still waiting for a number of infrastructure announcements because it would seem that the money ended up having gone to various government programs, instead. In other words, they have been feeding the beast rather than investing in regional infrastructure, which would have stimulated the economy.

The Liberals are just riding this wave of economic recovery that has been sweeping over North America and that started under the previous government. That government knew how to manage the public purse in a reasonable manner, and the Liberals look good today as a result. However, it will not be the case in two years, ten years, or any number of years, when our children and grandchildren will have to pay off this huge deficit that the Liberals are going to leave us with. That is another unkept promise.

In addition, the promise to cut corporate taxes had been clearly set out in the Liberal platform, but we no longer hear about it. Then, there is the promise of electoral reform, one that the Prime Minister personally committed to fulfilling. I remember attending the throne speech for the first time as an MP, over in the Senate, and hearing words written by the Prime Minister's Office saying that the election that had just taken place would be the last to use the voting system that we have always known.

When the Liberals realized that fulfilling that promise would mean shooting themselves in the foot, and that it would hurt them more than the opposition parties, they backed off. This means that the Liberals were elected under false pretences. Promises made to Canadians must be kept. That is what Canadians voted for.

Unfortunately, we have yet another example today with Bill C-58. The Liberals were elected on false promises of transparency and openness. We actually see that Bill C-58 will instead better protect information from ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office.

Let us look at a concrete example of the type of information that the government may want to protect. We now have before us, in the House, a tax reform proposal that will affect each and every Canadian, small and medium-sized business, and farmer in Canada. They will all face tax increases, because the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, who chose to protect themselves from those changes, have not, or may not have, studied the effects of the changes on farmers and small businesses. Perhaps they did not want to.

I have no way of knowing if they considered the impact. My sense is that they did not because, logically, nobody would do things like that without taking a close look at the impact. My point is that we will never know because Bill C-58 will not make the briefing notes from ministers' offices and the PMO available to us. We will not have access to them, so we will never know what the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said to the Minister of Finance when the latter made up his mind to propose a tax reform last June.

Was the Minister of Finance made aware of the impact of his tax reform on agriculture? Did the Minister of Finance ask his Agriculture and Agri-Food colleague how his proposed changes would affect farm families across Canada?

Unfortunately, I do not know the answer to that because I do not have access to the Minister of Finance's briefing book. If I wanted, I could try getting access to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food's briefing book. I could ask him if he was consulted and if he commented on capital gains taxation for farmers' family members or if he offered up any proposals about taxation of dividends paid to family members and passive income.

Did the Minister of Agriculture himself consult? Will his briefing book reflect that, following the process, he attempted to influence the Minister of Finance's decision by pointing out to him the repercussions that these changes would have? What did the Minister of Finance take away from the consultations that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food may have had?

We are speaking in “maybes” and “ifs”. We are living in anticipation. For the past two weeks, all of my colleagues and I have been getting letters every day from our constituents, farmers, agricultural associations, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec. They are calling on us to ask the government why it would target them in such a way, and that is what we are doing. We have been asking the question every day for a week. We asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food a question in writing so that he may provide us with more information. He could decide not to give us that information under Bill C-58. That is the problem with Bill C-58.

Do the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister have any reason not to provide that information? The information belongs to them, but they got elected on a promise to provide information. That is the problem. The Liberals asked Canadians to trust them and promised to give Canadians information. At the first opportunity to show Canadians that the government is open and transparent, it is being closed and opaque.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today to speak to this bill, a comprehensive set of amendments to the Access to Information Act.

It is always with great pleasure that I rise in the House on behalf of the constituents of Saint-Boniface—Saint-Vital to discuss important amendments to the Access to Information Act.

Bill C-58 would enact a number of the reforms called for on numerous occasions since the act first came into place some 34 years ago. I think we can all agree that the current act is out of touch with the expectations of our citizens in today's digital age. This is hardly surprising when we consider that the act has not been updated significantly since it received royal assent in 1983. That was a time when most government records were on paper. Today, the vast majority of government records are digital, and Canadians increasingly expect to be able to find information online instead of having to request it.

To appreciate the groundbreaking nature of Bill C-58's reforms, it is worth looking at recommendations that have been made over the years to improve the act. In 1987, 30 years ago, the first review of the act by a parliamentary committee identified inconsistencies in its administration across government and recommended clearer Treasury Board policy direction. The committee also made two noteworthy recommendations: first, that the act be extended to ministers' offices, administrative institutions supporting Parliament and the courts, and crown corporations; and second, that the Information Commissioner be granted order-making powers for the disclosure of records. In the end, the government adopted some administrative proposals, but neither of these two key recommendations. The bill before us today would finally put these two reforms into law, some three decades after they were first proposed.

In 1990, the Information Commissioner, academics, and parliamentarians requested additional improvements. Let me highlight two of interest. First, there was a recommendation to extend the act to all government bodies, and second was a recommendation to grant the Information Commissioner order-making powers for the disclosure of records. Neither of these recommendations was implemented. Instead, over the next decade the government made several targeted amendments to the act. For example, in 1992, it enabled requesters with sensory disabilities to obtain records in alternative formats. In 1999, the act was amended to make it a criminal offence to intentionally deny a right of access under the act by destroying, altering, hiding, or falsifying a record, or directing someone else to do so.

In 2001, it added more national security protections. Around that same time, the access to information review task force commissioned numerous research papers and consulted Canadians, civil society groups, and experts across Canada. The task force's 2002 report, “Access to information: making it work for Canadians”, made 140 recommendations for improving access to information at the federal level. These included extending the act to the House of Commons, Parliament, and the Senate; establishing broader access to government records, including those in ministers' offices and those produced for government by contractors; permitting institutions to not process frivolous and vexatious requests; granting the Information Commissioner order-making powers; providing more training and resources to federal institutions; and strengthening performance reporting. While these proposals were not acted upon at that time, I am pleased to report that the bill before us today addresses many of these important recommendations. I will highlight a few in just a moment.

Returning to the history of reform of the act, in 2006 the Federal Accountability Act expanded coverage of the Access to Information Act to officers of Parliament, crown corporations, and institutions created under federal statutes. This increased the number of institutions to which the act applied to about 240. The 2006 amendments also established a duty to assist, meaning an obligation on institutions to make every reasonable effort to assist requesters and to provide a timely and complete response to a request.

Finally, in 2009, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics undertook a review of the act. The committee consulted with civil society, media, and legal organizations, as well as provincial information and privacy commissioners. Its report made a number of suggestions, including granting the Information Commissioner the power to order institutions to search, retrieve, and reproduce records; granting the Information Commissioner a public education mandate; requiring a review of the act every five years; and extending the act to cover the general administration of Parliament and the courts. Once again, regrettably, these recommendations were not implemented at that time.

The bill before us today takes on the challenge of addressing issues that governments have been avoiding for over 30 years, and while there is legitimate debate about ensuring that we get these changes right, our government has the conviction to welcome debate and to listen.

Our bill would break new ground by giving the Information Commissioner the power to order government information to be released. That is very significant. For the first, the act would also include ministers' offices, the Prime Minister's Office, officers of Parliament, and institutions that support the courts, all through a legislated system of proactive publication.

At the same time as we are breaking new ground by providing the Information Commissioner the power to order that government information be released, and legislating a system of proactive publication across government, we are also developing a new plain-language guide that would provide requesters with clear explanations of exemptions and exclusions. We are investing in tools to make processing information requests more efficient, allowing federal institutions that have the same minister to share their request processing services for greater efficiency, and supporting the new legislation with training across government to get common and consistent application of the changes we are introducing.

Another important change would give government institutions the ability to decline to act on overly broad or bad-faith requests that simply gum up the system. This would be subject to the oversight of the Information Commissioner. If a department decides to decline to act on a request, the requester would have the right to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner, and the commissioner could use the new order-making power to resolve the issue. Finally, Bill C-58 would entrench a requirement that the Access to Information Act be reviewed every five years.

This is the first government to bring forward legislation to enact the important improvements that have been proposed at one time or another over the last 30 years. That is because we believe that access to information is an important pillar of a democratic system of government. It allows citizens to request records about the decisions, operations, administration, and performance of government, subject, of course, to legitimate and very rare exceptions. In short, it allows Canadians to know and understand what their government is doing, and when people have timely access to relevant information, they are better able to participate in the democratic process.

I am proud to be part of a government that has the courage to act on these principles, and I encourage my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, a bill that would dramatically improve the Access to Information Act and thus strengthen our democracy.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for taking the time to point out that there are a number of very important steps forward in terms of this legislation we are debating, Bill C-58. She is aware that this bill will go to a committee, where concerns she is expressing around powers of the Information Commissioner or issues around who defines vexatious applications will absolutely be discussed and ideas brought forward. Our government does have a record of entertaining and accepting amendments at committees.

I appreciate the balanced nature of her comments, but I take issue with her comments around proactive disclosure, for the reason that currently there is no requirement to proactively disclose briefing documents and the kinds of things we will be regulating here. As a result, if there was anything awkward, it could be pulled off the disclosure list. In fact, we know that the previous government exercised political interference, even with accepted applications that the department had fulfilled. It balked them.

To me, proactive disclosure means that people have to disclose those things. They can be counted on to do it, whether they are awkward or inconvenient or not. It is a big step forward.

Yes, things—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-58, the long-awaited amendments to the Access to Information and the Privacy Act.

As we have heard from many Liberal members, this is the first time the act has been substantially amended since its initial debut. As has been said by many of us in the environmental law community, Canada does not so much have freedom of information legislation as it has freedom from information legislation.

We had hoped for far more openness, given the promise that was in the Liberal platform. I will just repeat it as a way of context-setting for my presentation:

We will ensure that Access to Information applies to the Prime Minister’s and Ministers’ Offices, as well as administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts.

To give Liberals their due, let me cover some of the things that I think represent improvements in openness under the new government, and then focus more substantively on the failures and gaps in this legislation.

We do have, on the Treasury Board website, the heralding of access to information that is open by default. I think that is a stretch, but it certainly is a positive step. I want to emphasize that.

This Prime Minister is the first that I know of in our history to have made the mandate letters to ministers public letters. That has already had an impact on other governments. When Premier John Horgan became premier in my home province of British Columbia recently and formed his cabinet, the mandate letters became public. I think that is the first time that has happened at a provincial level, but once it happens federally and once the Prime Minister does it, it was “Where are the mandate letters?”

I am pleased to see in this legislation that mandate letters of a Prime Minister to members of his or her cabinet will, going forward, be legislated requirements for openness. That is a very good thing. It is a good thing to know that briefing packages of ministers will be proactively revealed, that question period binders will be made public, as well as hospitality expenses, contracts over $10,000, and so on. Those will be proactively disclosed, including expenses from ministers' offices and senators.

There will be a lot more transparency around things that I am going to describe as routine, expenses that are predictable, contracts that are large, and briefing documents that are predictable. It is also important to note that this will apply to other agencies and institutions within the Government of Canada.

Unfortunately, this is not what was promised. What was promised was that access to information legislation would apply to a Prime Minister's Office and to a ministerial office so that, for instance, when an issue arose, a member of the public or the media could ask how that happened and do an access request. That will not be permitted under this legislation. We will not see the opportunity that we thought was going to transpire in this legislation.

Certainly lots of knowledgeable members of what might be called the architecture of privacy and information in this country made recommendations. For instance, Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault recommended that it be up to access to information officials and officers to determine whether emails and memos in and out of the PMO or a minister's office were political or parliamentary in nature, in which case it would be recommended they remain confidential, or would pertain to running a department, in which case they would be accessible through access to information. That recommendation has not made it into this legislation. Perhaps the Liberals are open to seeing amendments to Bill C-58 that would allow the legislation to meet the earlier promise.

I am going to quote from an article by Stephen Maher at iPolitics. He is certainly one of Canada's leading investigative journalists. He certainly has a lot of experience with access to information. He used it very effectively to investigate the robocall scandal, among other things. What he wrote was:

The proactive disclosure of some ministerial documents may be a step backward, because the decisions about what to release and what to redact will not be reviewable by the information commissioner.

In a sense, what looks like a step forward is actually a step backward. Was it an unintentional step backward? We will have to find out at committee how open the Liberals are to amendments on this bill.

One of the things I found very concerning is found at proposed section 6.1, which is that the head of a government institution can, on his or her own initiative, decide to ignore an access to information request for a number of reasons.

Many of those reasons are reasonable. If the request does not meet the requirements set out in the act, for instance, or if the person has already been given access to the record and may access the record by other means, or if the request is for a large number of records and necessitates such a large search that it would unreasonably interfere with the operations of government, it would be reasonable to refuse the request.

However, this one is outrageous: proposed subsection 6.1(1)(d) states that the head of a government institution may on his or her own initiative, and not reviewably, refuse to accept an access to information request if “the request is vexatious”. That is a subjective term. If an institution decides that someone's interest in, for instance, toxic chemicals in their watershed is something the department does not want to share with the public, the institution just has to say it is a vexatious request.

“Vexatious” is far too subjective and far too restrictive a term to be allowed in government legislation. It certainly is a shock to find it in legislation that is supposed to take us to the promise of open and accessible government.

In other areas, those who are knowledgeable are saying that this legislation is not as good as what other provincial governments have already accepted in terms of openness. The information commissioners in the Government of British Columbia and the Government of Alberta have more robust powers than the federal Information Commissioner will have even after this legislation is passed. That is a surprise, because from the Liberal promises during the election campaign, I would have thought that this new access to information legislation would set a new high-water mark to which other jurisdictions could aspire. Unfortunately, the government has fallen short of existing powers that provincial governments already have for their information commissioners.

I am again going to quote someone who is an expert in this area. Vincent Gogolek, who is the executive director of the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, said, “That’s what we have here in British Columbia, and responsible government hasn’t collapsed here.” The Government of British Columbia has been living with a far more robust freedom of information regime, which has not been extended into our federal law with respect to the access to information that we certainly expected to come forward from the government.

How much of this is reviewable by information commissioners? That is an important point. There have been discussions, admittedly, in committee, and recommendations were made that there needs to be some screen to deal with requests that might be seen as vexatious. However, the screen was not supposed to be a subjective unilateral decision by the head of the agency in whose control the information resides. The decision as to whether the information is releasable or not needs to reside with the Information Commissioner or members of that agency. It is up to those officials to decide whether it is vexatious or not.

That failure in this legislation is substantial. I sincerely hope that when the bill gets to committee, the Liberals will be open to amendments. If this legislation stays as it is, there is no question that it will be considered a broken promise, because as much as there have been steps toward greater openness compared to the previous administration, this legislation falls far short of the Liberals' election promises and compares unfavourably to regimes already found in other provinces.

The model here is a weak model that can be found in other provinces. We find it in Newfoundland and Labrador. We do not find it in British Columbia and Alberta. Exemptions throughout the bill are far too broad. Access to cabinet documents is certainly not something we will see. There are questions as to who would redact information and whether the redactions are acceptable. These will also fall to the agency itself and not, as I understand it, be reviewable by the Information Commissioner.

There have been a lot of concerns on the opposition benches. I wanted to give balance in my presentation today because it occurred to me that in the debate on Bill C-58, the Canadian public watching this debate might be baffled by the assertions being made by Liberal members that this legislation does apply to ministers' offices and to the PMO, while those on the opposition benches think it would not.

Proactive disclosure of some things, like briefing documents, spending, contracts, and so on, is a good thing, but here is the rub: giving that control solely to the agency itself and not allowing it to be reviewable may actually be a step backward, in that it would increase the discretion of those who control information to deny information.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-58 and the proposed amendments to Canada's Access to Information Act.

To begin, it is important to note that we have thoroughly consulted many individuals to get where we are today, including Canadians at large, parliamentarians, the Information Commissioner, and the Privacy Commissioner as well.

Our government is guided by the principle that government information belongs to the people. The Access to Information Act, which received royal assent in 1983, enshrined in law the fact that citizens, both as individuals and as corporations in Canada, have the right to see government information.

This is especially important, as it enables Canadians to participate meaningfully in the democratic process.

Providing access to government information makes the government more responsible, because it gives Canadians the information they need to ask informed questions. The legislative updates we are proposing reinforce this original objective and take into account Canadians' expectations with respect to technology, openness, and the availability of information in today's digital age.

The rise of the Internet since 1983 puts information at the fingertips of most Canadians. People who care about how our government provides services to Canadians are keenly seeking that information. Canadians' information expectations of their government have necessarily changed: faster, easier, better, and more open is what citizens are demanding of us.

Since the act came into effect in 1983, more than 750,000 access to information requests have been processed, and the number of requests received has grown by 13% annually. For instance, more than 65,000 requests were received in 2015-16.

Self-identification by requesters suggests that 41% of these requests came from business and 35% from the public. Members may be surprised to hear that only nine per cent of the self-identified requests for that year came from the media. Five per cent came from organizations and four per cent came from academia. The source of the remaining six per cent is unknown.

We recognize that although the access to information system is not perfect, overall, it has had a positive impact on government transparency and accountability. Nevertheless, we have an obligation to protect certain information.

This includes personal information, information about international affairs and defence, and cabinet confidences. Our democratic traditions provide for and protect a safe place for ministers to candidly debate and discuss policy choices, and will continue to do so. Unsurprisingly, the cost of administering the act has gone up, with federal institutions spending more than $64 million to cover direct costs in 2015-16 alone.

Those costs have gone up by an average of about 8% per year. Those figures do not include costs associated with the research and document review done by employees who handle the material in question. The process can take a long time. It all adds up, but living in an open and democratic society makes it worthwhile. In general, the system has served Canadians well.

However, we are committed to modernizing the act to make even more progress toward open and transparent government. In May 2016, we issued an interim directive that entrenched the principle of open by default.

That is our guiding principle for making government information available to Canadians because we want to make sure they can consult their government about policies, programs, and services.

The interim directive also eliminated all fees except the $5 filing fee and instructed officials to release information in more user-friendly formats whenever possible.

The Government of Canada would continue to collect only the small five-dollar filing fee for each access to information request and would not charge processing fees.

The amendments we are proposing in Bill C-58 will enhance Canadians' access to government information.

For example, this measure will legally require the government to proactively publish a broad range of information on a predictable schedule without the need for ATIP requests.

It would apply to more than 240 government departments, agencies, and crown corporations, departments and agencies that we all know well, as well as the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices; senators and members of Parliament; institutions that support Parliament; administrative institutions that support the courts, and over 1,100 judges of the Superior Courts. We would also be putting into law the proactive publication of travel and hospitality expenses of ministers and their staff, as well as of senior officials across government; contracts over $10,000 and all contracts for MPs and senators; grants and contributions over $25,000; mandate letters and revised mandate letters; briefing packages for new ministers and deputy ministers; lists of briefing notes for the minister or deputy minister, including the titles of these notes and their tracking numbers; and the briefing binders used for question period and parliamentary committee appearances.

Once more government information is available to the public on a predictable schedule, people will have a better understanding of how government works, they will feel prepared and empowered to participate more, and they will have greater confidence in the government.

That is why, as well as making great strides in proactive publication, we would also develop a new, plain-language guide that would provide requesters with clear explanations of exemptions and exclusions, invest in tools to make processing information requests more efficient, allow federal institutions that have the same minister to share their request-processing services for greater efficiency, and support new legislation with training across government to get common and consistent interpretation and application of the new rules. Government institutions would also be able to decline to act on overbroad, vexatious, or bad-faith requests whose intent is clearly to obstruct the system.

Along with these changes, we will continue to affirm Canadians' right to submit broad and comprehensive information requests that meet the important objective of the act, which is to increase the government's accountability in order to promote an open and democratic society and to allow public debate on the conduct of its institutions.

In addition, we are taking this a step further. The proposed amendments would change the Information Commissioner's role from that of an ombudsperson to that of an authority with the power to order the release of government records.

These are innovative improvements to our access to information regime that will build trust between citizens and their government.

The amendments also require a review of the act every five years to ensure that it never again becomes outdated.

The first review would begin no later than one year after the bill receives royal assent. In addition, government institutions would be required, through policy, to regularly review the information being requested under the act.

This measure will help expand the type of information that could become more easily available and will also inform the five-year reviews.

After 34 years, the Access to Information Act is undergoing significant revitalization. These reforms affect the whole of government, including areas never before touched by the legislation.

I am confident that by working together to strengthen access to information, we will make government more open, transparent, and accountable.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, as members know, it is always a pleasure for me to take part in debate here in the House.

Considering that we have little, if any, time to debate certain things that are important in our society, I am always happy to talk about them. I think it is important that I have the opportunity to share my ideas as a member of the opposition. Consider for example everything that is going on with the new legislation on taxes, on which we were never consulted and were not able to participate in discussions. I am especially pleased to talk about Bill C-58 today. I would remind the party opposite that it is always useful to listen to the opposition parties and hear what Canadians have to say about things that matter to them.

That said, today we are talking about an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The first thing I noticed when I read the bill is that the changes to the Access to Information Act do not make good, yet again, on the Liberals' election promise to extend the act to ministerial offices and the Prime Minister's Office. This is yet another broken election promise. We have lost count of all the Liberals' broken promises. Again, just for kicks, they introduce a bill that does not reflect their initial promise.

Under the new provision in the legislation, the government can refuse any access to information request if the government finds that the request is vexatious. The government is in the process of hand-picking what it wants to protect. The government is giving itself the right to choose what information to release and what not to release, making itself unaccountable to Canadians. Having already been in government, we know that there is a fine line. When a government wants to be ultra-transparent and says so loud and clear in front of the cameras and through selfies, but then introduces a bill enabling it to pick and choose what to talk about, then people become bitter. They are bitter that the Liberals are still trying to convince us that they are keeping their promise. Clearly they are not keeping their promises. They either backtrack or leave out key words from their election promises. People are not buying it.

When we look at the bill, we realize that the Liberals are giving themselves the power to refuse access to information requests if they are embarrassing to the government. When we talked about the Prime Minister's trip to visit the Aga Khan they may not have wanted us to do so, but that came out because someone somewhere talked. Perhaps the Liberal Party did not let it out by not releasing this information, but journalists dug it up.

However, for my part, I believe that it is a good thing that the mandate letters are made available. I admit that I like the idea. It shows people that we are able to say where we are headed and which minister does what. It makes it easier to understand the minister's or the department's role. What I personally find more problematic is when we ask for all the mandate letters, the briefing packages for new ministers, the titles and references, which is all good, the briefing notes and everything else. At some point we will no longer be able to ask for anything because the door will be shut.

