Debates of Dec. 9th, 2015

Supplementary Estimates (B), 2015-16

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Madam Chair, on operating expenditures, it is 20%; on non-salary, it is 20%; and on votes and contributions, it is 10%.

On the member's previous question, visa officers sent overseas to conduct interviews, process cases, and issue visas comes to $4.7 million.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Chair, I propose to allocate my time with remarks of about 10 minutes and then a question and answer period.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Government of Canada to speak about how we will strengthen our access to information system, a key issue facing Treasury Board. We firmly believe that government data and information should be open by default, in formats that are modern and easy to use. We promise to deliver an improved access to information system, because we are committed to upholding 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 for which Canadians paid belongs to Canadians. They have every right to access it.

To that end, we will review the Access to Information Act to ensure it provides the openness and accountability Canadians expect. We will ensure that the government is fair, open, and accountable to all Canadians.

Reviewing the access to information system will 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 been substantially updated since 1983. How much our world has changed since then. The proliferation of personal technology, like smart phones, has altered so many aspects of our lives.

We recognize that technology in all forms is changing how citizens interact with their government in powerful ways; so, in the coming months we will look at ways to align Canada's access to information system with those modern realities.

Releasing information in easy to use formats, which will ensure that Canadians have meaningful access to their government, is one of the most important and substantive changes we can make. Our review of the access to information system will explore, among other updates, how we can make usable formats a reality.

Another part of our commitment to openness involves eliminating barriers wherever we can. We committed to Canadians that we would eliminate fees for accessing government information, with the exception of the initial fee for filing a request. We believe that Canadians should not have to foot the bill for information that belongs to them.

In addition to reducing financial barriers, we will look at reducing systemic barriers. For example, we will examine ways to expand the scope of the Access to Information Act so that it applies to the Prime Minister's office, to ministers' offices, and to bodies that support Parliament and the courts.

We will do this because we know that Canadians want us to pull back the curtain on the factors that influence the decisions that affect their lives. Canadians expect to know how and why decisions are made on their behalf, though we also acknowledge the valid and important reasons behind protecting some information.

These reasons include protecting Canadians' personal information, withholding information that would put someone's safety or national security at risk, and ensuring that officials can provide full, free, and frank advice to the government. We will work with all stakeholders to strike the right balance.

The government also recognizes that Canadians want and deserve easier access to their own personal information. We will explore ways to strengthen this aspect of the existing system. We want to create a system that is more nimble, responsive, and convenient.

These kinds of sweeping changes cannot happen in a vacuum. We look forward to working with the Information Commissioner and other interested Canadians on the review of the Access to Information Act. In fact, we consider the Information Commissioner to be an important partner in our review of Canada's access to information system.

Indeed, we heard earlier from the President of the Treasury Board, in answer to a question, that the initial contact, initial meeting, initial approach, has already taken place.

No access to information regime is complete without meaningful and effective oversight. We promised Canadians that we would find ways to empower the Office of the Information Commissioner to order government information to be released in situations where doing so would be in keeping with the purposes of the Access to Information Act.

We look forward to working with the Information Commissioner to foster a strong and responsive access regime.

We also recognize that this cannot be a one-off initiative. We have been witness to many changes in society and in technology since our access to information legislation came into force 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 system will support a strong, open, and transparent democracy. One way to ensure the continued strength of the access to information system is to undertake a full legislative review of the Access to Information Act every five years. Legislative reviews provide an important opportunity for Canadians to have their say on access rights and to help us ensure that the system continues to meet their needs.

Given the importance of these changes and their complexity, the government will take the time necessary to hear from interested Canadians on this issue and to fully examine all the options. We will come forward with proposals to enhance and build on the existing strengths in the system.

These are early days. We will announce more details about the review in the coming months.

We look forward to working with all the stakeholders to ensure that we develop balanced, reasonable, and feasible proposals. I welcome the input from the committee members gathered here on ways in which we can enhance our access to information regime.

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

Madam Chair, the member made reference to access to information. One of the major platforms of the party was to deal with access.

The member will recall that it was not that long ago when the Prime Minister, then as the leader of the Liberal Party, took the initiative on proactive disclosure, believing in the importance of transparency and accountability. I think that had a great deal of influence in wanting to move forward and show more transparency and accountability, which seems to be a common thread for the Prime Minister.

I wonder if the member might want to reflect on the importance of issues such as proactive disclosure and ultimately how access to information is yet another step in what seems to be something that is very important to our Prime Minister and to the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Chair, I would like to thank my colleague and friend from Winnipeg North, who can always be counted upon to raise interesting points, and when necessary, ensure that the debate is as fulsome and comprehensive as it can possibly be on virtually any given topic.

The two topics the member raised in his question were proactive disclosure and the commitment of the Prime Minister.

