House of Commons Hansard #245 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-58.

Topics

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague is doing a great job as Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and I appreciate her work and support on an ongoing basis.

The previous government, the Conservative government, was the first government in the British Commonwealth to be found in contempt of Parliament for not providing information to Parliament. The Conservatives were heavily shrouded in secrecy during their regime. We have opened up government. We are raising the bar in openness and transparency, as we did in opposition.

One thing I want to also explain is the degree to which we have listened and are acting on what we have heard. For instance, we have heard concerns raised by indigenous organizations, including the National Claims Research Directors. This is why our government strongly supports amendments that have been made at committee, which would directly address those concerns. For instance, large or broad requests, or ones that simply cause the government discomfort, will not constitute bad faith, in and of themselves, on the part of a requester. We know the importance of access to information with respect to claims settlement and we want—

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I remind the hon. President of the Treasury Board of the rule that answers should be approximately the same length as the questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

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?

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

First, Mr. Speaker, by giving the Information Commissioner order-making power, she can demand that a government department or agency provide information. The government department or agency would have 30 days in which to either provide the information or challenge her in court, with a decision ultimately being rendered by a judge. Government departments and agencies are not going to challenge the Information Commissioner in court without feeling they have a reasonable chance of defending their claims. This would provide the Information Commissioner with real authority that she has not had in the past.

In fact, the committee passed over a dozen amendments, which will help further strengthen, clarify, and make perfectly clear our government's intent to strengthen the access to information regime. There have been over a dozen amendments accepted, which is probably more amendments accepted by a government from a committee than the previous government did in nine years. We have taken this seriously.

For instance, we have heard from representatives of indigenous claims organizations and have addressed those concerns four square. We will continue to engage Parliament respectfully and strengthen the legislation.

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have a quote from the hon. member in 2013 about time allocation. He said, “By moving forward with time allocation today in the House, Conservatives are further reducing that accountability to Canadian families, Canadian citizens and Canadian taxpayers.” Why does he not have the same answer and the same position on time allocation today as he had in 2013?

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, we believe that modernizing Canada's Access to Information Act is important. We have heard from the New Democrats that they do not believe it is important to do this. They would rather not make this kind of progress. We have heard from the Conservatives that they do not believe it is a priority. It is a priority. We have been waiting for 34 years to do this and our government is actually getting it done.

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has said, it has taken 30 years to modernize these laws, which, in my way of thinking, means there is no urgency to rush the bill through Parliament. In fact, we should take some time and let parliamentarians, who are sent here by our constituents, actually have the ability to represent those views.

What exactly is the urgency to rush this through now? Does it have anything to do with the fact that the member's colleague stood in the House and represented to members of the House that there was no change whatsoever in the law or in the interpretation around applicants for disability credits suffering from diabetes and the fact then that an internal memo came out through access to information showing that this was actually false? Is the government so concerned about shutting down dialogue and debate that it is worried that people in the House will show Canadians that a member of his cabinet misrepresented things in the House, specifically revealed by access to information?

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, in the debate this morning, we have heard a couple of things from the New Democrats. One is that they have said they want this legislation withdrawn. They do not want to move forward with modernizing the act. They have made their minds up. For them the debate is over. They are against this. Then they say that they want more debate on it. Their position has ossified and it has not changed. Therefore, that is a signal to us that it is time to move forward.

The New Democrats are saying on one hand that they have made their minds up, that they are against this and from their perspective the debate is over. On the other hand, they say they want to have more time to consider it. If they have already made their minds up and their position is not changing, as they have said, then I am curious as to why they want more time to debate it. Surely to goodness we can reach a decision. Our government has reached a decision. It is high time to modernize Canada's Access to Information Act. After 34 years, we are the first government doing it and we are going to get it done.

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board's main argument is pathetic. It makes no sense.

He pats himself on the back in the House for wanting to listen to people and be transparent, but now he is limiting debate in the House of Commons on a bill on access to information.

In committee, the NDP proposed 20 amendments. How many were accepted by the Liberals who claim to listen to everyone? Zero. Not one NDP amendment was accepted in committee at report stage. That is disingenuous if we are trying to improve access to information, which has not been reformed or modernized in 30 years. What is the problem?

He says that the first nations are pleased and that ministers could provide proactive disclosure and a right to oversight over proactive government materials. The commissioner will not enjoy the same right to oversight over proactive materials.

Where is the transparency? Where is the modernization of an access to information bill that has been completely botched by the Liberals?

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, after more than 30 years, we are the first government to modernize the Access to Information Act.

We know that the NPD do not like proactive disclosure. They did not like it when our Prime Minister led the way by proactively disclosing members' expenses when we were in opposition. They still do not like proactive disclosure today. In a way they are being consistent, but I do not agree with their position. They do not see the urgency in modernizing this legislation. We will continue to work toward modernizing the Access to Information Act. After more than 30 years, it is high time that we did just that.

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

NDP

Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why I went into politics was to fight against pervasive cynicism, which I find disheartening because I truly believe in our democracy. The government's 27th time allocation motion only fuels that cynicism.

If it is important to modernize the Access to Information Act, which has not been updated for 30 years, why did the Liberals set aside almost all of the Information Commissioner's recommendations? Why did they ignore their election promise and dismiss all the amendments?

The President of the Treasury Board says that it is a step in the right direction. Why do we want to talk about it and take the time to debate it? It is because it is too small a step and it does not point us in the direction we want to take. Canadians want transparency and they now have access to means of communication. They want to be informed, they are asking us questions, and they want us to truly represent them in the House. A time allocation motion like today's does not let us do that.

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, the committee adopted a dozen amendments to strengthen and clarify our government's intent to improve and reform our access to information system.

I can remember when we were in opposition and when I was in committees with members of the NDP. I think they would remember as well those times when no amendments would be accepted by parliamentary committees. Committees were viewed as branch plants of ministers' offices.

We are strengthening the parliamentary role and the independence of committees to modify and indeed strengthen laws. That is exactly what has happened here, with a dozen amendments being accepted and adopted by the government. She asked why the committee did not pass amendments from the NDP. That is a matter for the committee. Maybe they were not very good amendments.

However, the fact is that the committee did adopt 12 amendments. We are going to work with committees on a number of issues and legislation because we believe committees can strengthen those. Perhaps the NDP can—

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The hon. member for Red Deer—Mountain View.

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the minister an opportunity to clarify so he does not go on a list of other ministers who have said things that they then have had to retract. He mentioned that nothing had happened in 34 years. Because of the types of things that happened in previous Liberal governments, our government immediately presented the Federal Accountability Act. It strengthened the role of the Auditor General and the Ethics Commissioner. It banned secret donations to political candidates. It provided real whistleblower protection. It strengthened public access to information. He seems to have forgotten this. He says that nothing has happened in 34 years.

He also seems to have forgotten, as an answer to one of my colleague's questions earlier, about why that had to happen. Perhaps he could mention the things that occurred so we do not have to go back over his words to see exactly how accurate they are.

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I said that the previous government had not acted to modernize the Access to Information Act, and that is accurate. He spoke to other initiatives.

Joe Clark, a Progressive Conservative prime minister, was the first to bring forward access to information in 1979, but it was actually made law by the next government, the Pierre Trudeau Liberal government, in 1983. There is some cross-partisan authorship with respect to access to information, but we are the first government to—

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

All those opposed will please say nay.

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Bill C-58—Time Allocation MotionAccess to Information ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #431

Access to Information ActGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that, because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

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.