We in the opposition keep asking questions in the House, but we are not getting any answers.

Imagine how far things will go if this bill is passed. We are in the House, we were democratically elected, and we ask relevant questions on behalf of our constituents. However, the members opposite are giving us only meaningless or hastily conceived answers.

When a government emphatically states that it wants to be transparent and introduces a bill like this, it needs to put words into action. Right now, we are hearing a lot of fine words, and the government has taken some action, but it goes against the Liberals' election promise. As I said a number of times, this is just another one of their broken promises.

We have been talking about Bill C-58 for several days now, and what saddens me is that it is always the same government members who rise to speak to bills. I am not the only one who is saying so. Quebeckers even have their own nickname for these members. When the government rises to defend its bills, it would be nice if more members participated in the debate, not just the same ones all the time.

On this side of the House, we have always been relentless in our efforts to make the government more accountable to Canadians. The key word here is “Canadians”. Many of the questions that our constituents are asking remain unanswered. Earlier, we requested a debate on the new tax system, but that request was refused. However, a discussion like that in the House would give us the opportunity to speak on behalf of our constituents.

I hope that the government will be a bit more transparent in that regard and that the Liberals will give us the chance to talk about the tax reform in the House. It is just as important as Bill C-58. People are writing to us about it every day, and I am sure it is the same for the Liberals. We are not the only ones getting those letters. That is impossible since they are addressed to everyone. We see all the names that are on them.

For all of these reasons, I oppose Bill C-58. It is one more broken promise in a string of Liberal promises, and it proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that despite what the Liberals say about wanting to be transparent, there will actually be less and less transparency, because the government gets to pick which subjects it wants to address and refuse those it finds embarrassing. This is an important point for me. Some information is not easy to disclose, particularly if it is security-related, but other information that is just as important deserves to be publicly released, even at the risk of embarrassing the government.

The government says it wants to be transparent, but it is arranging things so that it gets to make all the decisions, saying that it is the best, and just too bad for everyone else, because they will not get the answers they are looking for. That is a real shame.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the amendments to the Access to Information Act and the significant reforms our government is proposing in Bill C-58.

Ours is the first government in 34 years to substantially revamp Canada's access to information system, and it is about time. Our existing access to information legislation came into force in 1983.

The word that some have used to describe this legislation is “antiquated”. It is hard to disagree with this view when we consider that in 1983 government information was mainly recorded on paper and stored in filing cabinets.

Moreover, the federal government has grown over the past 34 years, and the sheer volume of government-related information has grown right along with it. The number of requests to access that information has gone up too.

Since 1983, more than 750,000 access to information requests have been processed, and the number of requests the government receives has grown by an average of 13% annually.

The current access to information system is under considerable strain. The information age has resulted in higher expectations for access to government information. Digitization and the Internet have made information readily available and at our fingertips 24/7. Canadians now expect this level of accessibility from their government as well.

Canadians expect an open and transparent government. They expect access to government information so they can engage meaningfully in the demographic process and demand government accountability.

In the access to information, privacy and ethics committee, the one thing we heard over and over again was that the 1983 Access to Information Act regime was not built for our times and is insufficient to meet our needs. That is why we are committed to modernizing the act to make government more open and transparent. This is what we are proposing to do in Bill C-58.

First, the bill would amend the act to create a new part relating to proactive publication. This would entrench in law for this government and future governments the requirement that government organizations proactively publish a broad range of information in a timely manner and without anyone having to make an access to information request. This new part of the act would apply across more than 240 government departments, agencies, and crown corporations. For the first time, the act would also apply to the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices, senators and members of Parliament, institutions that support Parliament, administrative institutions that support the courts, and more than 1,100 judges in the superior courts. This would create an obligation to proactively publish information that is known to be of interest to Canadians. The system would be routinely reviewed so that the information that would be proactively disclosed would remain relevant and of interest to Canadians.

This information would be available to all Canadians on the government website, no ATIP request required. Our goal is to continue to expand the type of government information that can be disclosed proactively. This measure is consistent with our view that the government should be open by default.

It reflects the future of access to information in the digital age, and the future is now.

Bill C-58 would put in place a range of measures to ease the strain on the antiquated access to information regime. Specifically, we would invest in tools to make processing information requests more efficient; provide training across government to get a common and consistent interpretation and application of the new rules; allow federal institutions that have the same minister to share the request processing services, for greater efficiency; and develop a new plain-language guide that would provide requesters with clear explanations for exemptions and exclusions.

Government institutions would also have the authority to decline to act on requests that were vague or made in bad faith. We want to make sure that people are using our access to information system properly and that it is not being used to intentionally bog down the government. As an example of the type of requests we are talking about, there are some requesters who ask for millions of pages worth of documents without providing a clear reason for that request. Others submit hundreds or thousands of requests at a single time. Such requests are not in keeping with the purpose of the act, which is to give Canadians access to the information they need to participate in decisions about public policy. At the same time, Bill C-58 would amend the Access to Information Act to provide the Information Commissioner with the oversight of this new authority.

Requesters can file an appeal with the commissioner if an institution or organization refuses to process their requests. The Information Commissioner can then examine the complaint and, if it is justified, she can exercise this new power to order the release of information to resolve the matter.

At the same time, this legislation would affirm the right of Canadians to make broad and deep information requests that were consistent with the spirit of the act. The bill would also give the Information Commissioner's office more financial resources to do the job.

The Information Commissioner's power to order the release of information is an important step that will strengthen access to information in Canada. It is an innovative proposal that would change the commissioner's role from that of an ombudsperson to that of an authority with the power to order the release of government records.

Bill C-58 proposes a mandatory review of the Access to Information Act every five years so that it never again becomes outdated. The first review would begin no later than one year after this bill received royal assent.

We can never become complacent when it comes to transparency. By revitalizing access to information, our government would raise the bar once more on openness in government.

With this bill, we will be modernizing our law and the access to information system, which is outdated.

With this bill, we would modernize our antiquated access to information law and system. We would strengthen the trust between Canadians and their government, and we would reaffirm the principle of openness and transparency as a hallmark of our democratic system. I am proud, as both a parliamentarian and a member of the ethics committee, to support this legislation.

The House resumed from September 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Ladysmith mayor would be very happy to hear his municipality named first. We will work on that.

The terrible record of the Conservative government on transparency and access to information notwithstanding, I imagine that the member would share the New Democrats' deep concern that although the Liberal government is wrapping itself in a cloak of transparency and openness, in fact, the Prime Minister's Office and ministerial offices will not subject to access to information in Bill C-58.

I would like the member's comments on that and whether he shares my concern.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to oppose Bill C-58. That is about as clear and transparent as it gets.

This is about yet another broken Liberal promise. My colleague just listed off at least 20 broken Liberal promises. The Liberals made promises during the campaign. In fact, when he was just an MP, the Prime Minister himself introduced a bill promising openness and transparency, but we see none of that in this bill. It seems to me that our friends in power have developed a nasty habit of breaking their promises, and Canadians are clearly getting sick of it. This is not the first time, and it will probably not be the last.

I get the feeling that the sunny ways are about to be gone.

One of those election promises was electoral reform. That was no minor Liberal promise; it was extremely important. However, when the committee finished its work and tabled its report, the Liberals realized that Canadians clearly saw through their charade. In other words, the Liberals' real objective was to bring in a preferential ballot system, which would put them at an advantage. In the end, given that the committee report did not support the Liberals' position, they decided to abandon that promise. When you abandon a promise as important as electoral reform, how Canadians vote for their elected officials, basically you are telling them that they cannot be trusted. That is what we heard from Canadians.

The government struck an independent committee, but it had to be changed because initially, it had a Liberal majority. Pressure from the four opposition parties, including the Green Party, made a difference. From that moment on, the Liberals dropped the whole thing and the promise changed. In the case of Bill C-58, once again, the Liberals are reneging on an election promise and doing the opposite now that they are in power.

Earlier, my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable and I counted the broken Liberal promises. We got to 20 broken promises, but there are more yet. By breaking all these promises, the government is sending a message to Canadians that fuels cynicism. During the election campaign, the Liberals promised they would inform people better and increase transparency in ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office. However, two years later, that is just another broken promise. This is unacceptable. That is why I am voting against this bill.

Over the past few weeks, a number of people have spoken out against this bill. Some organizations that were rather tough on the Conservative Party when it was in power are now being just as tough on the government in power. They are making statements worth noting. For example, when the government promises clarity and transparency, then it has to live up to that, but the Liberal Party that is in power is really not up to the task.

The Liberals said they would make all of the information exchanged within ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office accessible. What kind of information are we talking about? At what point did that information become irrelevant to the people? The moment the Liberals introduced this bill.

Let me make sure we all understand what is going on. When the government came to power, it decided to take a close look at an act that has been around since 1983 and modernize it. That is all well and good, but earlier, I heard parliamentary secretaries say that they had covered a substantial portion of it. A substantial portion of it? Why not modernize the whole thing? It looks like they have a problem with disclosing information or making any information public that could come back and bite them. That is my conclusion based on what I heard today.

I have been listening to the debate since early afternoon, and every time an MP or a parliamentary secretary talks about the bill, we get the feeling that they deliberately left out the obligation to make the information clear and transparent so they would not get trapped by the information that is circulating, especially within the Prime Minister's Office.

If the journalists who defend the democracy that these MPs serve each and every day here in the House cannot have access to the information that is relevant to Canadians, how can they do their jobs properly? It is essential that the bills we put forward not be half measures. That way, we can ensure they meet their stated objectives. The Liberals are saying very little yet again, and the answers they give are all the same.

Sadly, after promising Canadians the world in 2015, the government is keeping neither of these promises. There are organizations that act as watchdogs of Canadian democracy. Most of them are non-profit organizations and are totally independent from any government, like Democracy Watch, for example. These organizations are very critical of the work we do, and rightfully so. They spend an enormous amount of time analyzing everything we parliamentarians do on a daily basis in order to strengthen our democracy, to increase transparency and to improve communications with Canadians. They were very outspoken, to put it mildly, about the current government. They said that the bill represents not one step forward, but two steps back.

A sentence like that says a lot about the relevance of the bill and how it was designed and drafted. I can imagine being the Prime Minister, who in 2015 promised to be open and transparent and to allow all Canadians to see everything that happens in the ministers' offices and in his own office. Once in his office, however, he realized that not everything that happens in ministers' offices, and especially the Prime Minister's Office, can be disclosed to the public.

What information does he not want to make public? That is a very relevant question, and one that we should put to the Prime Minister. We will be sure to do so. A government does not introduce legislation for no reason. A government introduces legislation because it really wants to keep a promise. I say again, 20 promises have been broken so far; my colleague listed them earlier. Bill C-58 is definitely not the first broken promise, and it will not be the last.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, given the Harper government's record, the member's new commitment to transparency and access to information is refreshing. I am interested in the member's thoughts on the major loophole that remains in Bill C-58. I would like his comments on the failure of the Liberals to keep their campaign promise to include the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices in being subject to access to information requests.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I also thank my Conservative colleague for his speech.

It is important that our access to information system work well for Canadians. At present, there are no limits to the number of requests an individual can file or regarding the scope of the request.

A number of members have taken aim at that aspect of Bill C-58, including my colleague, and I have a question for him.

Our system is currently being delayed by frivolous and sometimes vexatious requests. With this bill, we want to change that, because it is unfair to Canadians who file legitimate access to information requests.

Is the member aware that several provinces and territories have a different version of the legislation we are proposing to protect the effectiveness of their respective access to information systems, and that that is also the case for Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom?

I heard several concerns regarding our decision, but I have to ask the following question: do we not have a duty to make the system more effective for Canadians who submit requests in good faith, and to reject those that are not in good faith and are frivolous and vexatious?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address you today to speak to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. It is sponsored by the hon. President of the Treasury Board, whom we all know and enjoy listening to. It is also a very special bill by the way in which it is introduced. It seeks to amend the Access to Information Act, 1983. It is a rather old piece of legislation that deserves to be cleaned up and made more current.

The amendments were meant to affect any organization that shares information with federal government institutions, and allow anyone seeking to obtain that information to access it, according to the Liberal government's election promise. The first important observation is that this change to the Access to Information Act does not include the Liberals' electoral promise to extend the application of the legislation to the Prime Minister's and ministers' offices. I think that is the most glaring omission in this bill.

Under the new provisions of the act, the government can decline any access to information request it feels is vexatious, made in bad faith, or is an abuse of the right to make a request for access to records. If these reasons could be properly assessed, we might find that provision acceptable. However, the problem is that these reasons are subjective. It is possible that the Liberal Party, particularly when we look at how it governs, would use these reasons to prevent Canadians, the opposition parties, and groups that monitor the government to ensure it is doing its work properly from having access to all of the information.

Since it was founded, our party has been relentless in its efforts to make the government more accountable to Canadians. When our party was in office, it was not a scandal-ridden government like the previous Liberal governments and particularly the government that has been in office for the past two years. The bill provides for an increase of $5.1 billion in the budget of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada. Is that simply to determine whether requests are vexatious or illegitimate? We are wondering why the Liberal government cannot do that work itself with all of the staff it has at its disposal, particularly since it always seems to be able to find a way to dip into people's pockets.

I would like to quote a few stakeholders, since people might say we are bound to criticize everything the government does simply because we are the official opposition. I will quote some people who are neutral and need access to information, people who are guardians of our democracy.

The first is Katie Gibbs, executive director of Evidence For Democracy. She says that the Liberal government is not keeping its election promise. She believes that by ruling out the possibility of obtaining information from ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office, the government is breaking its campaign promise to establish a government open by default. She added that the possibility to refuse access to information requests on an undefined basis jeopardizes the transparency and the openness of the government.

In addition, Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, has said that the bill does nothing to address the enormous gaps in the legislation, as the Liberals promised. He believes that more changes are needed to have a government that is transparent and open by default. He said that the bill takes a step backwards in allowing government officials to deny requests for information if they think the request is frivolous, which is entirely subjective, or made in bad faith. He believes that public officials should not be given this power, as they will likely use it as a new loophole to deny the public information it has a right to know. Yes, he called this a step backwards. This does not improve things. Theoretically, when a bill is introduced, it is usually meant to improve things and move society forward.

Stéphane Giroux, president of the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, said, “What interested us most was having access to cabinet documents. It was a false alarm; too good to be true.”

The next quote is from Robert Marleau, Canada's Information Commissioner from 2007 to 2009. This is not just anyone. We are not quoting opposition members, but rather experts in the field. He said, and I quote:

For the ministries, there’s no one to review what they choose not to disclose, and I think that goes against the principle of the statute. They’ve taken the commissioner out of the loop. If you ask for these briefing notes, and you’ve got them and they were redacted, you had someone to appeal to. So there’s no appeal. You can’t even go to a court. It’s one step forward, two steps back.

The British Columbia Freedom of Information and Privacy Association said that the bill leaves black holes in the act that will prevent certain kinds of information from being released. That is why we must strongly condemn the fact that the Prime Minister is breaking yet another election promise.

Yes, another promise has been broken. Let me review some of the other broken election promises. For those who may not have been keeping up with the news, the government promised electoral reform, but did not deliver. They changed their minds on that one. They talked about a small deficit, just $10 billion per year. That was another broken promise. These past two years, the deficit has been in excess of $25 billion.

The Liberals promised to welcome 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada by the end of 2015. They failed to do so. They talked about re-evaluating the expansion of Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline project, but they did not do so. They promised to provide cost analyses for all bills, and they have not done it. They talked about lowering taxes for the middle class. We are examining the tax reform right now because the tax rate was supposed to drop from 11% to 9%. That was an election promise. Instead, the government wants to raise taxes for the middle class, businesses, and entrepreneurs across Canada. The Liberals were supposed to reduce the federal debt-to-GDP ratio by 31% in 2015-16, but they failed to do so. They wanted to immediately begin reinvesting $3 billion over the next four years to support home care, and that has not been done. That is eight broken promises, and I have not even come close to mentioning all of them. They also promised to set a cap on how much can be claimed through the stock option deduction, and they failed to do that too.

The Liberals promised not to buy F-35 fighter jets and to immediately launch an open and transparent bidding process. Once again we see the words “open” and “transparent“ getting bandied about a lot, but they do not really mean anything.

The Liberals promised veterans that they would cover the cost of four years of post-secondary education for every veteran who wanted to go back to school, but they did not do so. They talked about investing $100 million to give veterans' families better support, investing $80 million a year to create a new education benefit for veterans, and restoring lifelong pensions for soldiers wounded in action, but they did not do any of these things. I see that I am running out of time, but I still have many more examples. The Liberals have broken so many promises that I will not have time to mention them all.

The Liberals promised to invest $300 million more in the youth employment strategy in order to create 40,000 jobs, including 5,000 green jobs during each of the next three years. We know how much young people need work experience, but the Liberals did not follow through. They talked about investing $40 million annually to help employers create new internship opportunities, but that did not happen. They said they would change the Standing Orders of the House of Commons to put an end to the use of omnibus bills that prevent proper debate in the House, but that did not happen.

They promised to invest $50 million more a year in the post-secondary student support program, but that did not happen. They said they wanted to immediately eliminate the 2% funding cap for first nations programs, and Lord knows that they are constantly saying that they are working hard for first nations, but that did not happen. They promised to guarantee indigenous communities the right to veto the development of natural resources on their territory, but that did not happen. It goes on and on.

The government told us that it would introduce a bill to guarantee more transparency. We are currently seeing the opposite. It is nothing new. As the experts I cited said, we are taking one step forward and two steps back.

Despite their virtuous election promises, the Liberals have failed to make the government more open and transparent. A government that chooses what information to publish and when not to be accountable to Canadians is dishonest. In fact, the Liberals are giving themselves the power to refuse to respond to requests for access to information that they find embarrassing. As a result of the Liberals' proposed changes, Canadians will have access to less information. The Liberals are doing nothing to correct the delays that have become irresponsible.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-58 in questions and comments to my hon. colleague from Edmonton Strathcona. I have been listening to the debate all day, but popping up has not yielded me the floor until this moment.

We used to say in this country that we did not exactly have freedom of information but rather freedom from information. I am afraid that Bill C-58 does let us down badly in a couple of key areas.

I wonder if my colleague has any comments on something I find particularly distressing, which is the expanding of the ability of the government institution that holds the information to make its own decision that a request is vexatious. From what I can see in the bill, it would not be subject to independent review. I wonder if she has any comments on that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill and share many of the concerns and disappointments that have been raised in the House today.

In my 40 years as an environmental lawyer working as a public advocate, working with governments, and advising other nations, I have been constant in pursuing citizens' rights to have a voice in decision-making and to ensure that those voices are informed and constructive through ready and timely access to information, and, as my colleague from Regina—Lewvan mentioned today, fighting for whistle-blower protection measures.

Time after time, when we were dealing with issues that might impact health or the environment, officials in the health department and environment department have given up their careers by stepping forward and revealing information that the government did not want to reveal.

It is disappointing that those measures have not yet come forward. I have, three times over, tabled in this place a Canadian environmental bill of rights that would have expressly guaranteed those rights, including access to environmental information. It is sad to share that the first time I tabled this bill and it actually went to committee, the majority on that committee—since only I was there, and the others were Liberals and Conservatives—struck down the simple provision in my bill calling for the government to provide access to environmental information.

Why are my bill and a strengthened Access to Information Act necessary? Among the greatest barriers Canadians face in seeking to provide a voice in decisions impacting their health and environment is a lack of access to information. They want information on the planned routes of pipelines and the locations of chemical plants before they are approved. They want information on potential or known impacts of toxins on their health and environment before they are approved for use, information on the safety of consumer products before they are made available for sale, and information on how the government intends to strengthen our environmental protections in a revised NAFTA.

Here I add that the government has circulated a call for public input on environmental impact, yet it has provided absolutely no information on what it is proposing to put in NAFTA. Talk about a vacuous call for consultation.

In successive reports by the parliamentary committee on environment and sustainable development, recommendations have been made to ensure greater public access to such information. We await actions on these recommendations by a government that claims priority for the environment and for these long-overdue reforms, and we wait for for the government to enact an environmental bill of rights.

As the Centre for Law and Democracy has stated in its comments on Bill C-58:

...the heart of a right to information system...is the right of individuals to request whatever information they want from government.

In other words, at the heart of the right of access of information is the right of Canadians to ask for the information they want, not to sit back and wait for the government to decide what information it might choose to disclose. Yes, we need both, but we need access to information and more willingness to disclose, and as my colleague has pointed out, the Liberal emphasis on proactive publication leaves government the discretion of what to disclose.

In reviewing Bill C-58, we need only consider this simple question: does it deliver on the Liberals' promise to improve access to information? Sadly, the clear answer is no, it does not.

Sadly, Bill C-58 represents yet another broken election promise, as has been said many times over in this place. The government, in presenting this bill, has blatantly disregarded the 85 recommendations for reform by the Information Commissioner and the recommendations by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. It has ignored the advice of legal experts and access to information experts.

The bill is completely at odds with the reforms proposed by the Prime Minister in the bill he himself tabled while in opposition. It fails to deliver reforms recommended in many bills tabled by the New Democratic Party. It contradicts the directives issued by the Prime Minister to all of his ministers in the mandate letters, and we have heard this mentioned many times in this place. As the Prime Minister said in every mandate letter:

We have also committed to set a higher bar for openness and transparency in government. It is time to shine more light on government to ensure it remains focused on the people it serves. Government and its information should be open by default.

Contrary to what the President of the Treasury Board has asserted, a statement in a mandate letter does not, in fact, extend a right to information. The government expects accolades for releasing these mandate letters, then abjectly fails to deliver on them.

The President of the Treasury Board gave accolades to the government because it was elected to this open government committee, yet one remains puzzled. An analysis by a recognized group, the Centre for Law and Democracy, pointed out that there are actually international criteria for assessing how well a government is delivering on access to information. There are seven criteria, and they have done an analysis. It is important to note that right now, Canada sits at a miserable 49th position globally. By implementing the measures in the bill, it is only going to rise to the 46th position. It shoots a cannon hole in the argument of the President of the Treasury Board that the bill deserves great accolades.

