Debates of Nov. 22nd, 2013

Motions in amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to share the government's position on Bill C-461.

Bill C-461 was introduced in the House on November 5, 2012 by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert. As we now know, this bill has generated a fair bit of discussion. I believe that is healthy in any democratic society.

Bill C-461 has been subject to amendments that have also generated healthy democratic discussion.

It is important to recognize that bills are sent to the committee stage review as part of our democratic process. Committee review allows for input from stakeholders, expert witnesses, and those who may be impacted by any proposed piece of legislation. Let us never forget that legislation can affect the lives of Canadians. It is why we, as parliamentarians, must listen to all sides and strive to achieve a balance.

Our government is supportive of the principles raised by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert. The amendments to Bill C-461 provide a better balance in recognizing the obligation of the federal government as an employer.

Our government supports this bill, as amended. What exactly has been amended? In my view, we should not overlook that Bill C-461 proposes amendments to the Privacy Act. These amendments also coincide with this government's continuing goal of increasing openness and transparency.

Currently, much of public servants' expenses or salaries are protected under the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act is an important piece of legislation that protects the personal information of all individuals, including federal employees. However, the Privacy Act also recognizes the fact that federal employees work in the public domain. Increasing accountability and transparency requires that more personal information be made available to the public when that information is about positions or their functions within a government institution. The Privacy Act provides that this type of personal information should not be protected when an access to information request is made. That type of information should be disclosed.

What Bill C-461 proposes to do is specify that all expenses incurred by federal officers or employees of a government institution in the course of their work and for which they are reimbursed are not protected as personal information under the Privacy Act. If there was any ambiguity before, it would now be clear that this information could and should be disclosed to a requester.

Under Bill C-461, if individuals, in the course of their employment, incurred an expense and were compensated for that expense by the government, that information, the amount of compensation, could be disclosed.

Governments must spend public money wisely and only where necessary. A person cannot expect that the reimbursement of a work-related expense by a government institution will be kept confidential. It is in the public interest that the law be crystal clear on this point. I believe that this is an important aspect of public accountability. This is a small but reasonable addition that will make things clear for everyone.

Another aspect of Bill C-461 relating to transparency and public expenditures is the disclosure of the salaries of certain officers of government institutions. Currently, the Privacy Act authorizes government institutions to disclose the salary range, the classification, and the responsibilities of the position held by all officers and employees. For all public servants, this information is not treated as personal information. Therefore, this information can be disclosed under an access request. We believe that for the majority of public servants, this is sufficient and reasonable.

Where I believe we need to go further is with respect to the highest paid individuals in government institutions. Many provinces disclose, often proactively, the exact salaries of its highest earners. These are called sunshine lists. Publicly traded corporations routinely release the amount of compensation for their top officers. The idea behind this is that stakeholders in the company deserve to know the exact amount the highest compensated individuals are taking home.

When it comes to government, all taxpayers are interested stakeholders, and they deserve to have this information. In these cases, it is not sufficient to know the salary ranges and job classifications of some of the highest earners in government. These people receive bonuses and other discretionary benefits from government institutions. Often what these individuals will receive at the end of the year from an institution is substantially higher than what is publicly announced for their position. That is why we believe that government institutions should be authorized to disclose the exact salary paid to the highest earners. This would include all the bonuses and benefits given to the individual.

We strongly believe, however, that this level of intrusion on an individual's privacy should be reserved for the highest paid individuals only. This is what we have done in Bill C-461.

In conclusion, I want to say that this bill enhances transparency in the operations of government while still maintaining a critical balance that is respectful of personal privacy.

Employees and institutions are entrusted with the financial administration of the public purse and should be able to demonstrate where and how that money is being spent. Individuals should be able to request records and review expenditures by public servants, and this should obviously include the CBC. It will improve the overall confidence and trust in our institutions.

I would urge this House to adopt Bill C-461 as it is presented today. The improvements this bill proposes to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act are sensible and promote transparency, openness, and accountability in key ways across government.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the idealistic tone of the speech by my colleague opposite. It is important for those watching us today to truly understand what has happened.

A Conservative member introduced a bill that will allow the public to find out exactly how much money all federal employees making more than $188,600 are paid. He believes that this could lead to greater transparency in the public service and government agencies. We might think that he would have the support of his party, which was elected on the promise of transparency. Despite this reassuring tone, that is not at all the case.