There is no question that, under the leadership of the present Prime Minister, it was the Liberal Party that indeed led the way with respect to proactive disclosure of expenses here in the House of Commons, and he did so on a voluntary basis almost immediately after his appointment as leader. Eventually other parties came along, and eventually the rules were changed such that the process that was put in place by our party was adopted by the House of Commons as a whole.

The other element of the question is the Prime Minister's personal commitment to open government. The private member's bill that was brought forth by the then member for Papineau was about open government. When it came his time on the lottery, that was the topic he chose. It was defeated by the then government, but now we will see it come into government policy through the President of the Treasury Board.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Chair, Treasury Board sets the rules that establish how people, public funds, and government assets are managed. The Treasury Board reviews departmental investment plans and makes decisions that affect services to Canadians. Essentially this is about government's function to serve Canadians well and continuously improve how we do so.

I would like to ask my colleague from Charlottetown how he sees improving the access to information of citizens and organizations to be part of carrying out that mandate of serving Canadians better.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Chair, it really comes back to bringing government into 2015, into modern times. We have an access to information system that has not been overhauled since 1983. If we look at what has happened in terms of technology, when we look at what has happened in terms of the information age and the availability of information online, we see that legislatively we are way behind. We are way behind society in terms of what the demands are, in terms of what the expectations are, and in terms of the degree to which people want to be involved and informed in the decisions that affect their everyday lives. That is really what this is about. It is a long-overdue modernization to give Canadians what they want.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Charlottetown, for his insight today into open and transparent government. I would like to ask him his thoughts on our Prime Minister's decision to enable scientists within the federal government to provide Canadians with honest, direct science and facts, and the decision enabling scientists to provide science and data to Canadian citizens, which has been particularly important in recent weeks around climate change but, more importantly, across all government departments and agencies.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Chair, one of the most common refrains from the opposition benches in the last Parliament was that we were in an environment where the government was driven by ideology and not by evidence. This was certainly characterized in the climate change debate and in the muzzling of scientists.

I was so happy to hear in question period the Minister of Science rise in response to the first question posed to her and say that the war on science is over. It is a good day, it is a new day, and it is one when Canadians can rightly look forward to a change in the approach of government and the respect for science and evidence-based policy going forward.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Chair, I am wondering about the types of information to which we might have access now, with the restoring of the long-form census, and how long it might be before we can reconstruct some of the information that we have been missing for a few years.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Chair, I would like to thank my colleague from Guelph and welcome him to the House. Guelph has been the beneficiary of some excellent representation in the last Parliament. I have no doubt that he will continue that tradition.

It is so refreshing that one of the first orders of business of this government is to restore the long-form census, to put meaningful action to the commitment to evidence-based policy.

With respect to how long it will take for the changes to bear fruit, which have been implemented virtually on day one, it is difficult to say, but the fact is that we have now set out on the right track, and only good things will come from the newfound respect and regard for evidence.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Madam Chair, I appreciate the question by the member for Guelph—or as I like to call Guelph, the “greater Milton area“. I welcome him to the House.

I have a few questions on finance for the minister. I should mention as well that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member of Parliament for Simcoe—Grey.

I will be brief at the front end. For the edification of the House, I would like to know what the total costs of the salaries are with respect to the immigration portion in the estimates.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Madam Chair, the salaries for the temporary staff are $11.7 million, for the non-salary staff $166.3 million, and the remainder is for grants and contributions.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Madam Chair, how many FTEs are included in the $11.7 million?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Madam Chair, we have 72 temporary duty positions for 12 weeks.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Madam Chair, based on the 72 FTEs in the $11.7 million, is it true that $162,500 per FTE is being charged?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Madam Chair, the 72 temporary duty positions do not equate to FTEs because an FTE is a full-time equivalent and these are only for 12 weeks.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Madam Chair, I asked the hon. minister for the number of FTEs. Perhaps he should give me the number of FTEs and not the metric he gave me.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Madam Chair, I gave the member what I have, which is 72 temporary duty positions for 12 weeks. Perhaps one could convert those into FTEs. However, that was how it was presented to me.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Madam Chair, is that $162,500 for every temporary duty position?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Madam Chair, I do not agree with that math because I failed to mention that along with the 72 temporary duty positions for 12 weeks, we also have 48 full-time positions.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Madam Chair, we know that we are spending $11.7 million. However, we do not quite know how many people we are spending it on.

Let us try it this way. What will these people do?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Madam Chair, I disagree with that premise. We know exactly what the people there are doing. This may not be in exactly the format the member would prefer to see it, but via temporary duty assignments we have set up visa offices overseas to conduct interviews, process cases, and issue visas. That is very clear and exactly what—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. member for Milton.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Madam Chair, I appreciate that. I wanted to understand what the salary money was going to.

Does the minister anticipate any new submissions in the supplementary estimates (C) or changes to the main estimates over and above last year's amounts that are significantly higher; in other words, will this be carried forward again?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Madam Chair, I am told that the security costs for the work done by the CBSA will be included in the supplementary estimates (C).