Canadians remember the broken election promise to end first past the post elections, which was an action mandated to the first minister of democratic reform and broken.

On balance, Bill C-58 is a very small step forward in improving public access to information, but it delivers us many steps backwards.

What are the key reforms the commissioner, the committee, members of Parliament, and access to information experts have long called for? First is expanding the scope of the act to require access to a broader array of information. Second is reducing the wait times and fees. The government is doing that. In fact, it has done it before. It would simply put it in law. Third is substantially narrowing the exceptions and exclusions, including access to prime ministerial and ministerial information, yet the bill would cut that back with the exceptions it includes. Fourth is empowering the Information Commissioner to issue binding orders. While that power would be extended, it would be cut back by additional powers that would be given to the government to short-circuit those powers. We would have hoped for protection for whistle-blowers.

What would the bill provide? Bill C-58 would provide a five-year review. We have waited three decades for a strengthened act, and now all we get is that in five years, we can review it again. It defies credibility. I find it astounding. Of course there should be a five-year review, but we should not wait for the amendments we have waited 30 years for.

The bill would formalize free waivers. It would grant powers to the Information Commissioner, which I mentioned, but they would be restricted.

Where have the Liberals failed? Well, there is no duty to document the decision-making processes. The bill would allow the labelling of information as cabinet briefings to deny access. It introduces yet more exceptions. It fails to require a harms test, which is a specific recommendation made by the parliamentary committee. It fails to prescribe in law an explicit public interest override, a recommendation of the parliamentary committee. Indeed, it empowers the commission to order information released but undermines it with other provisions it adds.

Absent government acceptance of significant amendments to the bill, and the record has been that the Liberals have not been open to amendments from this place, and given the abject failings of Bill C-58, perhaps the next measure we can anticipate by the government to cover off another broken election promise, and sad to say we will wait and see, is yet another amendment to the ministerial mandate letters to remove the commitment to set a higher bar for openness and transparency in government.

The President of the Treasury Board has committed to be open to amendments. We are hopeful. We will have a good discourse in the committee. There have been a lot of concerns raised. We have had a lot of reviews—from the Information Commissioner, from previous reports by Parliament, and from experts. Let us hope that if the Open Government Partnership Steering Committee examines the bill in closer detail, it will speak to the Government of Canada and call for these kinds of changes to come forward to genuinely provide access to information to Canadians. If the Liberals will not listen us, perhaps they will listen to nations around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her question.

I want to clarify something. My colleague is accusing the NDP of talking a lot. We certainly take every opportunity afforded to us to talk, without exception, but that is not all we do. We take action. I was saying earlier that in 2006, 2008, 2011, and 2014, we introduced meaningful bills to improve things. I admit that the two measures that she mentioned from the bill are worthwhile, but saying that, every five years, we will have an opportunity to review a bill that is not doing the job means that there is much left to be done, in my opinion. We are doing more than just talking.

I wish the Liberal government had drawn from the NDP bills that were introduced, and that it had introduced a Bill C-58 that went a lot further than the one we currently have before us. It is high time that the government did more, that it stopped focusing on its image and really put words into action.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona. Many of us want to talk about Bill C-58.

I must admit that I am happy to be back in the House because, now, there can be another side to what the government tells the public. Thanks to the magic of democracy, people always have the ability to help governments strike a balance and sometimes improve bills. However, in the case of the bill before us today, there is so much to do that I am not sure we will be able to do much at all.

I would like to begin with a quote. In 2015, the Prime Minister said, “transparent government is good government”.

It is a short sentence. The idea and the sentence are clear. A good government is a transparent government. However, after two years in office, it is obvious that the Liberal government is still struggling with the notion of transparency. Bill C-58, which we are opposing at second reading, does absolutely nothing to improve the situation, and there are many others like it.

For example, I could mention the whole process that led up to this monumental fiasco with electoral reform, which was nowhere near transparency. It would not take much to turn the Prime Minister's slogan around and say that a government that is not transparent is a bad government. We will see.

However, before I make that assertion, I will try to describe the major shortcomings of this bill and thus demonstrate how the Liberals' proposal mangles the principles of transparency and accountability.

Historically, we got off to a good start. Back in 1983, when Canada passed the Access to Information Act, we were a pioneer of transparency. Things have changed, however, and that is sadly no longer the case. According to the Centre for Law and Democracy, Canada is now 49th in the world on access to information. We went from leader of the pack to practically bringing up the rear.

Over the years, the Conservatives and Liberals have promised to be more transparent, but they have not kept that promise. Now we have before us Bill C-58 on transparency and access to information. At first, it is hard to see how such a bill could make things more confusing than they already are. Who is opposed to transparency? I know very few people who would oppose improved transparency in communication between the government and the public.

However, we once again underestimated the Liberals, who are all about appearances. I spoke about this several times both today and in the context of other bills. The Liberals are all about appearances; they are masters of empty rhetoric. If there are indeed some major changes to the Access to Information Act in the bill, most of them only make things worse.

Once again, the law does not apply equally to everyone. The Liberal government is developing quite a reputation for treating party cronies and rich folk one way and everyone else another. In 2015, the Liberals promised that access to information would apply to the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices. That is pretty straightforward. I am pretty sure everyone got exactly the same message from what was said during the last campaign: the Access to Information Act was going to apply to the Prime Minister's and ministers' offices. That is clear.

No doubt the House can guess what comes next. Ministers and the Prime Minister make decisions about measures that directly affect our constituents. It is therefore our duty to make sure that these decision makers are accountable to all.

Here is an example. My office submitted an access to information request to the Department of Finance concerning the elimination of the public transit tax credit. Our goal was simple: we wanted to know how this measure would affect Canadian families. In the answer we got, much of the information that was crucial to understanding which groups would be hurt by the government's decision to eliminate the credit was redacted.

It was covered in thick black lines and could not even be read under the light. The answers to the question of whether eliminating the tax credit would create more barriers for certain segments of society were blacked out. The government refuses to even reveal what advice the Minister of Finance based that decision on.

I could also reference the time I used the Access to Information Act to obtain a copy of the Credit Suisse study on the privatization of airports. Once again, the government refuses to release a study that was paid for and commissioned by the Department of Finance. Privatizing Canada's airports could threaten jobs, create new user fees, and ultimately increase the price of airline tickets for passengers. Given the many potential repercussions for workers and passengers, I find it unacceptable that the government is hiding the findings of a study paid for by the taxpayers. The Liberals also refuse to disclose how much they paid Credit Suisse for its advice on the privatization of our airports.

All this happened under the current legislation, while Bill C-58 will allow the government to make the situation even worse, if that is possible. That is one of the reasons that the Information Commissioner recommended that documents from the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices be subject to disclosure.

Many other civil society stakeholders have been highly critical of the current legislation. Mr. Holman, vice-president of the Canadian Association of Journalists, told the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics that Canada is known for coming in last place when it comes to access to information. Although we were considered forerunners 35 years ago, now we are trailing behind. Quite frankly, the current legislation reinforces a culture of secrecy. That is why the Canadian Association of Journalists recommends closing and eliminating 75 loopholes in the current legislation. What does Bill C-58 do to achieve that? It does precious little.

Federal institutions use these loopholes to redact documents before releasing them. Here is part of Mr. Holman's testimony:

Section 21 of the Access to Information Act permits the government to refuse access to any advice or recommendations developed for public officials, as well as accounts of their consultations or deliberations for a 20-year period. In addition, section 69 prohibits access to any records related to cabinet, government's principal decision-making body.

These two sections are bad for our democracy. With tongue in cheek, Democracy Watch coordinator Mr. Conacher called the existing act a “guide to keeping secrets”.

I was talking about the existing act, but I should make it clear that Bill C-58 will further complicate the access to information request process. No matter how well-intentioned the government, if access is not guaranteed, the act is pointless. Proposed section 6.1 reads as follows:

6.1 (1) The head of a government institution may, before giving a person access to a record or refusing to do so, decline to act on the person’s request if, in the opinion of the head of the institution,

(c) the request is for such a large number of records or necessitates a search through such a large number of records that acting on the request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the government institution...

How is that for transparency?

The government sets out vague conditions and broad concepts by using a kind of language we see so often in its legislation, whether it is around the concept of decent jobs or unreasonable numbers of documents.

There are other examples, but I see that time is running out, melting away like snow in sunshine, though snow in sunshine is hard to come by these days.

In closing, I would remind the House that in 2006, 2008, 2011, and 2014, the NDP introduced private members' bills specifically to improve the Access to Information Act, bills that took into account the various recommendations made over the years by the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

I hope that, if it ever gets to committee, we will have a bill one day that reflects those recommendations. Time is running out. I will take the time to answer questions instead of continuing this speech.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Beauport—Limoilou for his speech. He went into a lot of detail about this complex measure and shared the viewpoints of several organizations and members of the public.

We Liberals have talked about how important it is to modernize the Access to Information Act, and that is exactly what we have done. The member complained about the fact that it took us longer, but I would like to remind him that, in 10 years, the Conservative Party made no changes to the act. We initiated a study in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We immediately implemented an interim directive that covered three key aspects of openness and transparency. We introduced Bill C-58 to amend the Access to Information Act, and that is what we are debating now. The standing committee will be voting on these changes to the act so it can come into force in a year.

I think we did a number of things in an effort to have a more effective and relevant system that is tailored to the needs of Canadians.

I would like the hon. member to explain why the Conservative Party did nothing to advance this reform. It even promised to do so in 2006, but did nothing about it. On what moral basis does that party think it can criticize us for adopting the measures we have taken less than two years after being elected as the Liberal government?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak here today, so that I may contribute to the debate on Bill C-58.

Throughout the day today, I have heard my colleagues say over and over again that this is just one more broken promise from this government. Well, unfortunately, I have to say that I agree with them, because this bill does indeed represent yet another broken Liberal promise.

One could also say that this bill reflects Canadians' interests in decisions made by their elected representatives and government decision-makers, and that is only natural. Access to information arrived quite late in Canada, in the 1980s. If my memory serves correctly, the first country that granted access to information was Norway, at the end of the 19th century. We did so nearly a century later.

Access to information is very important in terms of the obligation of a country's elected officials and decision-makers to be accountable. It allows Canadians to keep an eye on what is happening with respect to decision making between elections so they can gain a better understanding of what is going on in their country. Furthermore, as several people have suggested here today, this is a very sensitive issue, because we need to find the right balance in such a bill, which seeks to amend the Access to Information Act.

I was in the army for a few years, and so I know how crucial information is. Having the necessary information is essential to reaching military objectives. In every sector, information is one of the keys to success. For 35 years, the Access to Information Act has obviously been very important, as it has increased accountability and allowed Canadians to better understand what is happening in their country. They can also know what businesses, elected officials, public servants and employees of democratic institutions are doing, because political staffers are also subject to that act.

It is also important to the media, who have to scrutinize and analyze every political decision and news story. That political scrutiny by the media and journalists helps Canadians understand how, why and in what context decisions are made. Access to information is vital for the journalists who keep Canadians informed.

The Liberals are claiming that Bill C-58 seeks to better inform Canadians regarding the decision-making process in order to maintain their confidence in their policy-makers and democratic institutions. That is my understanding, at least.

I really liked what the member for Trois-Rivières said about this bill. It truly is yet another patent example showing how image is everything to this government. This is something that has been obvious to me for the past two years. It used to surprise me every time, but not anymore. I am very disappointed that this government's bills, actions, speeches, photos, in short, everything it does is always aimed at managing its image.

The Conservatives were often accused of having communication and image problems, but at least we were brave, we made decisions, we put everything on the table and explained ourselves. The Liberals are so obsessed with maintaining a positive image that to avoid admitting to Canadians that they are breaking one of their own promises, they would rather table a watered-down bill that is nothing more than window dressing. It is designed to make you think the Liberals are making good on their promises, but if you read between the lines, you will realize they are doing the exact opposite.

I mentioned the example of the Canada Elections Act. The Prime Minister's practice of “cash-for-access” fundraising was uncovered thanks to the work of our official opposition. A few months later, instead of doing the honourable thing and pledging to put an end this undemocratic practice, the Liberals legalized cash for access by introducing a bill that, again, is very watered down. It seems to increase accountability and transparency around fundraising, but what it actually does is legalize the cash-for-access scheme.

This bill was introduced in June, and it would amend access to information, which was first brought in back in 1983. Now, 35 years later, the Liberals want to improve and enhance it, and they want to make some changes related to new technology. These days, access to information depends heavily on the digital tools we use every day. Here on Parliament Hill, in MPs' offices, ministers' offices, and the PMO, all politicians and all of our staff have telephones that they use to exchange information on important issues and make decisions. We can see how those decisions evolve via text and email messages between the PMO and ministerial offices.

In 2015, the Liberals made some key promises, and one of those promises was to make the PMO and ministerial offices more open by default. As it turns out, those offices will be exempt from the proposed amendments in Bill C-58, which is unbelievable, because their promise is right there on page 24 of the Liberal platform. The Liberals said it was important to facilitate access to information, and that applied to the PMO and ministers' offices too.

That being said, it was important for the Liberals to put these ideas forward during the election campaign in order to please certain groups who believe that it is important to have access to all information.

The Conservatives formed a responsible government and today we remain a responsible political party. Today, we heard a number of official opposition members say that we need to be careful about who has access to information from the Prime Minister's Office and the ministers' offices simply because a delicate balance must be maintained when giving the public access to information about the executive branch's decision making.

In Canada, we want above all to maintain an environment and conditions that are conducive to productive, vigorous, and heated debate, after which a decision can ultimately be made.

Debates in the House of Commons are open, transparent, and fully accessible to the public, because we do not make the final decision here. What is more, we are opposing parties, so the public expects us to squabble and debate. However, within the ministers' offices, there is a solidarity between ministers, even if they have differing points of view because they come from different regions and represent citizens with diverse interests. There may be acrimony regarding very important debates. The ministers will have very spirited debates among themselves, but when they come out of that ministers' meeting, they must all be prepared to uphold the group decision. Such decisions may pertain to Canada's internal or external affairs, but regardless of the reason for or the type of decision taken on an issue, it may require confidentiality.

We believe that at that level it is important to maintain some confidentiality in order to conduct government business properly. That is probably exactly what Canadian officials shared with the Liberal government. That is likely why this government waited so long to introduce the bill. I imagine that after the election, they wanted to move forward with opening access to information by default, but they were advised to the contrary.

Again, I think it is regrettable that the Liberals would have us believe that that is the case, that access is open by default, and they would have us believe that they are making information more accessible to the public when that is not necessarily entirely accurate.

By acting this way, as they do on a number of files, and breaking promises, they only fuel public cynicism, unfortunately. That is something we should all want to avoid, especially when we form the government.

That is why I go door to door when I am in my riding. Throughout the last election campaign, when I would go to seniors' homes, people kept telling me, and I respect this point of view, that I was only there because of the election campaign.

I told them I was honoured to be there, to meet them, and to listen to them, and that I would keep doing that once elected to prove that I meant what I said.

There are some positive things in this bill. The government promised to do more. For example, we all received the mandate letters shortly after the ministers were appointed. I recently read the Minister of Heritage's mandate letter because of my new role as the official opposition heritage critic. I think we can all agree that these mandate letters are quite broad. In fact, the first two pages are the same for every minister.

We can have briefings with the ministers, where we get information that is accessible under access to information. That remains in place, which is good.

However, access to information on more sensitive files will always be granted at the pleasure of the Liberals. Anything that has to do with enhancing access to information is based on a single word: proactive. Ministers, senior government officials, and the Prime Minister's Office will have to decide whether they will respond to a given request for information as they come in.

A number of journalists and a group that works to enhance transparency in democracy have spoken out about the Liberals' broken promise to extend access to information to the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices.

I would like to share some of their comments with the House, because it is interesting and very telling to hear what these journalists and stakeholders think.

Katie Gibbs from Evidence for Democracy has said that by ruling out the possibility to obtain information from ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office, the government is breaking its campaign promise to establish a government open by default. This is coming from an external source; these are not our words. She added that the possibility to refuse access to information requests on an undefined basis jeopardizes the transparency and the openness of the government.

I had the opportunity to meet Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, on many occasions during the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates' study on protecting whistleblowers in the public service. He is extremely knowledgeable on the subject.

Mr. Conacher said that this bill brings some positive changes to the act by making disclosure more proactive and by giving the Information Commissioner the power to order the release of information. However, according to him, the bill does nothing to address the enormous gaps in the Access to Information Act, as the Liberals promised. He believes that more changes will be needed to have a government that is open and transparent by default. The bill even takes a step backwards by allowing government officials to deny access to information requests if they think the request is frivolous or made in bad faith; this leaves the government considerable discretion. He believes that public officials should not be given this power, and I agree with him, as they will likely use it as a new loophole to deny the public information it has a right to know.

Mr. Conacher is very well known in Canada and around the world. He participated in numerous analyses and reviews of whistleblower protection acts around the world.

No whistleblower protection in the world can be properly enforced unless it is supported by a strong access to information act.

What he wants us to understand is that despite the argument they are putting forward, the members of this government have not improved this pillar of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and the Access to Information Act.

Stéphane Giroux, president of the Quebec federation of professional journalists, said that journalists were most excited about the prospect of getting access to ministerial records, but it was a false alarm. It was just too good to be true.

The groups that want to change the voting system in Canada would say the same about electoral reform. Small and medium-sized businesses would say the same as well, since they believed this government when it said it would reduce their basic tax rate to 9%. That is another broken promise, because the government is actually raising the tax on passive investment income to 73% for SMEs.

I would also like to share a few comments made by journalists. Mr. Maher of iPolitics titled his article “Liberals shockingly timid on access-to-information reform”.

This journalist is quite specific. On the second page, one of the first paragraphs, he mentioned the election platform of the Liberal Party, in which it stated in black and white that it was intending to open by default, access to information to the Prime Minister's Office and cabinet ministers' offices. He stated, “if you look closely at the changes proposed to access legislation, you can’t conclude that it matches his rhetoric.” He is talking about the rhetoric from the Liberal benches.

The next paragraph states:

The proactive disclosure of some ministerial documents may be a step backward, because the decisions about what to release and what to redact will not be reviewable by the information commissioner.

“For the ministries, there’s no one to review what they choose not to disclose, and I think that goes against the principle of the statute,”...

He was quoting from Robert Marleau, who was information commissioner from 2007 to 2009. This is quite powerful. These are big people supporting the opinion of the official opposition.

Another journalist, Carl Meyer, wrote an article entitled “Trudeau Liberals place restrictions on plan to end government secrecy”.

I will end with this. It is quite obvious, from advocacy groups, journalists, and our own evaluation of the bill, that the government is again breaking its promise and not doing what it said it would do. This bill does not at all reflect advancing or increasing access to information in Canada.

[Bob Benzen, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-58, which seeks to address the important issue of transparency in government and Canadians' access to information.

Improving transparency for Canadians in their dealings with their government in and of itself seems a worthwhile pursuit. In fact, making government more accountable to the people it serves is a foundational pillar of our Conservative Party. In addition, it is something in which I personally and strongly believe.

It is important to all Canadians that there be better sharing of and access to information that makes the basis for the policies that impact them. It allows citizens to knowledgeably engage their government either in support of or opposition to a particular issue in question. Government and its bureaucracies have an unfortunate tendency toward secrecy and concealment. This institutional instinct toward a jealous defence of what they wrongly perceive as their turf rather than information that is for the good governance of Canadians is contrary to the spirit of the modern era.

The spirit of this age is one that values improved openness and access to information. That trend toward transparency is the natural reflection of what rapid advances in technology have made our new reality. The reality and expectation of today is that communications and knowledge is available instantly and in real time. In light of this, we know government has not kept pace with the changing needs of the citizens it serves, especially in regard to access to information.

The Information Commission of Canada said as much when, in March 2015, she presented a special report to Parliament on the very subject. In that report, the commissioner indicated that:

Over the Act’s three decades of existence, technology, the administration of government and Canadian society have been transformed in many regards. And yet, despite these changes, the Act remains largely in its original form.

She followed with recommendations, 85 of them in fact, to modernize the Access to Information Act. Consultations were held afterwards in the summer of 2016 regarding reform of the access to information regime, and a report in June of the same year by the Standing Committee on Access to Information resulted in 32 recommendations.

Therefore, on the surface at least, we can see some requirement to amend the Access to Information Act, which Bill C-58 purports to do, as well as amending the Privacy Act. We see some interesting aspects in a bill for Canadians seeking to bring documents under the control of federal institutions out into the light.

Not to oversimplify the contents of the 100 pages of the bill, but among the more relevant observations to be made are: first, the information and privacy commissioners would have some of their powers clarified around the examination of documents containing information that is sensitive; second, a system of proactive publication of some information would be made; and third, the information commissioner would have the ability to make orders that would force the communications and documents of federal institutions into the open. All of this sounds at first listen like a step forward. Certainly, the government promotes the amendments in such a manner, given some of the wording. For example, the proposed section 2 amendment outlining the purpose of the Information Act reads:

to enhance the accountability and transparency of federal institutions in order to promote an open and democratic society and to enable public debate on the conduct of those institutions.

This is pretty forward language. It certainly sets a positive tone, and from the outset portrays the intent of the bill as very progressive. The word in play is “progressive”. Is it not the word the government likes to claim for all of its actions? Is it not the same word the Liberals employed in trying to justify upsetting our long-established tax code in order to make a harmful and costly intrusion into the wallets and affairs of small business owners and job creators in Canada? However, I digress.

Returning specifically to the content of Bill C-58, it is difficult to imagine how an advocate of institutional transparency would stumble over the objective presented here. There is the rub.

There is a problem with the Liberals' progressive street cred in relation to the bill, and it is a glaring problem.

The reform to the Access to Information Act does not include the Liberals' campaign promise to extend the act to ministers' offices and to the Prime Minister's Office. Even stakeholders who have welcomed some of the provisions of the act that mandate proactive publication of certain information and the power of the commissioner to order publication also seldom fail to note how the Liberals have sidestepped their election vow to make changes to the access to information of the ministers' offices and the PMO.

In addition, the proposed amendments in the bill permit the government to refuse access to information if the request is deemed a misuse of the right to request the information. That is a highly subjective standard. It allows government officials, who may have a vested interest in keeping certain information under wraps, to refuse access requests if they consider them vexatious or made in bad faith. What bureaucrat anywhere on Earth would not consider a request aimed at uncovering his or her mistakes or misdeeds as personally vexatious?