On the contrary, his party let the member go ahead, the bill proceeded and, when the time came, the order was given to simply torpedo the bill, just like in a game of Battleship. When the bill was studied by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, all the Conservative committee members calmly raised their hands, without a word of explanation, and gutted the bill. They changed the wording so that only 1% of the public service—those earning more than $444,661 a year—would have to disclose their earnings. That is an absolute farce.

My colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who I imagine was quite baffled, suggested that we rename the bill to better reflect its content. He suggested that it be named “An Act respecting the transparency of public servants earning more than $444,000 a year, with the exception of PMO employees”. I appreciate my colleague's rigour and concern for accuracy. We must call a spade a spade.

The last few months have been very difficult for the government. There have been major missteps and blunders, which generally indicate the end of a party's reign. The evolution of the bill is itself one of the Conservatives' major blunders.

Everything that elected Conservatives say they stand for, all the principles that they claimed as their own when campaigning and wanted to defend by putting their name on the ballot and asking for their neighbour's support, the very reasons they came to Ottawa for the first time as parliamentarians and proudly took their seats, all these principles are today back on the table. They are being called into question; they have been violated. It is shameful.

I am not questioning the good faith of most of my colleagues opposite. On the contrary, I put myself in their shoes, and I wonder how they might explain what happened here to their constituents or their base. On what basis can they justify and accept the government's actions in this case? There is some cause to wonder. There are some grounds for serious doubts, right?

No, that does not seem to be the case, since the Conservative members knew that one of their own wanted to introduce a bill on the disclosure of salaries of public servants and federal agencies. This is something that many of them would have probably supported, but they knew that there was an order from above, probably from the famous little boys in short pants running around in the Prime Minister's Office. We now know that they kept a close watch on everything that was going on in Ottawa to neutralize the provisions of the bill that amended the Privacy Act in order to allow for the disclosure of salaries.

This was to be a quick and dirty job, done discreetly and swiftly. Furthermore, the member who had the thankless task of proposing amendments to gut the bill, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, whom I have to name here, did not even bother to explain himself or defend his position. He had to know that he was doing something that did not smell quite right. He clearly did not try to draw attention to his actions.

Moreover, all the Conservative members here fell in line and voted for the amendment. That said, all this was done in silence. No member bothered to speak. There are some things you just cannot talk about.

The government loudly and constantly claims to speak on behalf of taxpayers. However, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation expressed its disgust—yes, its disgust—at the government's actions on this front.

The federation's representative, Gregory Thomas, had this to say after a close look at Bill C-461: “Not one witness, nor one committee member even spoke to why increasing the threshold was a good idea. Probably because they couldn’t think of even one good reason.”

According to him, “Canadians expect openness from the Harper government, not cover-ups and stonewalling.”

He went on to say, “This is another example where the government is not walking its own talk when it comes to accountability.”

In closing, he stated that, “In light of recent scandals, we need more information and accountability from this government, not less.”

He was right when he said that not one witness supported the idea of increasing the threshold for disclosure. On the contrary, those very witnesses, including the Office of the Information—

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a reminder, proper names should not be used in the chamber, but instead should be referred to by either their position title or their riding.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the parliamentary secretary for his intervention on that. Members know that is a practice that is prohibited in the House by the Standing Orders. I thank him for catching it. I happened to be engaged in a different discussion here momentarily and I will put my attention to the hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but we are all mistaken because I am quoting Gregory Thomas from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In fact, the standing order concerning the use of other names applies even if the name is found in a quotation. The same rule applies in this case.

[An. hon. member]

I do not understand.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

If the name is used in a quotation, the same rule applies. The member should replace it with the member's title or riding.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

This is complete chaos; I did not name anyone. I quoted a person, whom I named. In any case, let us not waste time on this. Let us not make mountains out of molehills. We should be discussing more important things.

That individual was quite right in saying that no witnesses supported the proposal to increase the disclosure level.

On the contrary, those same witnesses, including the Information Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner and the president of the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, all had plenty to say about the bill and the amendments put forward by the Conservatives. However, none of what was said by the experts was retained by the Conservative majority in the committee.

For example, the Information Commissioner proposed replacing the term “independence” with “activity” after many witnesses insisted that the bill was a threat to journalism and investigative journalism in particular. Obviously, the Conservatives rejected that recommendation.

