Mr. Speaker, last May I raised a concern that relates to the transparency and openness that Canadians should come to expect of our government and of our Parliament.
It is extremely important for us to recognize that in the last year the former Information Commissioner, Mr. Robert Marleau, a former clerk of yours, Mr. Speaker, has made a number of assertions about the state of information access in this country and found it to be frankly abysmal, and we agree on this side. While this is not an opportunity for us to go back and say one party can do better than the other, the reality is that Canadians deserve better.
I asked the President of the Treasury Board at the time what his position was with respect to the findings of the Auditor General, but between last May when I asked that question and today, as we have now learned from the justice minister , he has made the decision not to embrace or accept the importance of ensuring that there is full disclosure in this country as it relates to access to information. We now learn that the government has pretty much put the kibosh, so to speak, on the idea of openness and transparency. It has done so against a growing chorus of Canadians who believe that Canada is not only falling behind, but that the government stands very much in the way of the kind of changes necessary and the recommendations made not only by Mr. Marleau but also by the committee responsible, in this case the Standing Committee on Access to Information.
Let us not underestimate the significance of what the government is doing to stonewall and to block. Just last week we learned the $100,000 cheque presentation in the riding of Cambridge would not have come to us had it not been for a successful ATIP. We now know that consistently and for heavily redacted articles, the 30 days within which information is normally shared, as the law requires, is now turning into 120 days. In some cases we can actually say that it goes to six months, eight months, a year or a year and a half. Some of these matters are now heading to the federal court in order to get the transparency that is so important, not just to this Parliament and its ability to function, but in order for the public to have confidence in these institutions.
We may argue as to what recommendations constitute the basis on which we ensure there is transparency. One thing is very clear. In this country at this time we are seeing an accretion of opportunities and the ability of the Canadian government and the public to recognize that information that they want is not deliverable.
I take into consideration not only the concerns that were raised by the committee, but also the basis on which those committee recommendations took place, the 12 recommendation of the Information Commissioner himself. They are simple things like a parliamentary review every five years of access to information, that all persons have a right to access records and that the Access to Information Act provide the Information Commissioner with order-making power for administrative matters.
If we want to ensure that we get full disclosure on information that the public and the media are seeking about these institutions, whether they be our Parliament or our courts, it seems to me it is incumbent on this Parliament and this government to stop stonewalling, stop blocking and start dealing with what the public expects as it relates to access to information.
I see the parliamentary secretary is pretty excited over there. I look forward to his comments.