The executive director of the Evidence For Democracy group argued that the subjective power to reject requests on undefined basis “jeopardizes the transparency and openness of government”. I tend to agree with that. The loopholes in the bill quickly become evident.

The co-founder of the Democracy Watch group expressed it in this way: that public servants should not have this authority because they will likely use it as a new loophole to deny the public the information it is allowed to know.

The Democracy Watch group is also apparently well aware of the institutional secrecy of governments and bureaucracy I referred to earlier. Defenders of transparency seek a government that is open by default, not by special request and certainly not one with the ability to choose which request to honour based on biased criteria.

The Liberals' flaunted claims of being progressive in offering new openness and transparency through the provisions of the bill simply do not survive the light of day. In one fell swoop, in a document that purports to reform access to information, the Liberals have instead chosen not to honour another election promise, chosen to be unaccountable in selecting what information to publish, and are giving themselves power to refuse requests.

The Liberals' amendments to the Access to Information Act require some amending. The bill should reflect the spirit of the principle of the act, which is, as its name suggests but which the Liberals obviously fail to grasp, access to information, not restrictions to information. It seems a simple concept, and I am surprised the Liberals have failed to grasp it. Although, as I watch the debacle of the small business tax hikes unfold and observe what the Liberals consider to be the wealthiest Canadians, perhaps their lack of comprehension should not surprise me that much.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if my colleague who just spoke to Bill C-58 thinks that this Liberal bill lacks substance, much like the image the government has been promoting for the past two years.

It feels like the next Liberal speaker will use the phrase “a step in the right direction”. The thing is, a step does not get us very far. At best it transfers our weight from one leg to the other, but it does not move us forward.

Does my colleague truly believe that in committee the Liberal government will be open enough to accept the substantive amendments that will allow us to take several steps forward, considering that we are 35 years behind?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Calgary Heritage.

I am pleased to speak on Bill C-58, which would amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, also known as another broken Liberal promise hidden behind talking points peppered with key words like “open by default”, “transparency”, and “historic”. That is just the working title.

This bill demonstrates once again that the lofty rhetoric of the 2015 campaign on openness, transparency, and accountability was just that: rhetoric. Rhetoric is defined as language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content. That is pretty much what we have here with this bill.

That said, there are components of the bill I agree with. First, giving the information and privacy commissioners more resources to do their jobs properly and more power to do them effectively are both good. In her recent annual report, the Information Commissioner described the current condition of access to information succinctly as, “there is a shadow of disinterest on behalf of the government” in transparency and accountability. Her conclusion was no more complimentary in stating “that the Act is being used as a shield against transparency and is failing to meet its policy objective to foster accountability and trust in our government.” Hopefully she can use the minor positive changes in this bill to transform the act into something more meaningful, because that is essentially where the good parts stop.

Moving on to the bad, let us first talk about some of the problems with the current system. Timely access to information is a key characteristic of a well-functioning democracy. The word I want to underline in this statement is “timely”. If an access to information request takes months or even years to fulfill, the government has failed in its responsibility to be accessible. This legislation does not prevent requests from taking months or years to be completed, but, amazingly enough, enables the process to take even longer. That is unacceptable.

I am an avid user of the Access to Information Act. In the year and a half since I was elected, we have submitted over 60 ATIPs. I freely admit that we like to take advantage of the opportunity to get information from the government. Take my words seriously when I say that the Liberal government is unbearably slow in responding to ATIP requests.

As I mentioned, since we were elected we have filed over 60 requests, and only half of them have been completed. Some were filed in March of 2016 and remain outstanding over 18 months later. Here are some of the other outstanding requests: as mentioned, March 17, 2016, 18 months; August 19, 2016, 13 months; September 2, 2016, happy birthday to it, as it has been over a year now; two filed on January 31 , 2017, nine months; and April 6, 2017, five months. We have over a dozen ATIPs that we filed in the last four months that are still outstanding.

The government promised to be better, to set a gold standard and exceed it by a mile. Exceed it? It still has not left the starting blocks.

What has been the government's response to this? It wants to give heads of government institutions the ability to decline requests on the basis that they are vexatious or made in bad faith. Who is going to define vexatious? Who is going to ensure that the government heads are not declining requests that are vexatious to the government or departments because they would embarrass them and are in fact requests for information that the public needs to know, such as our ATIPs on the Phoenix issue that showed very clearly that the government was told two months before it pulled the trigger on Phoenix to clear the backlog, which it ignored? Under these rules about vexatious requests, the department would have been able to cover that off.

Another ATIP we had on Phoenix had the CFOs from literally every single government operation—Transport, Public Services, Agriculture, Finance, and Revenue—all stating very clearly not to go ahead with it, that the training and testing were not done. The government went ahead. Again, without ATIPs we would not have found this. Giving the department heads or the government the opportunity to block that would cover this all up.

At a legislative briefing back in June, my staff asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board if ministers would be able to decline requests using the same clause. The parliamentary secretary refused to confirm that ministers would not have that power. This is ridiculous. Theoretically, every request filed by someone not in the government is vexatious or made in bad faith in a way. The government has so far worked incredibly hard to hide anything it can, everything from errant ministerial limo expenses to deep-pocketed donors to the Prime Minister and the proper analysis completed by the department on which the policy was based, and the true cost of the Prime Minister's vacation to a billionaire's island.

I have no doubt that it will use these new, poorly defined and inadequately described powers to declare as much as it can to be in bad faith. Never fear, the Liberals say, if a person disagrees with the Liberal denial, he or she can appeal to the commissioner or go to the courts. The latter is truly laughable. As we have heard repeatedly, the court system is so bogged down with cases and understaffed by qualified judges, almost exclusively because the government is unable or unwilling to appoint judges for some reason, that accused murderers are being set free. I spoke to a lawyer the other day who was complaining that it was taking him four years to get a single court appearance for a civil case and that the government was saying that if he has an issue with that he can go to the courts to get timely access. I do not think so.

My point is that the system of denial, appeal, denial, appeal could take a process that already takes upward of 18 months or more and counting to two years, three years, or four years. The beauty of this legislation for the government is that there is no upper limit on timeliness. However, it is not the same for the public or the opposition. The government claims that it is ensuring it is open by default. That is patently false. Open by default would include setting an upper limit, after which the government releases the requested information. This legislation ensures that the Liberals can continue moving the upper limit as long as is politically convenient.

The next ridiculous provision is proactive disclosure. This one is great to discuss, as the minister touted proactive disclosure in his press conference introduction and was lambasted by the media for his excessive optimism. The legislation tends to create a new part providing for the proactive publication of information of materials related to the Senate, the House, parliamentary entities, ministers' offices, etc.

I will quote John Ivison for the National Post because he summarized these provisions better than I can. He stated:

The information that will emerge from briefing notes or Question Period binders is sure to be as sanitized, and therefore useless, as the average sterile government press release.

Having read numerous iterations of the question period binders for the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, I cannot imagine what an even more sanitized book would look like. I wish I shared the optimism of the President of the Treasury Board in his belief that the legislation will produce any outcome other than what was predicted by John Ivison. The Liberals believe that proactive disclosure will help ensure that governments remain more accountable, and the legislation includes publishing ministerial mandate letters to confirm the government's priorities. Theoretically, this will make it more difficult for the Liberals, or any government, to cavalierly disregard its promises.

How did that work out, practically speaking? Does publishing mandate letters force the government to keep its promises? Remember the debt and deficit promise? That was in the finance minister's mandate letter, which was blown off. The electoral reform promise was in the democratic institutions minister's mandate letter, which was blown off. What about the promise to fix Canada Post, which was in the public services and procurement minister's mandate letter, and to complete an open competition for the fighter jets within the mandate period before the mandate finished in 2019? Maybe it should have said to commit to a sole source purchase of an almost out of production plane with absolutely no parts made in Canada, and at the same time start a trade spat with Boeing, and to make sure to use taxpayer money for bonuses for the billionaire owners of Bombardier. I think that is a promise the minister can keep from the mandate letter. What about the promise to modify the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act? That was in the Treasury Board Minister's mandate letter and is also a failure.

The Liberals have clearly demonstrated that they do not care about mandate letters. They will disregard whatever promises happen to be inconvenient at the time. So much for proactive disclosure.

John lvison summed up his thoughts decisively when he stated:

It’s a farce, and...[the minister] has been around long enough to know the changes he’s just unveiled will not make the slightest difference to helping citizens understand the government for which they pay so richly.

That is it. Apart from a few other minor amendments, that is all the legislation intends to do. Have the Liberals lived up to their promise to bring the legislation into the 21st century? I will let the House know when I get my ATIPs back, perhaps sometime in the 22nd century.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today, September 25, is Franco-Ontarian Day. I want to extend my best wishes to all Franco-Ontarians and to honour this important day by beginning my speech in French.

Bill C-58 authorizes heads of government institutions to decline access to information requests if they are vexatious or made in bad faith. Those subjective criteria will be used to decide who gets access to information. This bill gives the Information Commissioner more power, which makes it much harder for those seeking access to information to obtain an investigation. In essence, this bill will make it harder for Canadian citizens, media, and opposition party members to access information. Do we live in an open and democratic country?

I would also like to point out that the Prime Minister promised the Access to Information Act would also apply to cabinet and the Prime Minister's Office. Bill C-58 is just another example of what Canadians already know: the Prime Minister is not a man of his word. He simply does not keep his election promises.

Suffice it to say, here we are. It is Monday, we are in Ottawa, it is hot, I am speaking, and we are discussing another broken Liberal promise. Therefore, despite the summer, not much has changed.

Before I go too far into the substance of this bill, being back from the summer and having not had the chance to do so yet, I want to quickly pay tribute to my friend Arnold Chan. It was an honour to serve in this House with him. One of the things that has not been mentioned in his many tributes is his great service as the chair of the Canada-Armenia Parliamentary Friendship Group. It was through the group that I was able to get to know him. His commitment to that cause showed his character, his willingness to invest in Canada's relationship with a relatively small country, yet a country that is hard pressed because of the challenges it faces with its neighbours. His commitment to engaging with that cause showed his principled approach to politics. I wanted to make sure that was mentioned as well. I certainly would associate myself with all of the tributes that have been made recognizing his contribution to this place, his commitment to raising the standard of debate, and the other very important things that were said.

To the issue at hand, we are debating a government bill that would make various changes with respect to the access to information regime. I was not here for much of last week because I was in New York. I had the pleasure of going to some UN meetings with the President of the Treasury Board, as part of the Open Government Partnership. It was an interesting week, leading up to where we are today debating this bill, to have and to hear some discussions with our international partners specifically about the question of open government, of the access of citizens to government.

I was particularly struck by a presentation that was made by the President of Estonia. She was talking about the link between open government and trust. She made the point, and it is obviously true if one digs into it, that the mechanisms of open government, the structures and institutions of open government, can really only have meaning and be effective if they are associated with a culture in which people trust and have reason to trust the government. People are not going to share information with a government that they do not trust. They are not going to trust the quality of the information that they receive if there is not an underlying sense of being able to rely on the information, that they can rely on its word and on its commitment to a credible process. In other words, open government is a process, but it is also about a mentality, not just about a set of institutional changes. That was the case that she made, and I found it resonated with me and many of the other people in the room.

I say that because it is particularly paradoxical today. We are debating a bill that purports to be about the opening up of government, where the government is breaking faith, breaking trust, with the people who elected it by going back substantively on a promise. Of course, as colleagues of mine have said, we have seen many cases of the government breaking its election promises. However, it is particularly notable in this case when we are discussing an area that is supposed to be all about trust, about open government. The government is saying it is trying to open it up, and at the same doing it in a way that undermines a clear election commitment that it made.

Unfortunately, the government's unwillingness to take the promises it made seriously has undermined many people's trust in government and faith in the political process. Therefore, for those in the House who are interested in substantively advancing the values of open government, it is not just about institutional changes and structures, it is about following through on one's commitments. It is about respecting the trust that people have given, which is the basis for open government, as well as some of these institutional changes. I want to put that out as a kind of contextual framework for the conversation. Again, I think people would be disappointed anytime that they see the government breaking promises. There have been many instances of that, but when it is a process around open government, it is particularly ironic, and goes that much further in undermining people's trust in government.

Having said that, in terms of an introductory set-up, I will talk about the substance of the legislation.

Bill C-58 deals with access to information, which is the right that citizens have to file requests to the government to get information about what is happening inside of government. This is information that may not be proactively disclosed but that may be available. It is an important tool for opposition parties that are holding the government to account. Accessing information from the government is something that we do on a regular basis. It is also something that civil society organizations, academics, and ordinary citizens do. People have a range of motivations for accessing the information. As I said earlier in questions and comments, and I will come back to it later, it is not for the state, for us as parliamentarians, or for government ministers to judge whether someone's desire for accessing information is reasonable or justified.

The law ought to prescribe people having a right to certain information, to know how government operates and what the government is doing, and then it is up to them to decide how, when, and for what to use that information. I think that is an important principle. Obviously, certain information cannot be made available through access to information requests. However, we should not try to create a situation where the government is evaluating people's motivation and subjectively being able to determine whether it will give that information, based even on who the person is making the request.

Bill C-58 proposes various changes to the framework for access to information. I will mention a few of the particular aspects of it, and then I want to develop them.

There was a promise from the Liberals during the last election campaign. They said that they were going to extend access to information to activities within ministers' offices and within the Prime Minister's Office. This proposed legislation would not do that. The Liberals are breaking their commitment to having access to information include ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office. Unfortunately, they are going back on a very clear commitment yet again.

Under the proposed act, we would have a situation in which the government could refuse any access to information request that it regards as being vexatious, made in bad faith, or as a misuse of the right to request information. However, when we think about a vexatious request or a request made in bad faith, it is according to whom? In a free society, an opposition party, a member of the media, or a third-party organization might make an access to information request for no other reason than because they wish to politically embarrass the government. Certainly I would never make an access to information request along those lines, but I have heard of this maybe happening.

It is part of free democratic debate that people can access that information and use it as they see fit. With regard to exposing what is happening in government, even if the motivation of the person is purely to embarrass the government, that embarrassment may well be in the public interest, for the public to know what the government is doing behind closed doors and to hold the government accountable for that.

However, it begs the question of vexatious and in bad faith according to whom, because generally we accept that open information is in the public interest. It is consistent with the comment that the information be out there regardless of why it was requested in the first place or who is accessing it. The paradoxical situation envisioned by this is one in which perhaps I, as a member of the opposition requesting certain information, could be denied that information on the outlandish assumption that I am requesting it in bad faith, but that with someone else who requests exactly the same information, it is going to be presumed that they are not.

It invites the government to make determinations on the basis of motivation. However, more than that, it gives it the subjective power to make that determination. It may well be that it would claim that a request for information is vexatious or in bad faith, when in reality it is simply that the government department or minister in question does not want to see that information go out.

This is a problem. This is a troubling standard or mechanism for making determinations on what information goes out. We have the breaking of a promise and we have the introduction of a subjective standard that asks the government to psychoanalyze the motivations of the person seeking that information. These are two very clear and strong reasons for why not only our party but the NDP as well are opposing this. We both feel that these things are concerning.

Folks may have a range of different opinions about who and what should be subject to access to information, but the reality is that the Liberals, when they were in the third-party position, had the ability to engage in those debates internally, to think about what was and was not appropriate in the context of access to information, and to put their conclusions into their platform. That was what they offered to the Canadian people as their commitment of what they were going to do and how they were going to move forward. It was clearly there, and yet they went in the other direction. They totally reneged on it.

I want to note that this is not the first time we have seen the government break its election promises. There may be a record being set right now by the government in terms of the complete disregard for its election promises. Probably the most well-known and discussed example is the Liberals' commitment with respect to changes to the electoral system. They said that 2015 was going to be the last election under first past the post. Unless someone is planning for us to stop having elections, that promise will not be kept.

The Prime Minister, in the context of pulling back and declaring his intention to break that promise, said something to the effect that they were going to do what they felt was in the best interests of Canadians, not simply try to check a box on a platform. It begs the question then of what in the world the point of the platform was in the first place. The Liberals are supposed to make that public interest evaluation before they make the promise. They are not supposed to make whatever promises they think will get them elected and then make a public interest evaluation after that. That is the whole point of elections. The public evaluates what we put in front of them and makes that determination.

We were saying at the time that if we were going to change the electoral system, we would need to have a referendum. The government was somewhat unclear, but it was trying to get a particular result in terms of an electoral system, a runoff ballot. It became clear in the consultation process that nobody really wanted it. There were people talking about proportional representation, about the status quo, but it was only the Prime Minister and those around him who were talking about this runoff ballot.

When the government realized that it was not going to get that, rather than having a referendum, rather than taking seriously the recommendations of the committee, it decided it was just going to tear up the whole process. This was a broken promise that broke trust in the government. It left a lot of people disappointed and cynical about whether or not the platform commitments were meaningful.

On a lot of people's minds right now is the government's plan to change the system around small businesses and significantly increase the taxes they face. I should remind the government that this is also at odds with an election promise. It is hard to believe now that they promised to reduce taxes on small businesses. They have not talked about that one very much.

All three of the major parties in the House promised to move us to a small business tax rate of 9%. Then the government effectively raised taxes on small business initially by saying it would leave the tax rate at 10.5%. That was one broken promise to small business.

The Liberals also eliminated the hiring credit, which was specifically an incentive to encourage hiring. It is not something that I heard about from the Liberal candidate in Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan during the last election. Did they say they were going to eliminate the hiring credit for small businesses and make it harder for them to hire people? What about that idea? It did not come up in the forums. It did not come up in what they were saying while knocking on doors.

Not only did the government take those steps, but now it is contemplating the largest change to the tax code that we have seen in a long time. It is a change that virtually everybody is against. Not a single person has contacted my office in favour of the proposed changes. Probably now that I have said that, somebody somewhere will, but I have received an overwhelming amount of correspondence in opposition to these changes. This completely goes against the commitments that the Liberals made. During the election they talked about lowering taxes for small business.

The Liberals made other major economic promises.

They made a clear commitment to run $10-billion deficits in each of the first three years they were in government and then balance the budget in the final year. We did not think that was particularly prudent even as explained, but it was what they described as modest deficits. They have completely blown those numbers out of the water, by orders of magnitude. We are looking at not three years of projected deficits but at decades of projected deficits under the current plans of the government. As usually happens, it will take a Conservative government to clean up that mess.

It is hard for me to imagine how government members justify this flagrant dishonesty, whether we are talking about the commitments made with respect to ATIP that are now being ignored, the commitments made with respect to electoral reform now being ignored, balanced budgets now being ignored, or the protection of small business now being ignored. There are many other less publicized but still important examples of the government not respecting its commitments.

The Liberals stand up before voters and tell them what they are going to do, but as soon as they get into power, they come up with all kinds of excuses. On the economy, they usually say the situation has changed, that they did not quite anticipate how bad things were, but we could look at all of the independent analyses that say the budget was balanced before the Liberals came to power. The information that shows there was a surplus when the Liberals took power was there, and it is still clearly there.

With respect to ATIP, there is just no explanation, because there is no plausible claim that circumstances on the ground have changed. We are not talking about something that changes without the government changing it. The Liberals are making a decision to renege on their promise.

In the time I have left, I would like to highlight one more time that the government can refuse any ATIP request. Its only justification has to be that it suspects the good faith of the person making that request. I suspect that after this legislation passes, we will have many opposition ATIPs, many civil society ATIPs, many media ATIPs for which the motivation of those putting them forward will be suspect.

In a free society, government does not deny people information because it does not think their motives are pure enough. That is not how open government is supposed to work. That is not how government builds trust.

On that basis, we are opposing this bill.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was a Liberal campaign promise to include the Prime Minister's Office and ministerial offices in the Access to Information Act. It was a directive in the mandate letter to the minister. It was the subject of at least five private member's bills, in the previous Parliament, brought forward by New Democrats.

I would like to hear from my New Democrat colleague what is lost, given the government's failure to include the PMO and ministerial offices in Bill C-58.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we are giving our speeches or asking questions or making comments here, we all focus on elements of our own past. I quoted the Information Commissioner and how she responded to how the government had responded to her recommendations. She said, “I am very please that most of these recommendations over the years have been implemented by the government.” I know that the member was not in the previous Parliament. However, she can refer to Madam Legault's comments.

Did the Conservative government do all of what was in Bill C-613, or in Pat Martin's private member's bill? No, it did not. I remember debating Pat Martin about one of his versions of the bill and suggesting that he bring the same disclosure he aspired to in government to his legal defence fund. Members might remember that from the last Parliament. He actually had unions contribute in a roundabout way, which I felt went around the rules for fundraising, to pay some of the bills for a libel action he had. I remember that debate. To his credit, Pat Martin did bring it regularly.

However, what I am highlighting today is the acute hypocrisy of the Prime Minister, because not only did we all see it in the “Real Change” document, and we have all referred to the Liberals' promise, but he brought a private member's bill forward in the last Parliament as the member of Parliament for Papineau. Just as we all bring bills or motions forward on areas we care the most about, that is what the Prime Minister said he cared the most about.

As I said, if we compare Bill C-58 to what he brought forward in Bill C-613 in the last Parliament, one cannot even recognize it. Certainly, at an absolute minimum, of the 31 broken promises, I think we all would agree that with respect to the Prime Minister's Office and all the cabinet offices, this is the most egregious of the broken promises. I am highlighting, based on my experience here in Parliament, where I think this falls short the most.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I share the Conservative member's disappointment that the campaign commitment made by the Liberal government to close the loophole for access to information to the Prime Minister's Office and ministerial offices was not done even though that was in the Liberal mandate letters and in the campaign promise. I agree that Bill C-58 fails on that.

However, we have a bit more prehistory. In 2006, the Harper Conservatives campaigned on a promise that they would update access to information legislation, but they did not. The New Democrats introduced private members bills based on the recommendations by successive information commissioners. My colleague, Pat Martin, brought a private member's bill forward in 2006, 2008, 2011, and 2014, and the Conservatives voted against every one of them.