Then the commissioner issued a very clear plea to the committee, asking it not to add a new exclusion to the assortment of exceptions and exclusions already set out in the bill, because that exclusion would require clarification from the courts. The Conservatives added it anyway.

In this case as well, the Conservatives flatly refused the Information Commissioner and added a new exclusion to the bill for journalistic sources, an exclusion that we know will be completely ineffective, useless and very costly and will not really do anything to protect journalistic sources. On the contrary, it exposes sources and undermines many sources' confidence in CBC journalists.

The stated purpose of the bill was to clarify section 68.1 of the Access to Information Act, which has been the subject of litigation. The bill's sponsor reminded us that that section was not a model of clarity. It is important to remember that that section has already been clarified, not by Parliament, but by the courts. This matter was resolved two years ago, to the satisfaction of all parties involved.

The bill, as it is being presented today, completely reopens this closed file and makes a mockery of the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal decisions. This would be like taking a circular saw to a wound that is just starting to heal. What this means is that a bill that is supposed to be in the taxpayers' interest will in fact cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in new court cases. New definitions will be needed.

The Information Commissioner very clearly said not to add a new exclusion in the bill. She said:

...please consider this: you are going to create another difficult situation if we create another exclusion to an exemption. How that's going to work, I really don't know.

These comments did not come from just anyone. She knows that such a bill will lead to even more litigation and court challenges.

Today, this bill's sponsor recommended that we remove these clauses from the bill, and I commend him for stepping up. We now know that these provisions will cost taxpayers dearly. We know that this bill is very far from being a model of clarity and that it would replace a solution with a problem.

It is not easy for the Conservatives to justify this bill to ensure transparency, when the bill itself is not transparent at all and it will cost taxpayers a fortune.

Although the bill's short title is “CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency Act”, its salary disclosure provisions do not even apply to the president of the CBC, whose salary falls below the disclosure threshold, which the Conservatives just raised by $250,000.

Behind the doors of a committee room in Ottawa, the Conservatives quietly increased the minimum salary disclosure threshold to $444,661. This is 11 times the salary of an average worker in Canada.

I wonder how the Conservatives will justify such a move. How will they explain such a decision to their constituents? What will they tell their party faithful, who have been fighting for years to have the government monitor the public purse and spend carefully, and to make it more transparent and accountable?

Those in this room who support greater transparency, accountability and respect for the public purse, and those who care about doing a good job on this bill as legislators, now know what they have to do.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-461.

First I would like to compliment the member for Edmonton—St. Albert. He has obviously made an exceptional effort to get a better appreciation and understanding of getting a bill passed through the House, which can be a challenge at the best of times, as we all know. He has identified an issue that we collectively in the House hear a lot about. In the last number of months we have heard a lot about transparency and accountability, whether in this House or the Senate chambers.

In his own way the member has identified another way that we can ensure more transparency and accountability. I very much respect that.

It is most interesting to see the original wording of the bill and where it is today, where I had the privilege to second some amendments.

I am hopeful that members will see this situation for what it is. This private member has taken an exceptional amount of time to get a good understanding of an issue and then put it forward to the House of Commons. I have been a parliamentarian for over 20 years, and one of the things that I really respect about the House is the fact that we have private members' bills. We have hundreds of them.

Sadly, less than half will actually be dealt with. I think I am right in saying they number 200 or something of this nature, and if we sit enough days, my bill might actually come before the House, but most bills will never be voted upon.

It is a privilege to be in the House. It is a great opportunity if one gets the opportunity to bring an idea before the House. I like to think that at the very least we should preserve that aspect about private members' hour. It should not be based on party policy forcing all government members to vote a certain way or all Liberal members to vote a certain way. The same applies to the New Democratic Party. This should not happen during private members' hour when we are dealing with an issue of this nature. My understanding is it is supposed to be a free vote.

In looking at the legislation and the amendments that have been brought forward, and based on what I witnessed in the second reading vote and on my understanding of the issue of transparency and accountability, I believe the bill as amended should be able to pass on merit alone.