Why the change of heart now?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

No, the people of the Prime Minister's Office were not here. My friend from Winnipeg is heckling me, but he remembers early on that Canadian taxpayers paid to move the Prime Minister's officials to Ottawa. I know they were not here. We paid for them to come after the Liberals won. I would like those officials to also look at proposed subsection 2(4) where it says:

In the event of any uncertainty as to whether an exception applies to a record requested under this Act, the principle set out in paragraph 2(1)(a) applies and the record shall be made available.

Paragraph 2(1)(a) is that, all “government information must be...openly available”. This was the Prime Minister's raison d'être in the last Parliament. He has now brought a bill, through his President of the Treasury Board, to the House that would get an F if it were graded alongside what he suggested, not just in the election campaign but as a private member of the House.

As I said, not only is this a broken promise, it is 31 broken promises because he said that every minister of that front bench would have to have his or office open to disclosure under the Access to Information Act. That was a broken promise for a couple of rows of Parliament.

He then said that the purpose was to always lean in favour of disclosure, that holding back documents should be rare and specific. In this bill, there is also a paragraph that says that, if in the opinion of someone, it is a frivolous request, he or she does not have to disclose it either. This is an exception that one can drive a truck through in what someone might consider frivolous. Therefore, the lofty language and goals of the Prime Minister in the last Parliament certainly did not make their way into Bill C-58.

My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent did a great job in outlining our opposition concerns with the bill. However, I want officials in the Prime Minister's Office to remind the Prime Minister of not only his commitments in the election but his commitment to this Parliament. His only private member's bill was on access to information and reform of Parliament.

Whether it is Bill C-58 or his commitments to never use omnibus bills, and I have lost track of how of those bills we have had, and how many times the government House leader has brought forward time allocation, the rhetoric of the Liberals in opposition, when held up alongside their actual record in government, is hypocrisy of the highest order. This bill is probably the best example.

I do not like being the voice of doom, but every bill the government brings forward just gives me hours' worth of material, as a parliamentarian. Therefore, with my remaining time, I want to thank Madam Suzanne Legault, who served Canada with great distinction and capability as our information commissioner for many years.

Many of her recommendations and the work she did, at the vanguard of global, open government access to information, was the basis of the Prime Minister's bill and the Prime Minister's old thinking in this area. Once he was sworn in, he forgot all that. I am sure Madam Legault, like many other people, is disappointed.

Here is what she said when I happened to be at committee with her in the previous Parliament, in December 2014:

Over the years, I have also made recommendations to the President of the Treasury Board on various ways to advance accountability and transparency. I am very pleased that most of these recommendations over the years have been implemented by the government.

That was the information commissioner's testimony before committee in the last Parliament.

We heard the last Liberal speaker say that Stephen Harper was not in favour of open government, and that it was a one-man show. That is simply not true. That was a narrative the Prime Minister liked to bring forward and it led to his bill and his showboating on the subject. However, it was not the testimony of our officer of Parliament. That was her quote, that generally governments under her tenure had responded, generally the president of the treasury board had responded to modernization.

I hope the Liberals remove, from their talking points, the aspersions they are casting at Mr. Harper, because they simply are not true. I would refer them to the testimony of Madam Legault and her great record. I asked her some difficult questions that day and she handled them with capability and aplomb. She also ran her department very effectively.

This bill would give more resources to the department, and that is needed. In the last Parliament, I think she lapsed $30,000. I have literally never seen a department run so efficiently. It is impossible for government to meet all its estimates right on. There always will be a lapse or a request for more funds. The department ran a very capable program at a time. Under her watch, there was a 30% increase in access to information requests. That department used technology and a number of means to modernize.

Another thing I see lacking in the bill, and I spoke about this in the last Parliament, is that the Access to Information Act comes from 1983, when the Prime Minister's father was the prime minister. The cost for an access request was $5 in 1983. It has not changed, and it should. The testimony given by Madam Legault suggested that it was a $1,300 internal cost for each request. We want to have open and accessible government, but $1,300 is the internal cost.

With requests going up by 30%, we need to change that. In fact, 21,000 requests of all departments of the government are commercial in nature. I used to see this as a corporate lawyer, companies looking at regulatory issues would submit an access to information because there was no barrier to just firing in thousands of requests. With 55,000 requests, on average, per year, and 30,000 of those being commercial requests, that is $71 million in costs for law firms, accountant firms, and businesses requesting information.

I have always been an advocate of a zero cost for a member of the public, one of our great people interested in democracy, but more like a $25 or $50 cost for a corporation other than a media outlet. We actually could stop some of the frivolous requests being made and clogging the system. John or Jane public member would have full access, but more of a threshold to show we changed a bit since 1983

I would refer the Prime Minister and members of his government to his bill from the last Parliament. I hope we can amend Bill C-58 to capture some of the promises that clearly have been broken.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to be part of the discussion on Bill C-58. As many of the members of the opposition have pointed out with some degree of consistency and clarity, this is perhaps the best example of the legacy of broken promises by the government. This broken promise in effect comprises 31 broken promises. In the midst of my speech I will address how this is not just a simple broken promise. Rather, it affects the entire open government concept paraded by the Liberals in the last election and goes to the heart of the sincerity of the Prime Minister on this subject. Many of the new members of Parliament were not here in the last session when the Prime Minister was the leader of the third party. However, when listening to my speech, members will learn that this was a centrepiece of the Prime Minister's time as MP for Papineau. He seems to have forgotten his passions from his time in opposition.

My friend, the member for Kings—Hants and President of the Treasury Board, in his remarks on this bill last week spoke a lot about his time in cabinet and how proud he was to be in the cabinet of Paul Martin. What was absent in his remarks was that he is no longer in that cabinet but in the cabinet of the current Prime Minister. Possibly he did not work that into his remarks because he was handed the biggest broken promise of the new session. It is never fun to have a prime minister make a minister come to the House of Commons to try to sell a dead fish. That is essentially what this bill is.

I will remind the members who did run on the Liberal platform of their promise. We all remember the various hashtags used by the government in the last election, hashtags about hope, hard work, and real change. “Real Change” was the title of their policy platform. What was contained in that platform? I will quote, “We will ensure that Access to Information applies to the Prime Minister’s and Ministers’ Offices, as well as administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts.” That was a real change in the section of their platform that talked about open and accountable government.

On the page before that in the document the Liberals also talked about giving real independence to and listening to government watchdogs, such as the Information Commissioner. Many previous information commissioners have provided commentary that the Liberals suggested they were going to act on. I am sure there are countless former watchdogs who are quite disappointed that the Liberals ran on this commitment but have fallen far short. If we look at the Liberals' campaign promise to earn the trust of Canadians, they said that the Prime Minister’s Office would be governed by access to information, as well as all ministers' offices. There were 31 different offices they pledged to bring under the umbrella of access to information. Those are 31 broken promises contained in Bill C-58. Of the litany of broken promises by the government, this is probably the most ambitious because there are 31 broken promises rolled into one.

I would love to have seen the emails about the Prime Minister's trip to a private island, along with the current Minister of Veterans Affairs and various members of Canada 2020 or the Liberal Party of Canada. I have a hard time distinguishing them. We know dribs and drabs about that trip because senior officials at the Privy Council Office had a hard time making sure that the Prime Minister could remain in touch. This was at a secluded billionaire's island. The Government of Canada had a hard time keeping up with the vacation ambitions of the Prime Minister. Had the Prime Minister kept his promise, I would love to have read a bit about what his senior officials thought and how they were pushing the government to accommodate this very unusual request.

Similarly, with regard to the investigations of the Prime Minister by both the Ethics Commissioner and Commissioner of Lobbying, it is unparalleled for a Prime Minister to be subject to one, let alone two, investigations in his first two years. I guess that is real change, and certainly a big change from Mr. Harper. There were no investigations of him over nine years by those officers of Parliament. Now we have two. I would love to see the emails of Gerald Butts and Katie Telford on how to handle the investigation of the Prime Minister's fundraising dinners with Chinese billionaires, the same ones who are building a statue of his father in Canada before the Prime Minister's government builds a statue and monument to the Afghanistan mission. The Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation is going to make sure that Pierre Trudeau has a monument before the 40,000 Canadians who served in Afghanistan do. I would love to see a little bit of the commentary on that.

What we have heard from government members, and we are at the beginning of debate so will hear these talking points quite regularly now, is that instead of keeping their promise and providing that 31 offices would now be subject to the Access to Information Act, they are going to produce proactive disclosure. This is their key defence of their broken promise. They are going to release schedules, agendas, and draft question period documents and say those should satisfy us. No, they will not. As members will see, if they stay with me a few moments, this is far more than a broken promise in the real change campaign document to Canadians. Why is that?

I am going to refer to remarks by the Liberal MP for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, a good guy, I might add, a friend. In the last Parliament, he said, “It almost seemed that the Conservatives wanted to have a little more proactivity involved in the sense of what we are doing here with the Liberal Party of Canada, when in fact, we were the ones who brought forward far greater measures on proactive disclosure than this House has ever seen.” He gave a really good speech. I recommend that the member and some of his colleagues refer to it. In the same speech he said, “A country's access to information system is the heart of open government.” These are wonderful words by my friend from Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, the longest serving member in the House from Newfoundland and Labrador.

Why such eloquent prose? What was that member speaking about in the last Parliament? He was speaking about a private member's bill on reforming access to information. Who brought forward that bill? It was the MP for Papineau, now the Prime Minister of Canada, whose own private member's bill in the last Parliament championed open government and reform of access to information. When he spoke, no wonder my friend from Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame was so eloquent in his praise and prose. It was his leader's bill, his leader's raison d'être, as the MP for Papineau.

I always found the number of that bill, Bill C-613, interesting. All government officials are generally in the 613 area code, so I always thought Bill C-613 was kind of ironic. It was the open government bill. The actual name of the bill was an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Access to Information Act (transparency). We know that when a member has a bill tabled and debated in the House, it is the most important issue to them.

We have seen great bills brought forward by passionate members of Parliament. For example, my friend from Cariboo—Prince George brought forward a national framework for post-traumatic stress disorder for our first responders. We have debated that framework, that passion of his, in this Parliament. In the last Parliament, when the Prime Minister was leader of the third party, what was his passion? It was access to information reform and open government.

Someone in the PMO should remind him of that and send him an email. However, we will not be able to see those emails because he is carving that out in these reforms. However, someone should remind the member for Papineau. He is still the member for Papineau. He is also the Prime Minister, and I respect that role. However, I am here to remind him what he brought to Parliament, when he would regularly grill the Conservative government of the day. I remember because I was in cabinet.

From the Prime Minister's bill on reforming and improving access to information, what did it start with? Proposed section 2 read:

2(1) The purpose of this Act is to extend the present laws of Canada to provide a right of access to information in records under the control of all government institutions in accordance with the principles that

(a) government information must be made openly available to the public and accessible....

That was the thrust of the Prime Minister's private member's legislation. In fact, it went on to talk about when it should be held back. I refer to paragraph 2(1)(b) of that bill, which stated, “necessary exceptions to the right of access should be rare, limited and specific.”

With this farce of a bill, how does it measure up against the Prime Minister's Bill C-613? It fails dramatically and terribly. Therefore, the hope and hard work the Prime Minister championed in opposition are long forgotten. His hopes and his promises on open government, which made it all the way to the Liberal platform, were dropped once he formed government. I hope Canadians see this for what it is. Once again, the photo ops and the hashtags do not match the conduct of the government.

I will leave the Prime Minister's Office with one last quote. The people of that office were not here with the member for Papineau in the last Parliament.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with these proposed changes, we are stepping up on our commitment to make government more open and transparent. Bill C-58 is the first major overhaul of the Access to Information Act in 34 years. It proposes to enhance the accountability and transparency of federal institutions and promote an open and democratic society. We have already committed to the principle of openness by default, and the changes we are proposing to the Access to Information Act are another step on that bold path.

In brief, here is what we are proposing. We would amend the act to entrench in law the requirement that government organizations proactively publish a broad range of information in a timely manner and without having to receive an access to information request; we would give the Information Commissioner new powers to order the release of government records; we would put in place a range of measures to improve the administration of the request-based system, an outdated system that has not significantly changed since the act came into effect in 1983; and we would make mandatory a review of the act every five years so that it never again becomes outdated.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer a few words about Bill C-58 and its proposed amendments to Canada's Access to Information Act. In fact, I would like to begin with some specific comments about the Information Commissioner's expanded role under these legislative amendments.

Among the many changes we have made in our proposed reform of the Access to Information Act, one that we believe is important, and that the Information Commissioner has herself requested, is for strengthened oversight of the right of access.

Currently, the Information Commissioner has no power to order a government institution to release records that have been requested under the Access to Information Act.

For example, if a requester is dissatisfied with the reduction of records in response to a request, they have the option to send a complaint to the Information Commissioner. This complaint is then investigated, and the commissioner can make a recommendation to the government institution to release the records.

If the institution does not accept that recommendation, the commissioner currently has the option to challenge the decision in court, with the agreement of the requester.

Under Bill C-58, the person would continue to have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner if he or she does not agree with how the government institution responded to the request.

This right would be clearly communicated to the requester as required by the act, but when it comes to the conclusion of the commissioner’s investigation of such complaints, the commissioner would now have the power to issue an order to release the record if she deems it was improperly withheld.

The government institution would have to release the record in accordance with an order from the Information Commissioner or, if it disagreed with the commissioner's order, go to court and convince the court, based on evidence it provided, that it has applied the act correctly.

Mr. Speaker, this is a first at the federal level. Never before has the Information Commissioner had the ability to order the government to release records.

If the head of the institution disagrees with the order, believing, for example, that the record should be withheld for security reasons, Bill C-58 proposes to give the head of the institution 30 business days to ask the court to review the matter.

In short, the new reforms to the Access to Information Act would provide the Information Commissioner with order-making power. This would transform the commissioner's role from an ombudsperson to a powerful authority with legislative power to compel government to release records.

These new powers include the authority to make orders about such things as fees, access in the official language requested, format of release, and decisions by government institutions to decline to act on overbroad or bad faith requests.

To enable the Information Commissioner to carry out this new authority, we will also be providing the commissioner with additional resources.

The improvements we are proposing will reinforce the act's original purpose and respond to the recommendations of the Information Commissioner to strengthen her oversight of the right to access.

The changes to the commissioner's role from ombudsperson to an authority with legislated order-making power will increase the commissioner's effectiveness.

This is a sea change in the way access to information works at the federal level, and we are taking the important step to strengthen government transparency and accountability.

We are committed to modernizing the act and making continual progress towards a more open and transparent government.

To that end, the legislative package we have introduced proposes a new part of the act that sets out proactive publication requirements for all areas of government. This will entrench into law the obligation for the government to proactively publish a broad range of information to a predictable schedule. It will apply across departments and agencies, as well as new areas such as the Prime Minister's and ministers' offices, senators and members of Parliament, institutions that support Parliament, and administrative institutions that support the superior courts and over 1,100 judges of the superior courts.

Making more government information publicly available and on a predictable schedule will promote accountability.

Like the Information Commissioner, we are aiming for increased openness and transparency across government.

At the same time, we recognize that proactive publication does not eliminate our responsibility to strengthen the request-based aspect of the system.

For that reason, we are also investing in tools to make processing information requests more efficient. We will support training across government for consistent application of access to information rules and we will provide written explanations for exemptions and exclusions.

We have also heard the commissioner’s concerns regarding overbroad or bad faith requests, those where the intent is clearly to obstruct or bog down the system.

Under very specific circumstances and subject to oversight by the Information Commissioner, government institutions will be able to decline to act on bad faith requests. Doing so will help government better direct its resources to responding to requests that reflect the original intentions of the act, making government more transparent, responsive, and accountable to citizens.

We are making significant reforms to the access to information system, while continuing to establish a relationship of trust between those requesting information and the government that can provide that information. The amendments will also add a new requirement to review the act every five years to make sure it remains current.

The first review will begin no later than one year after the bill receives royal assent.

In addition, we will have a policy requiring departments to regularly review information requests and to use that analysis to make more types of information more easily accessible. This analysis would in turn guide the five-year reviews to ensure ongoing improvement.

After 34 years, the time has come for the ATI laws and program to be revitalized. The reforms we are proposing affect the whole of government, including areas never before touched by the legislation.

They also provide greater powers to the Information Commissioner to oversee the access to information regime and the ability to order the release of records.

I call upon all members to examine, debate, and support the goals of this legislation and to continue to work together to strengthen access to information and make government more open, transparent, and accountable.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's comments on the tax changes coming forward. We know that this rushed, overreaching action on the part of the government is going to hurt our economy, hurt middle-class Canadians, farmers, small businessmen, and accountants. These are the people who have been communicating with the government and with us on this issue. The response from the government has been to try to say that we have been misinforming them and that we are causing this issue to be overblown.

In the same case, we know that Canadians are concerned. We have comments that you quoted from democracy groups, professional journalists, and even a previous information commissioner. Are these also people the government is going to dismiss as being somehow responsible to us in our arguments as to why Bill C-58 is not a good bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, and I am particularly pleased to be able to speak to this bill. This is not the first time that I have risen in the House, and I have had even more opportunities to do so since being appointed to the shadow cabinet as Treasury Board critic. However, this is the first time that I have had a chance to talk about a subject that comes straight from the Treasury Board. The hon. President of the Treasury Board introduced this bill just before the House rose for the summer in June, which means we had time to look it over and make observations about it. I am very honoured and proud to take on this essential role of providing positive, constructive, and, above all, vigilant opposition.

As such, I am very pleased to rise and speak to this extremely important bill that amends the Access to Information Act. That act was first introduced some time ago, so we have been living under its provisions since 1983. Fundamentally, our party is in no way opposed to carefully scrutinizing any act, statute, or procedure in order to enhance or improve it. A number of changes have been made over the past 35 years, since the bill was first debated and passed here in the House, particularly when it comes to information technology. Everyone agrees that access to information has changed over time. Simply put, we are not opposed to scrutinizing this act from 1983.

Still, we need to be logical and consistent, since this is about drawing a very fine line between access to information, which is necessary in a democracy, and for which I would be the first to fight as a former journalist, and the ability of the executive branch to do its job, for which it requires certain information. Some of the exchanges and debates that take place within cabinet are crucial and healthy for a democracy, but they need to remain behind the closed doors of cabinet. The same is true in parliamentary life, considering that every Wednesday morning, each parliamentary group has caucus meetings, where we can discuss the issues that matter in a positive, constructive way that lays a foundation for the future, while also sometimes having different points of view. That is democracy at work.

The government says that it tabled this bill to fulfill a political commitment. Really? Let us look back at the promise made by the Liberal Party two years ago during the campaign, which was, “Real Change. A New Plan for a Strong Middle Class.” That was the Liberal Party's program. On page 24, regarding access to information, it states, “We will make government information more accessible.” No one can disagree with that. It is like apple pie. No one is against better access to information.

The Liberals' specific objectives are, “We will ensure that access to information applies to the Prime Minister’s and ministers’ offices, as well as administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts.” That is where the problem lies, because the first of these objectives has not been met and access to information still does not apply to the PMO. That is a broken promise by the Liberals.

I will come back to that a bit later on. We will show that the commitment made during the campaign, the very reason why Canadians elected this government, was once again, unfortunately, not upheld by the Liberals. We believe that it fuels public cynicism towards politicians. When a government does not keep its promises, which we strongly condemn, every single politician pays the price.

Let us take a closer look at what Bill C-58 entails exactly.

The real novelty of the bill is that the government is imposing a system of proactive publication, which is not so bad.

Let us look at what the government has tabled in the bill. Access to information lies in ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's office to properly publish the following information: mandate letters, and we have the mandate letters and everybody has seen them, so there is nothing new there; documentation on the training for new ministers; title and reference numbers of briefing notes; development notes for question period; backgrounders for occurrences before parliamentary committees; travel and hospitality expenditures; and contracts of more than $10,000.

This is the main problem. We are talking about proactive tabling of documents. That is great. Nobody can disagree with that, but on the other hand, and we will see it later, this is the end of the mandate for the Prime Minister and ministers.

Government organizations will also have to proactively publish the following information: travel expenses and shared travel expenses; reports tabled in Parliament; briefing packages for deputy heads; information about briefing notes; briefing materials for parliamentary committee appearances; contracts over $10,000; contributions over $25,000; and reclassification of positions.

The big change with this new bill is that the government is now deciding to publish this information proactively, which is not a bad thing, but the problem is that it ends there. That is why we have serious reservations about this bill, which does not really honour the Liberal Party's campaign promise. This bill is actually at odds with that promise.

Broken promises lead to disappointment. When people have expectations, they want those expectations met. People, especially those in the information sector, felt that this was one of the Liberal Party's key promises, so they expected the Liberal Party, once in government, to keep it. Unfortunately, people's faith was wasted on the Liberal Party because it did not keep that promise. That is from them, not me.

Let me read some quotes from important stakeholders about this important issue.

Katie Gibbs, executive director of Evidence for Democracy group, says that by ruling out the possibility to obtain information from ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's office, the government is breaking its campaign promise to establish a government “open by default”. Moreover, she says, that the possibility to refuse access to information requests on an undefined basis jeopardizes the transparency and the openness of the government.

That is the problem. The Liberal Party promised to be more open, but proactively publishing information and then leaving it at that poses a problem.

I do not want to undermine this approach, but the reality is that the documents that are released and that will be proactively released, are general access documents, or documents that almost anyone can access, such as the ministers' mandate letters that were made public by the Prime Minister on the day the ministers were sworn in, which was a good thing. A minister's mandate letter is indeed published on the day he or she is sworn in, if memory serves me correctly. It was a good idea. That has been the practice for the past two years, and it is working out well enough. However, when it comes to preparing ministers for question period, we are talking about factual information, facts, figures, and basic information. When we ask for a technical briefing, or a refresher course on the ins and outs of a bill, then we are generally given more specific information. We have an excellent working relationship with the ministers' offices and departmental officials who are there to serve all Canadians.

Then, once we all have the same background information, we can prepare our arguments for or against the topic in question. This is what is great about democracy. There will always be people for something and people against it. It would be odd if everyone were in favour of the same thing.

As Katie Gibbs, the executive director of Evidence for Democracy, said, this bill falls short, and that is disappointing.

It is the same thing for another important stakeholder.

Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch group, says:

The bill take a step backwards in allowing government officials to deny requests for information if they think the request is frivolous or made in bad faith. Public officials should not be given this power, as they will likely use it as a new loophole to deny the public information it has a right to know.