In the procedure and House affairs committee we were talking about proactive disclosure and how we in the Liberal Party have proactive disclosure. People can click on to the net and see the cost when I have flown to Winnipeg and come back. My hospitality costs are there . It is all there to be seen. The Conservatives are not exactly sure what it is yet, but they are saying “us too”. The NDP is saying it will at some point.

Why do I say that? It is because the member for Edmonton—St. Albert has found something all of us should be supporting. There were some reservations when it came in for second reading, if memory serves me correctly. I would have voted against it going into committee. The reason for that was the CBC aspect, but the CBC is no longer a factor in it now.

One of the nice things about committee is that members are afforded the opportunity to make some changes. We should value that aspect. It is the same thing with report stage. That is an important aspect of private members' bills.

One thing we have to be very careful of—

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

What's that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The member asks what that is. That is a private member's bill being hijacked. That happens. One of his colleagues in the immigration committee, for example, had a bill that went to committee. The former critic for immigration will recall it quite well. The bill was turned into something it was not intended to be. The person who sponsored the bill at the beginning had no intention of doing what the government was trying to do through amendments. It ultimately came back to the House, because it was so far out of scope, and a Speaker's ruling had to be made.

We should be valuing the importance of private members' bills. How can a private member's initiative be changed to the degree where one is going against what the private member originally wanted? If I, as a private member, bring in legislation and explain the direction I want to take it, and once it gets to committee the government makes changes to that legislation, it has, in essence, hijacked my bill.

I think my bill is ranked at number 200. Hopefully mine will be voted on and it will go to committee. It is not easy to get that far.

The member for Edmonton—St. Albert has been very successful in getting it to the committee stage.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

No thanks to you. You voted against it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The point is that it was sent there. I believe that any changes made to a private member's bill should have the consent of the private member who sponsored the bill. If the private member does not agree with the changes, what makes others believe that they have the right to take it away from the private member? That is something that really confuses me. We should be very careful.

Mr. Speaker, on occasion, in private members' business hour, the Liberal caucus does not always vote collectively as one unit on a private member's bill. It is because Liberals support individuals looking at private members' bills for what they are: private members' bills. I have seen first hand that Conservatives have stood in their places and voted both ways on a particular bill. That is not something to be embarrassed by. They should be applauded for it, because they are private members' bills.

My recommendation to all members of the chamber is to look at what the amendments are saying. If it gets beyond $444,000, it has to be disclosed. What percentage of the population makes a half million dollars? It is incredible. It is almost at the point where we should not even bother.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

There are a lot of them in the federal government, and you know it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Sure, there are a number of them, but what is being proposed in the amendments is far more reasonable. It deals with the issue.

My challenge to members is to give the bill back to the member who actually sponsored it and listen to what the amendments are actually saying. Let us keep the tradition of the House in terms of voting for private members' bills on their own merits. That is my appeal to all members of all political parties.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the bill and its amendments. I have to say that from my vantage point, it is interesting to see some of the strange bedfellows who have jumped in to support the member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

The member for Winnipeg North talked about how he is confused by this. I find that statement to be accurate, largely because it seems that he is unaware of the content of the amendments that are being proposed here today and how they deal directly with the CBC and the reforms that are important and necessary.

It is worth highlighting, as well, that the opposition member, along with many in the opposition, voted to defeat the bill when it was sent to committee stage at second reading. I and others look forward to seeing how they will vote on the bill, and if that amendment is successful, how they will vote after that, if in fact they are sincere about the need to protect and report on how tax dollars are spent. I have my doubts, but we will see.

I am speaking today because when I spoke on the bill initially I called for some of the very amendments that are being put forward today. While I was supportive of the bill, I felt that the level for reporting of federal employees should not be the $180,000 that the member for Edmonton—St. Albert was proposing but in fact should be the same salary as a member of Parliament, which is approximately $160,000.

I still feel that way. I think that represents the top 2% of income earners in this country and it is a good level for Canadians to consider when they look at how their dollars are being spent and who is being paid what.

I will point out that in fact the bill is not out of line with legislation we see elsewhere in the country, albeit at the provincial level. For example, Nova Scotia and Ontario require the disclosure of the name, salary and job title for anyone making $100,000 or more from their respective provincial governments. These sunshine lists, as they are called, and rightly so because they do provide some insight for taxpayers, hold those governments accountable for the salaries given to the top bureaucrats, civil servants and anyone else who earns six figures or more per year from the government.

I should note as an aside that Manitoba, where the member for Winnipeg North is from, sets its transparency level at $50,000. My own province of New Brunswick has a disclosure limit set at $60,000. In addition, any employee of the Government of New Brunswick receiving in excess of $10,000 in retirement is also subject to public disclosure.

These acts across the country at the provincial level have worked and they have worked well to give taxpayers across the country a better idea of how governments are spending their money. I will note these numbers are reported annually and they have been a good thing for taxpayers and open government.

That philosophy represents my view on the bill. I will say, regardless of the outcome of the vote on the amendments of the member for Edmonton—St. Albert, I will be supporting the bill. We heard earlier from the parliamentary secretary. Broadly speaking I agree with what he was saying in terms of the need for transparency and accountability. I just happen to not agree with that member on where that threshold should be. Again, my view is that it should be $160,000. I said that when we had the first debate on the bill, and I continue to maintain that. I will be voting for the amendments as put forward by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

I am also going to do it for another reason. The other place, as we refer to the Senate, not so recently changed a private member's bill from the House of Commons, Bill C-377. One of the arguments they used for increasing the threshold level in that bill, which was a good piece of legislation and one I supported, was that they set the disclosure for union transparency at the same level, about $444,000, I believe.

I would like to send a message back to the Senate on that bill that we ought to work in a way that expands transparency, both for the public sector as well as for the unions.

That encompasses my thinking on the bill. Again, I find it interesting how the opposition has suddenly rallied behind the bill. I only wish that had more to do with the well-being of taxpayers across the country and not political opportunism.

I regret that my former colleague, the member for Edmonton—St. Albert, no longer sits on this side of the House. Having said that, his bill would improve transparency within the Government of Canada. That is why I will vote in favour of it. I urge my colleagues on this side of the House as well as my colleagues on that side of the House to do the same.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I want to be as clear as I can about my position on the bill, and it is rather convoluted how we got here. In its present form, with the amendments offered in the motion by my friend from Edmonton—St. Albert, I would be 100% behind what he has done and I commend him for his amendments to the bill. However, if those amendments were not enacted by the House, I would be utterly opposed to this legislation for reasons I would like to outline.

I understand these amendments were required after the Conservative caucus gutted the original bill brought in by the member when he was still on the government bench. These changes to the bill before the amendments on the motion paper were rammed through by the Conservatives on the committee. It would allow scrutiny for only those people earning more than $444,000.

As the member for Winnipeg North put it eloquently, that is a very small number of people, almost half a million dollars a year, and only those people with incomes higher than that income level would be subject to the scrutiny of this legislation, which is shameful and is entirely inconsistent with the views of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada when she testified before the committee. If anyone should be worried about privacy, it would be she and, in fact, she is entirely on board, as I will explain in a moment.

The purpose of the amendments is to provide true accountability to the taxpayers and all Canadians to know just how much money people are earning in the public sector. It seems to me the threshold was set at a very fair level. I commend my friend for New Brunswick Southwest for acknowledging this. It is a very fair threshold. That is what only 2% of the population make, namely $160,000 some or more. I commend him for referencing that situation. I agree that would provide more accountability than the anemic legislation that would only allow specific knowledge of salaries and bonuses when they exceeded some $444,000. I think Canadians would see right through the sham of that bill being portrayed as some kind of access to information or accountability measure, on the contrary.

The legislation has been changed in the committee, as I said, to try to make it up to $444,000. I see that as exactly the opposite of transparency.

There was something said in the committee by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie that struck me as rather shocking. He pointed out that the author of the bill, the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert, said in his testimony that Canada had fallen to 56th out of 90 countries with regard to transparency. I am quite ashamed of my country's record on access to information. We used to be seen as a bit of a beacon. Now we are seen as a laggard when it comes to information and access. I will speak about this in some greater detail in a moment, as I put this, I hope, into some broader context.

What did the Privacy Commissioner say about the fact that individual salaries would be made known? Is that some kind of privacy breach? We would think that as the watchdog in that field, she would be the first to be concerned, but she in fact was not. We have a very superb Privacy Commissioner who has served the country with distinction over the last few years, and I was really impressed with her testimony.

My friend from New Brunswick Southwest has already given some rather interesting statistics on this. I would like to repeat some of them and emphasize a couple of others.