Mr. Conacher is on the same page. It is all well and good to be proactive, but there is no recourse if access to a document is denied because it is an executive-branch document and cannot be disclosed. That is the problem.

The government can go on and on about how open it is, but the government's actions and this bill do not reflect that reality.

Some people in Quebec have been very disappointed in the Liberal government. These people may have been seduced by the Liberal Party's big promises during the last election campaign, but now reality has caught up with them. Stéphane Giroux, the president of the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, said, “We were most interested in getting documents from ministers' offices. False alarm. It was too good to be true.” This is yet another disappointment.

This bill is a complete letdown. I have one more very interesting stakeholder to mention. He is so important that I saved him for last, because he is someone who really knows what he is talking about. His name is Robert Marleau, and he served as information commissioner from 2007 to 2009. He said, and I quote:

For the ministries, there is no one to review what they choose not to disclose, and I think that goes against the principle of the statute. They have taken the commissioner out of the loop. If you ask for these briefing notes, and you have got them and they were redacted, you had someone to appeal to. So there is no appeal. You cannot even go to a court. It is one step forward, two steps back.

This was not some big bad Conservative or New Democrat speaking, or even anyone from the Green Party or the Bloc Québécois. This was Robert Marleau, a man who spent years enforcing the Access to Information Act as information commissioner from 2007 to 2009, pointing out very clearly the problems stemming from this act.

The government claims to want to be open and proactive, which in theory is not a bad thing. However, in reality, it is no longer possible for people to appeal if the information they requested is not provided. Robert Marleau pointed out that problem.

Other observers have been extremely critical. I am not talking about people with a direct interest in the issue, or about pressure groups, or anything like that. Rather, I am talking about observers like Shawn McCarthy of The Globe and Mail, who said the following in an article published on September 18:

The Liberals also vowed to amend the ATI law to make government “open by default.” But C-58 would give government departments the right to ignore information requests that they deem to be “frivolous or vexatious.” That exemption is being imposed without warning or justification, and is a power that should not be held by a government department that could benefit by wide interpretation in its own interest. It should be removed from the bill.

Once again, that was said by a well-intentioned individual who wants to see things change. He believes that things have to change. He thought that the Liberal government would be the one to bring about those changes, but that is just another disappointment for those who are unhappy to add to the list.

Another such person is Stephen Maher, who wrote the following in an article published in in iPolitics:

The proactive disclosure of some ministerial documents may be a step backward, because the decisions about what to release and what to redact will not be reviewable by the information commissioner.

That is similar to the point that was raised by the former commissioner, who said that, from now on, there would be no appeal process and that this was a step backward. I would like to once again quote Mr. Maher. He said:

This bill takes baby steps toward greater openness, but it does not offer what [the Prime Minister] promised—that government documents would be open by default.

In the business community, Fasken Martineau issued a notice, not to say a warning, to its clients concerning Bill C-58, which reads:

What if an application is made that raises grounds of contestation which do not respond to the third party's real concerns or interests? Despite this drafting, we expect that the Court will nonetheless allow the third party to file its own application to raise its concerns and interests—although it would be ideal if Parliament avoids useless battles in Court on the standing of third parties and clarified the provision immediately.

In other words, Fasken Martineau is saying that, as it stands, this bill will result in court challenges.

God knows, we certainly do not need yet another process clogging up our justice system, considering that this government is dragging its heels on appointing the judges that Canadians want and expect.

In Quebec, the justice minister has been waiting for months for this government to appoint 14 federal court judges. Of that number, barely half has been appointed so far. Until the appointment process is complete, dozens, hundreds, even thousands of Canadians awaiting a fair trial will not get one because the government is dragging its heels on this.

We certainly do not need to further clog up our courts by passing this bill. It may have been drafted with good intentions, and we are not against scrutinizing legislation that has been in effect since 1983, but we need to do things properly, which is not the case. Politically speaking, the Liberals should at least keep their election promise.

Is it any wonder that this bill only adds to the government's track record, which is a long list of broken promises? On top of that, just two years ago, this government said that it would not raise anyone's taxes, and yet what does it intend to do with its tax reform for small and medium-sized businesses? It intends to create even more obstacles and impose additional taxes on business, like the 73% tax, which is nearly 50% higher than the tax rate for large corporations.

Meanwhile, this government was elected barely two years ago on a promise that it would run small deficits of $10 billion. Where is the deficit now? It is about 80% higher than what the government promised. The Liberal Party also promised to return to a balanced budget by 2019, which happens to be the next election year. Now this government is abandoning its commitment, since it does not even know when Canada will return to a balanced budget. At no time in living memory has there ever been a government, a finance minister, and a prime minister who could not tell us when the budget would be balanced, except perhaps in times of crisis.

As many members will sadly recall, deficits became necessary in times of war, but it was the current Prime Minister's father who invented deficits in times of prosperity. That said, at least he had some idea as to when he would balance the budget. This government, however, has no idea when it will achieve that, which is a first in Canadian history. It has been one broken promise after another, and the same is true of Bill C-58.

The House resumed from September 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve a government that is accountable and open by default. For that to be possible, Canadians must have access to information about government decisions and practices to hold their government to account. While the Liberal government pays lips service to those ideals of openness and accountability, it has consistently fallen short of implementing them. We have seen this in a variety of areas, particularly with the statement by the Prime Minister on open and accountable government.

The stated aim of Bill C-58 is to update the Access to Information Act with necessary reforms. However, as with many Liberal promises, it fails to achieve them. We have heard them invoking flowery language and buzz words and making grand-sounding claims as a substitute for action in many instances in this Parliament. This bill is no different in many respects, and I will get to some of them.

An open and accountable government requires citizens to have access to information about decisions made by Parliament and government entities. Since the first Access to Information Act was introduced in 1983, the act has provided Canadians with the means to request information about themselves, or decisions affecting them. However, because of significant changes in information technology and in government operations and the passage of time, the act has not been meaningfully updated since it was first introduced, and many critics across all party lines have identified the need for reform.

The Conservatives introduced the idea of openness by default in the previous parliament. In 1983, it was originally a Liberal government that introduced the act. However, successive Conservative and Liberal governments have neglected to update it as required. Although I guess the current Liberal government is to be commended for undertaking the task in the first place, we see many shortcomings in the resulting bill. Bill C-58 does not adequately address many of the flaws in Canada's current access to information regime that we heard about in detail at committee.

When I was a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, we conducted a detailed study of the act and the issues surrounding it. We heard from numerous witnesses, from accountability watchdogs to ATIP officers in government departments to Canada's Information Commissioner, and others. We reviewed the commissioner's comprehensive report on the state of access to information in Canada and adopted many of her key recommendations in our own report. All three parties on the committee co-operated to draft a thoughtful report, with sensible recommendations for access to information reform. However, the government's response to our report is both late and underwhelming. The Liberals promised that phase one of the ministerial level review of Canada's access to information regime would be completed in time to produce legislation in early 2017. Here we are in late September and just beginning today to debate the bill, which many critics consider to be a half measure.

One of the primary flaws that witnesses at committee pointed out is the culture of secrecy throughout government. Such a culture runs contrary to both Liberal promises and Conservative initiatives. This has run across party lines over time. For example, the Conservatives hold that Canada's government should be open by default. In the last parliament, the Conservative government released a study titled “Canada's Action Plan on Open Government”, in which the Conservatives recognized the following:

The key challenge for governments is how to shift to an environment where data and information are released openly to the public by default while respecting privacy, security, and confidentiality restrictions.

Such an environment represents a fundamental change in government culture that requires government-wide direction to drive the release of federal information and advance overall objectives for transparency, accountability, and citizen engagement.

Such an environment of disclosure would be a stark departure from what witnesses at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics described as a culture of secrecy among government entities.

According to witnesses like Sean Holman, vice-president of the Canadian Association of Journalists, the general attitude of the public service is one of withholding instead of disclosing information, and one of caution instead of candour. This attitude flows from the act and from cabinet. Mr. Holman put it clearly when he said:

We have a cultural problem when it comes to secrecy....Fixing the Access to Information Act is only one part of addressing those problems....the problem with the Access to Information Act when it was introduced was that it was grafted onto a secretive political system. We did not deal with the actual problem; we instead introduced legislation that conformed to the system as it currently existed.

He was referring to the adoption of the original act in 1983, which has remained virtually unchanged since then.

This is not to criticize Canada's public servants, since they respond to direction from the top. Those that enter the public service walk into a culture that already exists. Bringing about a culture of openness by default requires buy-in from ministers, the Prime Minister, deputy ministers, and senior managers among all departments. Culture cannot be changed overnight and simply by adopting a new law in Parliament.

Openness and accountability require timely responses. Witnesses at committee complained bitterly about the delays in the service standards for responding to ATIPS. They mentioned that extension after extension can take response times of up to over a year in some cases. This diminishes the news value of information for journalists. It puts people's lives on hold in some circumstances when they need vital information, and brings to mind the adage that justice delayed is justice denied.

Bill C-58 includes some of the committee's recommendations, the most significant of which is granting the commissioner the power to issue binding orders for the disclosure of particular information. Although it should increase the public's access to information, such order-making power is not a panacea for solving a culture of secrecy. Also, it was not uniformly endorsed in witness testimony, although it was the final recommendation of the committee.

The committee heard from witnesses like Professor Michel Drapeau, a retired colonel and access to information and privacy lawyer. He argued that switching to an order-making model is unnecessary because the issue and the problem that existed was the culture in government and the lack of openness in which departmental ATIP officers responded or operated in.

If within a department the ATIP officers and other members of the public service have a mindset and a culture to openly disclose information and to think first of ensuring that it is released on a timely basis, we might not be arguing about whether or not order-making power is necessary to compel disclosure. Delay is the biggest failure perhaps, which will not be solved by merely establishing order-making power for the commissioner.

We are glad to see that Bill C-58 requires the minister to undertake a review at least within one year of royal assent and every five years thereafter. Hopefully, that will prevent us from going another 34 years without a review of the act. It is important, because we know that the pace of change in information technology and the evolution of that technology is very fast, and as long as political will continues to exist to review the act in the future, it is good to have the built-in provision for review.

The provisions in Bill C-58 requiring proactive publication of materials related to Parliament, ministers' offices, superior courts, and other government institutions are a welcome addition to the access to information regime and should contribute to the culture of openness by default, but there is certainly a long way to go to establish that change of culture.

Proactive disclosure of sought after information should increase democratic accountability and pre-empt many requests, but proactive disclosure by various parliamentary and governmental entities is not the same as extending the scope of the Access to Information Act to cover them. It is not what the committee recommended nor what the commissioner recommended and not what the Liberals promised in their 2015 election platform, and it is not what the Prime Minister ordered in the mandate letter of the President of the Treasury Board.

The minister's mandate letter instructs him to lead a review of the act and implement certain reforms, such as ensuring that “the Act applies appropriately to the Prime Minister’s and Ministers’ Offices, as well as administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts.”

Ensuring that the act applies to the prime minister's and ministers' offices requires more than proactive disclosure of a limited list of useful information, but this is not the only recommendation that the bill either ignores or only partially addresses.

Our report suggested several matters that the government should consider or consult on during the second phase of its review. I welcome an update from the government on the state of those considerations and consultations.

Open and accountable government requires an access to information regime that ensures timely responses to ATIP requests. This applies to all elements of the Government of Canada, with a few important exceptions, namely, to protect parliamentary privilege, cabinet confidence, and national security. This prevents government entities from wiggling out of disclosure obligations. That is why the committee recommended that the minister consult the organizations that support Parliament, such as the clerks of the Senate and the House of Commons, and the parliamentary librarian to determine how to effectively protect parliamentary privilege and create an independent review process for such provisions.

To improve timely response to ATIP requests, we recommended limiting extensions to only those cases where strictly necessary, and even then, only for a maximum of 30 days. We also recommended repealing exclusions in the act and replacing them with exemptions as needed. As Ken Rubin mentioned, when responding to a question at committee, we cannot expect to change a culture of secrecy just by giving order-making power to the commissioner, and especially not if all the carve-outs remain in place through the retention of an extensive list of exemptions.

Eliminating exclusions, which are stated areas that the act does not cover, and replacing them with exemptions, which would allow government entities to refuse requests on specific grounds, would provide greater oversight of Canada's access to information regime. It would also shift the culture of the public service more toward openness by default.

To protect the vital governance work of Parliament, the committee recommended adding a mandatory exemption for cabinet confidences when disclosure would reveal the substance of cabinet deliberations, except when such discussions cover a period of factual or background information when there is consent for disclosure of the information, and so forth.

For ease of understanding, to reduce the volume of requests received and to contribute to a culture of openness by default, the committee recommended that institutions respond to ATIP requests by providing information in open, reusable, and accessible file formats, such as pdf, Word, Excel, and similar formats, instead of obscure and highly specialized ones.

Although useful in their own right, the measures the committee recommended would not create a comprehensive access to information regime with great swaths of government entities that are not subject to the act.

Aaron Wudrick of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation pointed out at committee that “as a general principle the federal Access to Information Act should cover all of the federal government, including both government-controlled and government-funded areas.” The principle here is quite simple: where taxpayers' money is being spent, the public deserves accountability and transparency.

To address such an extension of the act, the Information Commissioner stated that “The use of criteria as a way to determine which entities should be subject to the Act is a rational approach to coverage, as it promotes predictability with respect to which entities are subject to the Act.” Moreover, it guarantees that institutions performing similar functions are also subject to it. Her criteria included whether an entity is covered because it is publicly controlled in whole or in part by the government; whether it performs public functions under federal jurisdiction because it has power to regulate and set standards under federal jurisdiction because it is charged with executing federal policy; whether it is established by federal statute; or whether it is one of the many covered by the Financial Administration Act.

The government has undertaken a review of Canada's access to information regime and has made a first attempt at updating the act. We are disappointed that the President of the Treasury Board has ignored many of the committee's recommendations. What could have been a good start on a worthy project has become something of a disappointment to the members, witnesses, and the Information Commissioner herself, who contributed to a detailed study on the topic. The President of the Treasury Board seems to expect extraordinary credit for these meagre steps that do not seem likely to fix all of the problems in an access to information system that is widely described by critics as broken.

This morning, the minister made it out as if Bill C-58 would instantly transform Canada into a world leader in access to information. That is simply not the case. Many of the problems will remain in place. Comparatively, we have a country like Serbia, which was not even a sovereign nation but part of a federation under a communist dictatorship in 1983 when our act was brought in. It is ranked ahead of Canada by international observers. This is not a credit to the current system. As well, we can compare to countries like Sweden that have had access to information law for 250 years. Witnesses could not believe that in Canada it would take months and months to get information that would routinely be released in 24 hours in countries like that.

The government is trying to take far too much credit for this reform. I urge the minister to reconsider Bill C-58 and correct its many deficiencies. I encourage the new members of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to take advantage of review stage and amend it. Canada indeed deserves an open and accountable government, with a sensible and comprehensive access to information regime. We deserve better than Bill C-58.

I will not support this bill. To do so would be to reward the government for breaking its election promises and taking credit for window dressing, which it has described as a grand and comprehensive solution.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-58, a comprehensive set of amendments to the Access to Information Act that would deliver on our government's key commitment to improve openness and transparency in government. If passed, these amendments would make progress in bringing Canada's access to information legislation in line with the communication advances of the last three decades.

The act has not been significantly updated since it came into force 34 years ago, when fax machines were cutting edge and information was stored in huge filing rooms. As we all know, however, the world has evolved considerably since then. Today, it is smart phones and social media, big data and high-speed Internet.

Canadians seek out information through digital channels, and government can now interact with the public through the web and social media. Moreover, the volume of information the government manages has dramatically increased.

I think we can all agree that the current act needs to be brought up to date.

We have certainly been hearing that so far in the debate.

This is why the government committed to reforming Canada’s access to information program. This modernization began with early action to improve access to information.

In May 2016, the President of the Treasury Board issued an interim directive that enshrined the principle of open by default. He eliminated all fees, apart from the $5 filing fee, and directed the release of government information in user-friendly formats wherever possible. Fees for processing large-volume requests could run into the hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of dollars and sometimes deterred people from having access to public information.

Those were good first steps. Today we are maintaining that elimination of fees, and we are bringing forward transformative measures to enhance Canadians' access to government information.

Let me begin with one of many ground-breaking features of our proposed legislation. For the very first time, the Information Commissioner would have order-making power. No access to information regime is complete without powerful and meaningful oversight. We promised Canadians that we would find ways to empower the Office of the Information Commissioner to order government information to be released.

The bill before us today would do just that. This is something that has come up again and again in the debate as one of the key things that are a necessary change, and we are making that change. This change would strengthen the commissioner's role from that of an ombudsperson to that of an authority with a legislative ability to order government institutions to release records.

The legislation also proposes to entrench in law, for future and current governments, an obligation to proactively publish a broad range of information on a predictable schedule and without the need for anyone to make an access to information request for that information.

The amendments would create a new part of the act on proactive publication which builds on current best practices, applies consistent requirements across government institutions, and seizes on the opportunities of our digital age.

These amendments would result in the proactive release of key information throughout government.

This is a process that would take place across literally hundreds of offices and departments of the government. It would allow our citizens a greater understanding of government and would demonstrate effective stewardship of public funds.

Here is another first. Through this legislative system of mandatory proactive disclosure, the act would, for the first time ever, include ministers' offices, the Prime Minister's Office, institutions that support Parliament, administrative institutions that support the courts, and more than 1,100 judges of the superior courts.

This system of mandatory proactive disclosure puts a strong emphasis on increasing the information that is open by default and making information that is of interest to Canadians freely available on the web.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a few more features of the reforms we will make to our access to information regime.

Having just spoken about the proactive publication that is key to our commitment to openness by default, I also want to mention a few other things we are doing in the bill.

We will develop a new plain language guide that will provide requesters with clear explanations of exemptions and exclusions. The rationale for these exclusions will be laid out, a rationale that will be in the public interest.

We would invest in tools to make processing information more efficient. That is an important way to address one of the key weaknesses of our current system, which is how many access to information requests are not responded to in a timely way.

The bill would allow federal institutions that have the same minister to share their request processing services for greater efficiency and timeliness. It would support the new legislation with government training. There are many things we would do.

It is important to note that many of our changes were initiated at the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

It would be subject to the oversight of the Information Commissioner. The bill proposes that if a department decides to decline to act on a request, the requester will have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner, and the Commissioner could use the new order-making power to resolve the issue.

This is a new authority that could significantly improve the system, but it needs to be implemented with care.

We look forward to debating the proposed provisions with parliamentarians in a thoughtful way. All these changes were designed to address criticism from Canadians about delays and inconsistencies in the current request-based system and recommendations from stakeholders, such as the Information Commissioner and our colleagues at the ETHI committee.

We can never become complacent when it comes to openness and transparency. That is why the reforms before us today are the first legislative phase in what would be an ongoing review and modernization of the act.

The legislation would require a review of the act every five years, and as I pointed out earlier in the debate, the first review would start no later than one year after royal assent, so this is really an ongoing improvement process. These five-year reviews would provide an important opportunity for Canadians to have their say on access rights and would help us make sure that the system met their needs.

These reviews will assess what is working and how, and ensure that the act is never allowed to become so outdated again. Today, I am proud to be part of the first government to bring significant change to the Access to Information Act since it was first introduced over 30 years ago.

I encourage all members to support this work and this bill, and in doing so help us take a great step forward in updating the Access to Information Act.

I also look forward to continuing to work with Parliament, the Information Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, and other stakeholders to further strengthen our access to information regime.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Quadra.

I am proud to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

Our government was elected on a promise to reinforce public trust in our democracy, and over the course of our time in office, we have put action behind our words. For example, we are reforming campaign finance laws to make one of the world's most respected democracies even more transparent. We have introduced legislation to make Canada's democracy more accessible to all Canadians. The debate today is about another of the fundamental concepts of any modern democracy.

We know Canadians cannot meaningfully participate in democracy when they are in an information vacuum. Access to government data is vital. Without it, neither the public nor the media are able to hold governments to account. That is why our government promised to firm up one of the key pillars of our democracy: access to information.

We told Canadians we would make information open by default, and in formats that would be modern and simple to use. Canadians pay for the information that is assembled in the Government of Canada, so why should they not have access to this data? This greater openness in turn will lead to greater confidence in our democracy, which is why this government has put such a great emphasis on amending the Access to Information Act with Bill C-58.

This is the first major overhaul since our predecessors in this very institution voted in favour of the current act 35 years ago, so it is long overdue.

The act, which was enacted in Parliament in 1982, and took effect the following year, came long before anyone had ever heard of the Internet. Governments in those days had far more administrators and clerks, because there was so much paperwork to file and record. One could not just flip a written message to a colleague by email. If one wanted to send an interesting news article to a counterpart in another department, one could not just forward a link. One's options were limited to things like a fax machine or an inter-office courier.

Today, technology has dramatically changed how governments operate, and we need to align our laws to take into account this new reality. We have a responsibility to make it easier to obtain information and once Canadians get it, that information should be in easy-to-use formats. We can think of the graduate students, like those at Dalhousie University or Saint Mary's University in my riding of Halifax, who are out there doing groundbreaking research but operating on tight timelines. We want them to be able to, when possible, obtain an electronic version of government records so they can more easily navigate and analyze the documents. Think of the time that will be saved if they do not have to go through hundreds of pages to find what they are looking for.

Now Bill C-58 has many components, but for now I would like to focus on how it impacts parliamentary institutions. I am talking about the Library of Parliament, the parliamentary budget officer, the Parliamentary Protective Service, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Office of the Senate Ethics Officer, and the administration of the Senate and of the House of Commons. These institutions are foundational components of our democracy, and Bill C-58 proposes to bring them under the Access to Information Act to make them more accountable. The proposed legislation will require these institutions to publish each quarter their travel and hospitality expenses as well as disclose over the same timeline any contracts with a value above $10,000.

Another important component of Bill C-58 is the new powers it would give to our Information Commissioner. This is of particular interest to me, both in my role as a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions as well as the member of Parliament for Halifax.

Not too long ago, I met with representatives from a group based in Halifax called the Centre for Law and Democracy, whose mission is to:

...promote, protect and develop those human rights which serve as the foundation for or underpin democracy, including the rights to freedom of expression, to vote and participate in governance, to access information and to freedom of assembly and association.