Some governments use thresholds to disclose the salaries of public sector employees. Some governments, for example in Manitoba, as he pointed out, have a very low threshold, $50,000. People making therefore more than $50,000 it is perfectly okay to know what their salaries, including bonuses, would be. British Columbia has $125,000 threshold. Other places, Ontario and Nova Scotia have $100,000 and so on. After that magic number is reached in a given province, one is able to know just how much those individuals are paid.

The Privacy Commissioner said something really telling. She said that in the private sector, publicly traded companies had to disclose the compensation paid to their chief executive officer, chief financial officer and the next top three executives, all their shares, all their options and all their bonuses for anyone earning more than $150,000 in total compensation, which is remarkably close to the threshold that has been proposed in the motion by the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

Given these examples, I want to quote the Privacy Commissioner. She said:

...it would appear that disclosure of salaries for individuals in leadership roles within organizations, in both the [Canadian] public sector and private enterprise, is already best practice.

She also said:

In the opinion of my office, and taking into account best practices elsewhere in Canada, the disclosure of the salaries of the most senior officials in the federal public sector does not represent a significant privacy risk relative to the goal of transparency and the broader public interest.

Therefore, we are good to go, to use an expression that is used a lot in the Prime Minister's Office. We are good to go with this legislation, according to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. I respect very much that she has given us the green light to do this.

With regard to bonuses, it was very clear, at the committee stage, that the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert intended bonuses to be considered part of the compensation package. He pointed out that sometimes, and I was shocked to learn this, bonuses can be as high as 39% of one's remuneration. Consequently, it is a very wise thing to have included. I commend him that in the motion he prepared and put on the order paper, he is explicitly including those bonuses, and I thank him for his efforts.

I want to put this in a broader context. This is a bill purporting to amend the Access to Information Act. I studied this at graduate school and lobbied for the Canadian Bar Association when the first Access to Information Act was being considered in the House. Later I worked for the committee that studied the Access to Information and Privacy Acts as a research officer when the six-year review was undertaken.

The first government to have to live with the Access to Information Act was the Conservative government of the right hon. Mr. Mulroney. The government has had to live with this legislation. Others have talked about it.

I have to say, when I heard today and yesterday that emails were being deleted in the Prime Minister's Office, or are at least alleged to have been by the RCMP, I was quite shocked. I was actually, frankly, saddened to hear that this is what we have come to in our country.

We have heard about the pathetic ranking of our country as a laggard on access to information. However, to think that the RCMP believes that people are destroying emails, which requires, under the Library and Archives Act of Canada, explicit permission before that is done, is absolutely pathetic, if that is true.

The Conservatives talk about an accountability act, and I was proud when they brought that in, but to see the implementation of that act and the way the government is acting now vis-à-vis freedom of information is, frankly, absolutely shocking.

I want to again say that the context is relevant for this amendment. Our Information Commissioner, on October 17, in her annual report, used words I have never seen in a report by an independent officer of Parliament. She said this about the government's commitment to freedom of information. She said that the report highlighted weaknesses in the information system that need to be urgently addressed. There are institutions that do not have enough staff to even acknowledge that they have received requests for six months. She said,

All together, these circumstances tell me in no uncertain terms that the integrity of the federal access to information program is at serious risk.

This is not partisan rhetoric. This is the Information Commissioner of Canada reporting to Parliament on what she has discovered about the government's commitment to openness.

In conclusion, I respect enormously the amendments proposed by my hon. friend from Edmonton—St. Albert, and I hope that they are accepted by the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate. Although we have one minute left, I am going to call on the hon. member for Newton—North Delta. I am sure she can probably improvise for a minute or so as to part of her remarks, and that will take us through the hour provided for private members' business. The hon. member.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really telling today that what we are talking about is accountability and transparency.

The member for Edmonton—St. Albert put forward a private member's bill that would have given more transparency. Yet the very government that purports to speak for and stand for accountability and transparency is the one that gutted the bill and raised the threshold for the disclosure of earnings and bonuses, et cetera.

This is not the first time. With the fiasco happening in the Senate, we have seen over and over again, day in and day out, that the government does not understand the terms “transparency”, “accountability”, or “telling the truth”.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Newton—North Delta will have nine minutes remaining for her remarks when the House next returns to debate on this motion at report stage.

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

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)