Some members may be familiar with the centre's work on the right to information rating, or RTI, which is developed along with Access Info Europe to calculate and rate the overall strength of countries' right to information laws.

The topic of the Information Commissioner was one I discussed with representatives of this group in my office during a meeting in the spring. They believe, as I do, and so too does our government believe, that the Information Commissioner ought to have the ability to order the release of records, or so-called “order making”. I am proud to say that Bill C-58 would give the Information Commissioner that power. I would like to congratulate and thank the Centre for Law and Democracy on its strong advocacy on this point, and for its ongoing work in Canada and across the world to strengthen democratic institutions.

It is important to note that the legislation would also give government institutions the ability to decline requests that are excessively broad or requests of information already in the public domain.

The government has limited resources, and this will free up government institutions to respond to other requesters. Of course the applicant subjected to a decision like this would be able to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner.

Bill C-58 would also oblige members of Parliament and senators to publish all travel and hospitality expenses, and all service contract amounts. In both cases, this information would have to be made public on a quarterly basis.

We know senators and members of Parliament already publish travel and hospitality expenses pursuant to their own internal rules, and senators disclose service contract information, while MPs publish the total costs of awarded service contracts.

Importantly, Bill C-58 would enshrine the current practice of also requiring additional details on the service contracts and travel costs of MPs.

This legislation will require a review of the act every five years, starting in 2019. This will give Canadians an opportunity to look for further improvements.

We believe Canada deserves a vibrant democracy that is transparent, open, and accountable, but our efforts do not begin and end with changes to the Access to Information Act.

We have been relentless since taking office to look for other ways to improve our democratic system. For instance, Bill C-33 would amend the Canada Elections Act to increase voter participation and improve the integrity of our electoral system. Bill C-50, meanwhile, if passed, will make important changes to the same act to make political fundraising more open and transparent. We are also taking action against cyber threats and the danger they pose to our electoral system.

We live in one of the most respected democracies in the world, but our government will remain relentless in ensuring that any weaknesses are dealt with. Bill C-58 is a major part of this effort, and I am proud to work with the Minister of Democratic Institutions to advance it. With that, I welcome any questions from my colleagues.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Victoria for his very enlightened speech, which helped us understand why Bill C-58 does not really address ethics issues.

This only adds to the cynicism that already exists around politics, when the government says it want to modernize legislation to give Canadians access to information, when in fact, transparency is not enhanced at all, since ministers' offices, including the PMO, are not obliged to report to the commissioner.

Right now, it can take up to 200 days to get crucial information. For instance, according to the Globe and Mail, in April 2016, the RCMP took over a year to forward some statistics it had requested for an investigative report called Unfounded.

When the police declare one in five sexual assault complaints unfounded, this creates further hardships for the people already going through a very difficult situation following a sexual assault. One in five complaints is dismissed as unfounded, and it took a year to provide that information. I find that completely unacceptable, and this bill does absolutely nothing to address this problem.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-58, the access to information reform legislation. It is with considerable disappointment that I must, on behalf of the NDP, be opposed to the initiative. However, I am also pleased to hear the President of the Treasury Board acknowledge that at committee, there might be a possibility for improving the legislation to give it some credibility.

If I may be permitted at the outset to make a personal statement, access to information, freedom of information, has been one of my passions. I did graduate work on this topic. In law, I worked with the Government of British Columbia in drafting the legislation there, as well as in Yukon. Back in the early eighties, I worked on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association to try to get the first access to information act through in a credible way. The former member of Parliament for Peace River, Conservative member Jed Baldwin, gave me an award of merit from the House for my work on freedom of information. Therefore, I come to this with a passion for the topic.

Three things are necessary for any credible law and, after 34 years, we all agree that this law needs modernizing. I salute the government for finally doing something in that regard. First, it has to have a clear statement that information is a right. Second, there have to be exceptions to the rule of openness that are narrow and have to demonstrate some harm from the disclosure. Third, there has to be an umpire, someone neutral, who can order a government that does not wish to provide the information to make it public. Those are the three things by which any reform must be evaluated. Sadly, this bill comes up short.

People sometimes have their eyes glaze over when we talk about access to information. That is usually the end of a conversation. People go back to doing something else. I want to tell Canadians who may be watching this why it is important. How many times have we read an article that starts with “Information released today under the Access to Information Act” reported thus and so? The answer is frequently.

The Globe and Mail used the Access to Information Act for its April 2016 investigative series “Unfounded”, which revealed that police had been dismissing one out of every five sexual assault claims as baseless. It took a year to get the information. The delays were ridiculous, and I will come back to that. That was the tool that was necessary for Canadians to understand what their police were and were not doing about sexual assault.

Just last week, the CBC reported that the Prime Minister's controversial Bahamas vacation cost Canadians over $215,000, far more than was initially disclosed to Parliament. That came about through a document released under this act.

Yesterday morning, I woke up to hear that after a year, reporters finally obtained the original contract from the Phoenix pay fiasco, once again thanks to this act.

Transparency is important. It was a major theme for the Liberal Party during the 2015 election. In fact, before that, the Prime Minister introduced Bill C-613, an act to amend the Access to Information Act. I would invite all Canadians to look at what the Prime Minister wanted to do with that bill while in opposition compared to what is being proposed today. I think they will see a yawning divide. What he said, though, in introducing that legislation, was that “a country's access to information system is at the heart of open government”. He is right.

Our Supreme Court also said that what we are talking about today is in fact quasi-constitutional in nature. This is not an ordinary act. It is something that the courts have recognized as essential to an open, modern democracy.

The New Democratic Party has introduced private members' bills to modernize the act so many times I do not want to list them all, but in 2006, 2008, 2011, 2014, this is something we tried to fix. Every time, the Conservatives and then the Liberals voted them down.

In March of 2015, the Information Commissioner released 85 recommendations to modernize the act. I invite Canadians to look at that list of recommendations and what we are left with today.

The point is that this is essential to fix, as the President of Treasury Board properly pointed out.

When we introduced this bill in the early eighties, computers were hardly a fact of life, email did not really exist in the public service, and record-keeping was very different than it is today. Clearly this is long overdue. It is too bad that the government has not taken the opportunity to do the job properly. Almost all civil society groups that have studied this have been outspoken in their opposition, some angry, but most simply sad and disappointed that this is what we are left with.

Let me talk about what the government did not do. That is how we have to assess this exercise. The exemptions to the rule of disclosure, the list of the things that the government can properly withhold, are very badly drafted, very discretionary, do not even have to show a harm. However, there is one that is different from all the others.

Back when this bill was introduced under the former Prime Minister Trudeau regime, it decided to cut out a category of records called “cabinet confidences”. It does not even apply to cabinet confidences. Everyone who has ever studied this has said that this is the Mack truck clause. In fact, some of the more humorous commentary describes this as “cabinet laundering”. All the government has to do if it does not want something disclosed is to slip it into a cabinet briefing book, and voila, the black hole. It never gets to be seen. It is not even subject to the act. One would have thought that after 34 years, job one would have been to maybe talk about that. It is not even mentioned. The black hole remains. Cabinet laundering can continue.

Information delayed is information denied. Every journalist in the land understands that. I had a journalist stop me on the street the other day, and she said that when she is asking for information, she usually gets something on the very last day of the 30-day period. Day 29 she is told that there is going to be a delay, and then the government asks for another delay. If she complains to the Information Commissioner, she is told that the office is swamped and it might take several months to get the story out. Even then, if the government does not want to do it, the Information Commissioner would recommend that it can say no.

Information delayed is information denied. That will not be fixed by this bill in any meaningful way.

The other thing is that we live in an oral culture. In fact, one of my colleagues refers to it as “the Post-it culture”. I will explain. If a government member has a record that they know is going to be subject to disclosure, maybe they put a little Post-it note on the document that says what the juicy bits are. That happens. I know that the Speaker will be surprised to hear that.

The duty to document decisions is not even part of this bill. I talked earlier about computers where we can delete transitory records and the like. However, the fact is that an oral culture is alive and well and living in Ottawa.

Let me get to the bill. What does Bill C-58 do, and why can we not support it? I would first like to quote from the Centre for Law and Democracy which said:

the Bill is far more conspicuous for what it fails to do....

It fails to expand the scope of the Act. It does place a number of proactive publication obligations on various actors – including the Prime Minister’s and Ministers’ Offices...but this falls far short of bringing these bodies within the ambit of the Act.

Certain types of information have always been available, at least in recent years, such as travel expenses, contracts over $10,000. By policy, these have been available for years. Now it is put in the bill, and the government thinks it should get a gold star for doing that. I am not sure why.

Again, quoting from the Centre for Law and Democracy:

While more proactive disclosure is always welcome, as anyone who has used the Act knows, it is absolutely not a substitute for the right to be able to request the information one is interested in from public authorities.

I think that is clear.

Today the minister made a lot of the notion that there is to be order-making powers under this bill. It is true that if we look closely, we can see that it is, in the words of a colleague, a chimera. It does not really do that.

Let me talk about how it works in the provinces. Let us take British Columbia, for example. The Information Commissioner makes an order: “Disclose that record, government. I know you do not want to do it, but it is not able to be withheld legitimately under the exceptions.” That is it. If the government wants to seek judicial review of that decision, it does so.

Let us compare that to the convoluted order-making power that the minister was so proud of in this bill. It seems to say that if the government agrees with a decision of the commissioner to release the document, it will be released. So what? If the government disagrees with the commissioner's recommendation, then the government could take him or her to Federal Court. Imagine how expensive and litigious this would all be. The government has created, in my submission, an unwieldy, unnecessary, and unaffordable system.

I wish I had time to go into the section that deals with this. It talks of the ability to make an order, but in the interest of time, suffice it to say that it is beyond complicated and likely unworkable. It would not really do what the minister has said it would do. I wish the Liberals had followed the simple route that most provinces have followed.

Though it is true that there would be proactive disclosure of a number of kinds of information from ministers' offices, the point is that Canadians would still not be able to request the information they want from those offices, appeal to the commissioner, and get an order to release it. It is just not there. The promise made in the election that we would have open offices and that people would get the information is not what is happening. That is very disappointing.

The Liberals also talked about the five-year review that is a feature of this act, and thank goodness it is there. That is nothing new. However, it is not like the Bank Act, for example, under which the legislation would sunset if that review did not take place by that time, so who knows how long it will actually take before we get to the review that is promised? That is very different from what the platform promised.

The Liberals talked today about something new, which is the ability to go after bad-faith, long, frivolous, and vexatious requests. That is a new restriction, not a change for the positive. I can appreciate why it is necessary, and, yes, it exists at the provincial level, but here is the punchline: this bill would give the final decision to the government to decide whether the request is too big, too long, or frivolous. Everywhere else, of course, it is the commissioner who gets to decide. Do members remember what I said about an umpire in the game who is neutral? I do not think the minister who does not want the information to be disclosed is in the best position to do that. I cannot believe they think that is a significant reform that we should be proud of.

The government is probably going to pat itself on the back for this bill. It is probably going to say, “We promised openness and transparency, and openness by default, and that is what we delivered.” The truth is far from that. I want to be optimistic—I always try to be—and give the government the benefit of the doubt. The minister stood in this place and said, “We will be open to amendments at committee”, and we are certainly going to be there to try to give him the opportunity to make this credible, because it is not credible now. It is kind of like the promise the Liberals made in 2015, when they said that 2015 would be the last election that would be fought under the first-past-the-post rules. That was a different promise. That was a different time and place.

The Prime Minister came to my riding when he was running in the election and said that he would have a full review of the Kinder Morgan pipeline proposal. Do members remember that promise? That kind of did not happen either. There was one about mail delivery. We were going to be open to mail delivery, I think. That was another promise.

Canadians deserve better than this bill. It is a start, to the extent that it adds exemptions; it does not go after the big changes and exemptions. Members heard me talk about cabinet confidences; the other nice one is the policy advice to the minister. They did not touch it. All they have to do is put all these documents into something that they give to the minister, and that is policy advice to the government. That massive loophole remains.

Once again, what they did not do is how we judge their reform initiative. It actually adds a loophole that would allow the department to refuse to process a request if it deems it to be overly broad, deems it would unreasonably interfere with the operations of government, or deems it to be made in bad faith. It is quite remarkable that the Liberals are patting themselves on the back. By simple comparison to the other legislation in the country, it is obvious that this bill does not pass muster.

The bill also ignores so many of the recommendations made by the Information Commissioner, as I pointed out, and by the ethics committee that also studied this legislation. It appears the government did not even read those. Much like the Harper government, the Liberals continue to disregard the recommendations made by the non-partisan watchdog. One sympathizes with the Herculean efforts made by Ms. Legault over the years to try to get both sides of this place, Conservative and Liberal alike, to take seriously the citizens' right to know. I salute for her efforts, futile though they have been to date.

I want to say by way of conclusion that the New Democrats have long advocated for giving the Information Commissioner real oversight and order-making powers. We believe that proactive disclosure is important and offer congratulations for putting into legislation what has been the practice to date so far, but I point out that the commissioner does not have oversight powers with respect to that proactive disclosure, so I guess we have to take the government's word for it.

Even if the Liberals were well intentioned, let us remember that we are making legislation that applies for future Canadians, for future generations of Canadians. How long did it take to get to this place with a new bill? It has taken 34 years. We have to get it right. We cannot say, “Don't worry; we are going to have a review in five years, or maybe another year or two after that”, because they do not have to do that if they do not want to. That has been our history, excepting the Bank Act.

We have to do it better. We can do it better, and I am not the only one saying this. The Centre for Law and Democracy, which has been cited already, has made the same point. Democracy Watch has explained it. Professor Mark Weiler, the web and user experience librarian who testified, wrote to our critic, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, on this file, as follows: “I am greatly concerned that Bill C-58 will actually diminish the capacity of Canadians to access unpublished materials held by the government. The Access to Information Act should enhance the ability of Canadians to access information the government chooses not to publish.... Bill C-58 would actually make the Access to Information Act more difficult to use.”

What are we going to do about this? To go back to the basics, there has to be a strong statement of the right to know, and there is some verbiage to that effect in the new law. The exemptions have to be narrow, and they have to be about injury, not just in a box, a particular category of records, such as policy advice. It has to be shown that disclosure would harm some government interest. The Liberals did not do that; they didn't touch any of them. They only added one.

The third thing is that there has to be real order-making power when the umpire says the government has got it wrong. That did not cause a revolution in British Columbia when we did it, and that order-making power led to something like 90% of cases being mediated without the need to have a formal order-making hearing. Very, very rarely do we go to court; it is statistically insignificant.

There are ample precedents for doing this right. The order-making power that is in the bill is beyond comprehension. It will be expensive and it is totally unnecessary. Why do we have to make it so complicated when the principle is so obvious and when there are so many examples across the land?

I want to end on a positive note. We hope the government was serious when the President of the Treasury Board stood in the House earlier today and talked about the need to modernize this law and said that this is only the first phase and it is only a work in progress. He said he welcomes reports at committee, including amendments.

Trust me, we will have many of those amendments. We can do better. We must do better for Canadians.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Access to Information

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa West—Nepean for her question.

As we head into Canada's Right to Know Week, today, we are debating Bill C-58, the first major reform of the Access to Information Act in 30 years. Recently, our leadership was internationally recognized when I accepted the role of co-chair of the Open Government Partnership on behalf of Canada.

Access to Information Act

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the President of the Treasury Board speak, I think we should be breaking out the champagne for this once-in-a-lifetime change to the access to information law that will achieve everything. I heard him say that it is early in the day. I am sure he will make some time in the lobby behind us for other government members. However, I have bad news for them. The supposed openness and transparency law that the Liberals have introduced, where they faked themselves into thinking they have accomplished something, falls far short of what they promised during the election campaign. Also, according to the experts, it falls far short of what should have been achieved over this 30-year gap between when the ATIP law was introduced and the amendments they are proposing to make.

What is interesting is that we rise in the House in question period to ask questions that we never get answers to. The Liberals could have provided fulsome answers then. We have Order Paper questions asking for simple definitions that should be textbook, yet they fail to provide the answers for these Order Paper questions. These are privileges that each member of this House enjoys, and the government should be providing complete answers to those Order Paper questions. Therefore, it is no wonder that this access to information amendment it is proposing will fall far short of what should be achieved.

Many times I have heard the member for Carleton ask what the definition of “middle class” is and what the impact of the carbon tax would be. He has tried to get that information through the access to information laws. However, we never get that information from the government. What the Liberals are proposing today will never fix that. What is needed is a cultural change. I call this system that they are proposing the Potemkin ATIP system. It has all the window dressings, the image that is needed, but none of the changes they have promised to make will be in the guts of it.

I do have a Yiddish proverb, because I think it speaks volumes to what the government is proposing to do. It is, “The luck of an ignoramus is this: He doesn't know what he doesn't know.” I am not speaking with respect to the President of the Treasury Board, I am speaking of the government in general.

I will quote from the access to information law experts from the Centre for Law and Democracy, which noted a couple of disturbing elements in this bill.

It stated, “a large majority of the proactive publication obligations are already being implemented in practice by these bodies. While it is some progress to formalise these commitments, this is hardly groundbreaking”. I agree.

It goes on to state, and this is an important point, that the bill “fails to address the serious problem of delays in responding to requests. It does nothing to address the broad regime of exceptions....” That was my first question to the President of the Treasury Board.

It goes on to note that the bill “would also remove the obligation on public authorities to publish about the classes of records it holds, which is designed to facilitate the making of requests for access to information” in the first place. Therefore, that will be removed.

When I came here as a rookie member of this House, one of the very first things I did was to learn and understand how each department worked and the areas in which it specialized. I wanted to understand how to better keep the minister accountable. To do so, I looked for the type of information and the type of records the department was keeping. That was so I could better understand what types of records I could request through an access to information request if I did not get an answer to an Order Paper question or an answer in question period.

The Centre for Law and Democracy notes that section will be removed, which takes me back to my Yiddish proverb. If we do not know that a document exists, then how could we ever ask for it? It is interesting that the government is removing that one section. It is not just me saying that, but so is the Centre for Law and Democracy, which is the expert on this. It does analyses of all access to information laws in every jurisdiction in Canada, and it rates them. It is those experts who are saying that it falls short.

Who else is saying that it falls short? Robert Marleau, the former information commissioner from 2007 to 2008, stated, “there's no one [in government departments] to review what they choose not to [publish]”. This is contrary to the principles of the act. They put the commissioner out of the loop. If we requested briefing notes and parts of them had been blacked out, you had someone to appeal to. This is no longer the case. You cannot even ask the court. It is a step forward, two steps back.

Let us see what the Liberals say they have done. We have heard about mandate letters now being released to the public. It does not help if one does not follow the mandate letter and fulfill what is in it. It is just a letter, a piece of paper. It does not help us to understand anything. Also, I have news. The Alberta government has been releasing mandate letters for well over a decade. Therefore, it is not as if this is groundbreaking and setting some type of new frontier regarding access to information. Alberta has been doing it for years. I remember when the member for Calgary Confederation and the member for Calgary Signal Hill were in the provincial government, and they had mandate letters that were published. The difference is that they followed through with the contents of their mandate letters and were held accountable by the premier of Alberta for the contents. Here, they are not held accountable.

The other thing they say they will be doing is documentation on the training of new ministers, titles and reference numbers of briefing notes, development notes for question period, backgrounders for appearances before parliamentary committees, travel and hospitality expenditures, and contracts of more than $10,000. Other governments have been doing some of these things for a long time now, through freedom of information laws that are provincially based. These are not new frontiers. These are very basic documents.

Some of them are here. However, if they remove from the law the very basis of what type of records the department has to keep, how am I supposed to know that a record exists in the first place? It is like chasing a needle in a haystack a lot of times.

I have experienced this first-hand when doing access to information requests to the health department where I have been stalled out for lengthy periods of time. Sometimes I stumble upon new documents that I did not know even existed before. Then I do another access to information, and my staff and I continue in this manner. Many of the changes being proposed here will not end any of that.

It is hardly historic in terms of changes. There is an RTI rating, which is the methodology that assesses each access to information law to determine its score. The score is based on 150. On the RTI rating, according to the Centre for Law and Democracy, Canada will go from 90 to 92 points. That is a two-point increase. One would think after two years that the government could have cobbled together an amendment to the access to information law that would live up to the promises it made during the last election, because it has broken them here. It could do much better than a two-point increase in its score on access to information laws.

It is not as if Canada will be rising greatly. It is not as if the government did not know how to increase its score. It is not as if it did not have a comparator that it could look at, such as Serbia, which supposedly has a much better rate than we do.

Many experts in the field have said that there are issues, and I note in the law there are interesting oddities and amendments. One of them, and we have heard this before, is with regard to frivolous or vexatious claims for access to information requests. A department would be able to say that they cannot do that.

According to Policy Options, a well-respected think tank, the power to prevent such abuse is included in many ATI laws. However, that power should rest with the Information Commissioner, not the department that is subject to the request. If the department can determine what is frivolous and vexatious, then it can block any type of request it feels is frivolous and vexatious. It could up to the individual civil servant who receives the request.

Bill C-58 also includes a five-year review. The first five-year review would take place only a year after the legislation comes into force. Given the glacial pace of how legislation makes its way through the House and then to the Senate and then bounces back from the Senate, because the government does not really know what it is doing there, I do not think we would have a review of it before 2019, before the next election.

My other concern is that it does not have a sunset clause. Even the Bank Act has a sunset clause. It is set every five years. It forces the parliamentary committee to review the legislation through a mandatory review. It knows that it will sunset unless it provides feedback on its contents. I like the idea of mandatory reviews and sunset clauses in legislation, because it forces us, as parliamentarians, to review legislation on a consistent basis. When I worked as a staff member in the provincial legislature in Alberta, it was one of the things I kept pushing for in regulation and statutes with the minister I had the privilege of working for. I pushed that every single piece of legislation, regulation, should have that included, to mandatorily force members to review the legislation to make sure it still made sense, that the amendments that had been proposed in the last five years, and the improvements, were actually worth carrying on and being included in the final legislation.

I have a page from the Liberal policy platform from the last election. The Liberals promised many things on access to information, some of which they achieve here, and some which they absolutely do not. They said they would expand the powers and role of the Information Commissioner. They have done some of that. They also said that government data and information should be open by default, and that formats should be modern and easy to use. I have no problems with that. That is a great idea.

It is interesting to note that the previous President of the Treasury Board and the previous government started an open data, open government website, where people could download data on Excel spreadsheets. I know this, because we used them in the office that I worked in before. We downloaded bits of data, and used it to supplement Statistics Canada data that we were purchasing as well.

In this policy platform, the government talks about ensuring that the system continues to serve Canadians while it undertakes a full legislative review of the Access to Information Act every five years. I have been to many parliamentary committees where we get a cursory review.

In fact, on the small business tax change, the biggest tax change in a generation, the Liberals on the committee forced it through after we heard only six hours of testimony from witnesses. That was all the time allowed. The Carter commission took six years. If that is the standard the Liberals are going to go by, then I have worries about the mandatory five-year review. I have to wonder if in three or four years will we get six hours to review the legislation. Will the committee be stuffed with members from the Liberal side who will simply say that the committee will be given three hours every five years to figure it out and then they will be done with it? The Liberals have not lived up to the real change, the open and transparent government that they promised.

I will keep referring to the Centre for Law and Democracy, because it has produced a lot of information on the shortcomings and some of the improvements that it sees. There are a lot of shortcomings.

The centre also says that the bill fails to address the serious procedural problems, namely the highly discretionary power of public authorities to extend the initial 30-day limit for responses to requests. I have been the victim of this. I was told that I had asked for too many documents, or they were too difficult to get or too complicated. They tried to get me to pare down my request. That is when I knew I should keep pushing forward and get all of the documentation I was requesting.

With respect to the 30-day time limit for responding to requests, power has been applied with disturbing regularity they say, often to create very lengthy delays in responding to requests. On one access to information request, I was told it would take two years to respond. I reminded them that by then I may no longer be a member of the House and therefore the information they provide may be of limited use to me, which would be a shame.

There are a number of options for reducing official discretion in this area, for example, by requiring officials to obtain prior permission from the Information Commissioner for delays beyond the set period of 60 days. In fact, many access to information laws say that the government must respond within the 60-day time limit. That would be a vast improvement. No courts would be involved, and there would be no need to go to another body to get a document that has been lawfully requested. The documents would simply be released within 60 days.

There are hundreds of thousands of public servants who work for the federal government. Why can they not do a request within 60 days when a reasonable request for documents is made? Why should I, as a member of Parliament, need to go to a court to obtain them? I am not going to get questions answered in the House in question period or through an Order Paper question. My only recourse is to get documentation through access to information.

The commissioner would acquire new order-making powers, but they would be largely crippled and counter-productive. Ken Rubin, the CFE senior fellow who provided a critique on Ryerson University's website on Bill C-58, said it is counter-productive and largely crippled “because no amendments were put forward to change the numerous broad exemptions in the Access to Information Act that cut off access to [these] government records”.

If there are a bunch of exemptions and rules that can be used to not release documents for national security reasons, documents pertaining to cabinet confidences, which is perfectly legitimate, are things like third-party proprietary corporate information at all times really proprietary? It might be better to shed some light on the procurement process so that parliamentarians could better understand what is going on.

We have seen delay after delay, and huge costs associated with the government's failed procurement process. Maybe it is time to shine some light on the problem. The government did not do that in this legislation. It just did the trimmings on the edge, the Potemkin village that I talked about.

The exemptions still exist, and the exemptions are the core of the access to information law. The government has left them as they are so then it could always find an excuse not to release information, to black out information, and to not provide it under the exemptions.

I think the majority of Canadians interested in access to information were looking for the exemptions to be tweaked. The Liberals could have amended, diluted, or removed some of them to make it much easier to access this information.

Another point that Ken Rubin makes is that the Prime Minister has put forward other legislation that makes certain records off limits to the commissioner and the courts for review or their ability to order releases of information. One is the National Security and Intelligence Committee for Parliamentarians, again, on national security grounds. However, that can become overbroad and used as an excuse. We see this in some countries overseas, which use national security to limit access to all types of information, for all types of reasons. It is a blanket catch-all. I hope it does not become that way. However, for national security, I can see legitimate reasons for the government to deny access to information, such as because it would put Canadians at risk or it would put the national security of the country at risk.

The omnibus budget bill, Bill C-44, contains a section devoted to setting up the Canada infrastructure bank. This was a big point of contention in the last session. Section 28 gives the government the power to decide unilaterally what is privileged information, commercial, infrastructure, financial, and political transactions, with no independent review. It is an already controversial enough bill. With these provisions, we can see the government saying that this is a wonderful, new, once-in-a-generation, open and transparent access to information law. However, section 28 limits access to information on the Canada infrastructure bank.

The Liberals are putting exceptions in other bills, but not in the main bill, which should be of great concern to parliamentarians. If the exemptions are not put into the main ATI Act but are put into other legislation, then the government cannot claim to be open and transparent. I do not think anyone would claim that.

Another point Mr. Rubin makes is:

...one amendment in Bill C-58 also directly increases secrecy by expanding and broadening the legal definition of what is able to be exempt under solicitor-client relations.

The Liberals have put some wording around it so the Information Commissioner could have access to it, but they still broadened and expanded it, and Mr. Rubin details that.

Mr. Rubin also makes this point, overall, on Bill C-58, which supposedly would meet the government's promises made in the last election. He says:

It is a stopgap, government-controlled, limited administrative information system not subject to appeal to the information commissioner or the courts, containing a few sanitized offerings the government wants to provide.

I am a big believer in access to information laws. When I worked in the Alberta provincial government, the government there released information. Yes, it took a long time to meet every single requirement. Yes, there were administrative problems. Yes, not everybody was satisfied with the level of customer service they received from the FOIP office there. However, a lot of times it released information eventually and it embarrassed the government to no end. I was in a minister's office at the time, and sometimes it embarrassed our office. However, at least we knew people were getting the same information that we had. The briefing binders were perfectly available to people, and they could ask for the content of them. The only portions blacked out were portions that civil servants determined should not be released. We played absolutely no role in that.

I am sure members on the opposite side, and hopefully all members, will agree that access to information laws are part of our democratic process. People should have a right to get information. I totally agree with that. We cannot fight for the little guy, we cannot fight for the middle class, and then tell them they cannot know things that the government is doing or how it has came to a decision.

However, I will not be able to support the bill, because it does not meet with what the government said it would do during the last election. The Liberals fall far short of the majestic, historic promises they made. This is why I believe members on this side of the House should all oppose the bill. I look forward to continued debate on this.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

moved that Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to discuss Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

This legislation, which I introduced on June 19, is built on a foundation of work by many people through consultations: parliamentarians, the Information Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, important stakeholders, and, of course, Canadian citizens. All have strong views, sometimes conflicting, as to what we ought to do to modernize this 34-year-old act.

I would like to thank each of them for their careful consideration of the issues involved in updating our access to information regime.

The Liberal Party has spent over a decade defending and strengthening the principles of openness and transparency, both in government and in opposition. In fact, I remember when I served in the Right Hon. Paul Martin's cabinet. That was the first time a prime minister required the proactive disclosure of ministers' expenses. In fact, Mr. Speaker, you were a colleague in that same cabinet.

Later, in opposition, under the leadership of the current Prime Minister, our Liberal caucus was the first to proactively disclose parliamentarians' expenses. Now we are bringing this ongoing effort toward openness and transparency to government.

On day one, our Prime Minister made the ministers' mandate letters public, for the first time ever. This week, when I was in New York at the UN General Assembly, the CEO of the global organization Open Government Partnership told me that making public ministerial mandate letters is a real game changer that is going to raise the bar globally in terms of other countries.

Ministers are no longer just accountable to the Prime Minister for their mandates. Today, having our mandate letters public means that we are more accountable to Parliament, and of course, are more accountable to Canadian citizens.

That was just the beginning. Within our first two days of government we unmuzzled government scientists and restored the mandatory long-form census. All these measures are consistent with our drive toward openness and transparency and providing higher-quality information to Canadians.

Our actions are being recognized by global organizations. In March we were elected to the steering committee of the Open Government Partnership for the first time. This week we agreed to take on the role of co-chair of the OGP. This is the world's largest multilateral organization dedicated to open, transparent, and accountable government.

As we developed this first set of legislative reforms of the Access to Information Act, we have continued to be guided by the principle that government information belongs to the people it serves. If anything, it is truer today than ever before.

The Access to Information Act, in 1983, first enshrined in law the following principles: that citizens have a right to government information, that transparency makes government more accountable and responsive to the needs of citizens, and that access to information allows citizens to participate meaningfully in the democratic process and hold their government to account.

The amendments we are proposing to the act will strengthen its original purpose in a way that reflects today's technologies, policies, and legislation. Now more than ever, open government is good government. We want to work with parliamentarians, independent officers of Parliament, and stakeholders to ensure that this first major Access to Information Act reform in three decades reflects that intention.

A lot has changed since the ATI Act first came into force. Thirty-four years ago, government information was paper-based and stored in file cabinets.

Since then, information technology and our communications infrastructure have been revolutionized and personalized.

Over the same period, the volume of information collected and held by government has grown, and the Internet has made it easier for the government to make large amounts of information widely available.

The Access to Information Act played an important part in bringing about a change in public expectations. It was in fact ground-breaking.

Since the act became law, in fact, more than 750,000 information requests have been processed. That is 85 requests every working day for more than three decades. Since 1983, the number of requests has grown by an average of 13% annually. In fact, 2015-16 saw more than 75,000 requests. I would like us to consider that number: 75,000 information requests in one year. That represents almost 10% of the overall number of information requests processed since 1983, so demand for information is actually growing.

Clearly, there is a rising demand for government information and government transparency. That demand has strained government, and it has frustrated Canadians who are accessing information.

We have heard the complaints about government delays in responding to requests or about denied requests. We believe that the changes we are making will help address some of these issues. However, in 2015-16, for example, 64% of all completed information requests were answered within the initial statutory time limit of 30 days. That number jumps to 86% if we consider the requests closed within an extension period provided for within the act. More than nine million pages were processed in 2015-16, and more than 80% of the records were disclosed either in full or in part.

In some cases, exemptions were invoked for valid reasons, including the privacy of personal information, national security, and the ability of the public service to give full and frank advice to government.

Nonetheless, to say that reforming the 1983 act has been a long time coming would certainly be an understatement.

That is why we are modernizing the act today. This is not just a one-off exercise that might have to wait another 34 years for an update. We are making it law that there will be regular reviews of the act. We began these efforts just over a year ago. In May 2016, we issued an interim directive that enshrined the principle of open by default. This refers to a culture shift across government in which data and information are increasingly released as a matter of course unless there are specific reasons not to do so.

This culture of openness helps Canadians engage with their government on policies, programs, and services.

We believe that good public policy comes out of conversations and consultations with Canadians and that it needs to be two-way communication. Even in the last few months since introducing this legislation, we have continued to engage the commissioners of information and privacy, along with many other experts on this subject. We paid close attention to the concerns raised, and I look forward to pursuing that conversation with this Parliament and with parliamentarians here today and in the coming weeks.

“Open by default” involves providing more information to the general public, engaging citizens in identifying issues and problems, and helping to develop solutions around them.

The interim directive we issued in May 2016 also eliminated all fees for access to information requests, apart from the standard $5 fee, and directed the release of information in more user-friendly and shareable digital formats whenever possible. Now is the time to take more steps on this path of open government.

The legislative package we have introduced proposes amendments that would further improve Canadians’ access to government information.

To begin with, the amendments would create a new part of the act relating to proactive disclosure.

Proactive publication puts into practice the principle of “open by default”.

With modern technologies making it easier to share information in real time, we are looking at new ways to meet Canadians' expectations by sharing government information more quickly and automatically while relieving some of the pressure from our demand-based system.

This approach would build on current best practices, and apply consistent requirements for the publication of information across the government.

It would apply to more than 240 government departments, agencies, and crown corporations. It would include the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices, senators and members of Parliament, institutions that support Parliament, administrative institutions that support the courts, and more than 1,100 judges of the superior courts.

We would be putting in law the proactive publication of the travel and hospitality expenses of ministers and their staff as well as of senior officials across government; contracts over $10,000 and all contracts issued by members of Parliament and senators; grants and contributions over $25,000; mandate letters and revised mandate letters; briefing packages for new ministers and deputy ministers; lists of briefing notes for ministers and deputy ministers, including the titles of the notes and their tracking numbers; and the parliamentary binder used for question period and committee appearances. We developed this list by examining some of the most sought after documents in access to information requests.

We expect, in fact, that this approach would guide us over time in terms of expanding proactive disclosure. In other words, if there are certain categories of information that are frequently being requested through the demand-based system, that would be a signal to our government and to future governments that we ought to consider proactively disclosing those categories as we move forward.

This will lead to better public understanding of government decision-making, fostering more participation and public trust in government. We also understand that proactive publication does not absolve us of our responsibility to strengthen the request-based system.

That is why we are also developing a new plain-language guide that will help provide requesters with clear explanations for any exemptions and exclusions. We will be investing in tools to make processing information requests more efficient. We will be allowing federal institutions that have the same minister to share request-processing services to achieve greater efficiency.

Because one of the most common complaints we have heard has been directed at the consistency of how the act is applied across government institutions, we will invest in better government training to get a common and consistent interpretation and application of ATI rules across the government.

We are also following the guidance of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

We are moving to help government institutions weed out what are genuinely bad-faith requests that put significant strain on the system, slowing responses for everyone else. Repetitive, vexatious requests can gum up access to information processes while providing little new information, and as such, can do a disservice to all Canadians.

Federal institutions spent more than $64 million in 2015-16 to cover the direct cost of administering the act, and this government wants those resources spent efficiently and effectively. Our intent is to ensure that no government, ours or any future government, can abuse this provision. Let me be clear. A large or broad request, or one that causes the government discomfort, does not of itself represent bad faith on the part of a requester.

We need to get this right. We recognize that while this tool is needed to significantly improve the system, everything from sound policy to proper oversight must be done to prevent its abuse. I have faith that this House and this Parliament and the work that will be done at the committee can help us achieve that objective.

We are not stopping there. The proposed amendments would also give the Information Commissioner new powers.

These include the ability to order the release of government records. This was a power long sought by successive Information Commissioners. We are also giving her office more financial resources to do its job.

This is a significant step forward.

We will change the commissioner's role from that of an ombudsperson to that of an authority, with the legislative power to order government institutions to release records. These are significant reforms to our ATI system, but there will always be more we can do to strengthen the trust between citizens and their government.

That is why the reforms being proposed are only the first phase of our modernization of access to information.

In fact, the amendments legislate a review of the act every five years so that the law never becomes as outdated as it is today. The first review would begin within one year of this bill's receiving royal assent. In addition, through policy, we will require that departments regularly review the information being requested under the act. This is important because the trend analysis that we conduct on an ongoing basis will help us understand and increase the kinds of information that should be made more easily available, including through proactive disclosure. This analysis would also inform the five-year reviews and future changes to strengthen the act.

After 34 years, we are the first government to significantly revitalize Canada's access to information law and system. It is the most comprehensive access to information reform in a generation. As I said, these reforms are only the first phase. It is a work in progress to strengthen access to information and openness and transparency in Canada, not just for our government but for future governments. With the support of the House, we can continue to work together to modernize our access to information law and system and to make governments today and in the future more open, transparent, and accountable to Canadians.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue this morning's debate on Bill C-47 regarding the Arms Trade Treaty. Tomorrow we will begin debate at second reading of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

We will continue with consideration of Bill C-58 on Monday and Tuesday next week.

On Wednesday, we will commence second reading debate of Bill C-55, the bill to enhance the protection of Canada's marine and coastal areas.

Next Thursday, we will resume debate of the bill before us today, Bill C-47.

In response to the opposition House leader's question, my hon. colleague knows very well there are seven opposition days in the fall, and we will have more information for her in regard to scheduling. We figured, with all of us coming back to the House, it would be kind of us to let the opposition settle in, and get the government's business ahead, but I look forward to continuing to work together.

Export and Import Permits Act

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had a private member's motion in the last Parliament. It specifically addressed the ATT and our not signing on to the particular agreement, and not being a part of it in the form that it was currently in. It was Motion No. 589 which stated:

That, in the opinion of the House: (a) Canada already exceeds all the standards listed in United Nations resolution 55/255 concerning firearms (the resolution); (b) the regulations envisioned in the resolution would do nothing to enhance public safety, and would serve only to burden the law-abiding firearms community; and therefore, the government has already surpassed its obligations with respect to the resolution and is not required to take any further steps.

I mention that today because the same problems that existed when I presented my private member's motion in the last Parliament still exist to this very day. What needs to be understood by a couple of our friends who maybe are not part of the firearms community out in Canada today, and they are watching, is that Canada already has an extremely good system in terms of monitoring the sales and permitting sales of military equipment around the world.

The trade controls bureau regulates the Export and Import Permits Act, which, since 1947, has allowed the minister to prevent the supply of military equipment to countries for a variety of reasons, including security threats, internal and external conflicts, or sanctions by the United Nations. That is already in place, and Canada already abides by that and uses it effectively.

I will bring the question back to the firearms community. Why not exclude the firearms community from this particular Arms Trade Treaty? We would maybe have broad agreement throughout the firearms community that it would not be such a bad thing, but since it is not exempted, it would become a big problem for firearms owners.

I will bring this all back to pre-election 2015. The Liberal Party promised it would not reinstitute a firearms registry in Canada. It was a very hot topic for the Liberals. There were many rural Canadians who were upset by a firearms registry, and it was a big problem for the government because the prior Liberal government was the one that brought it in.

It was not a very popular piece of legislation. Pre-election, the Liberals said they were not going to do this again. The minister, by all his actions, is showing the exact opposite. He is just trying to do it through the back door, and we have mentioned it many times. My colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe and I mentioned this before when this was brought forward in the House. With Bill C-47, there is a real desire to bring in a back door registry without saying so.

I will read out some of the parts of what this bill would actually require. This is Bill C-47 for all those in Canada watching. They can see the actual act. I am going to read what it would require of business owners who sell long guns and firearms. It would require them to keep records.

It states:

Every person or organization that applies for a permit, import allocation, export allocation, certificate or other authorization under this Act shall keep all records that are necessary to determine whether they have complied with this Act.

If company X is a company that sells firearms, it might export and sell them to somebody from the U.S. who buys them. This would then apply to that company's database. I might go in and buy a firearm from this particular company, and this is a question that some have asked. What limitations are there to access the records of that particular company? Are all records accessible? For every firearm that was bought and sold, is the record accessible? Because the bill does not exclude firearms owners or long gun owners, it really says that all databases would be made available to the minister.

I will talk about some more things in the actual act, and why we have problems with it. Under electronic records, the bill states:

Every person or organization that is required to keep a record and that does so electronically shall ensure that all equipment and software necessary to make the record intelligible are available during the retention period required for the record.

Those are computers, so they need to be accessible. Under inadequate records, the bill states:

If a person or organization fails to keep adequate records for the purposes of this Act, the Minister may, in writing, require them to keep any records that the Minister may specify, and they shall keep the records specified by the Minister.

Those are not some records; those are any records.

The period for retention is another issue with firearms communities. Is it just for a week? Is it just for a certain period of time? It is actually much longer than a week. The bill states:

Every person or organization that is required to keep records shall retain them until the expiry of six years after the end of the year to which they relate or for any other period that may be prescribed by regulation.

It could be up to seven years. Firearms companies such as a little local firearms store in my community's backcountry, like Corlanes in Dawson Creek, because they are exporters and importers, would be required by the minister of public safety and this Parliament to have accessible records of those sales. It sure sounds like a firearms registry to me.

Let us get to the bottom of it, where this is all coming from is demand by the minister. The bill states:

If the Minister is of the opinion that it is necessary for the administration or enforcement of this Act, the Minister may, by a demand served personally or sent by mail, require any person or organization that is required to keep records to retain those records for any period that is specified in the demand, and the person or organization shall comply with the demand.

There it is. There is the back door registry. The minister has already talked about, in another piece of legislation that is coming before us very soon, handing over the previous firearms registry data to a province in this country. It seems that on one hand he reassured his electorate, especially those in Saskatchewan who sent him back to Ottawa, that there would never be a firearms registry brought forward again by a Liberal government, but here we have two examples—today, in Bill C-47 and next in Bill C-58—of doing the exact opposite. That is why our firearms community is so concerned.

We saw it was ineffective the last time it was brought in. It was very expensive and it was putting the focus on the wrong individuals. I am a firearms owner myself. I do it lawfully. I have been trained in how to safely fire and handle restricted firearms, non-restricted firearms, etc. For people who obey the law and do it properly, this is unneeded attention on a community of people who safely and lawfully buy and sell firearms and do it as part of our history.

I have a pin on my lapel. I am co-chair of the parliamentary outdoor caucus. I do that with my colleague across the way. We support hunters, anglers, outfitters, trappers, etc. We support the historic events that really started this country. It started with the fur trade. A lot of my constituents still hunt, trap, and fish. I like to do that when I have time to get out there. These kinds of laws have a negative effect on those communities, because we put the focus on them as if they are criminals already, when they have done nothing wrong. All they have done is chosen to buy a firearm to go hunt and provide food for their family.

The crux of my argument today is that the Liberal government said it was not going to bring in a firearms registry. The Liberals said it over and over again, because it was a big deal to a lot of their constituents. A lot of rural folks elected Liberal members of Parliament with the reassurance that it would not happen, and here we have a minister and a government that is trying to do that. From one back door or another, it is determined to get a firearms registry re-established in the country.

We need to come into this with our eyes wide open. Voters who are watching this today need to understand this is a big deal. This is why we did not accede to the Arms Trade Treaty when we were in government. It was because it did not have exclusions for firearm owners written within our particular act. My private member's bill spoke to that. It was one more reason why we did not accede to it.

I challenge the government to have a sober second thought and look at this again. We implore the government not to accede to the ATT. We already have enough regulations and laws that get to the same end the ATT is trying to get to in terms of selling military equipment across the world. The Liberals should especially think about the firearm owners to whom they promised they would not start a registry. Hopefully, the government will not support this legislation today.

Access to Information Act and Privacy Act

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, in both official languages, a charter statement on Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Access to Information Act

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)