Scott Brison

[Access to Information Act, December 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He and I served at committee together in opposition and he will recall how little regard the Conservative government had for opposition members' amendments at committee. That stands in contrast to what our government is doing.

We have worked with the access to information committee in accepting amendments that we believe strengthen the legislation. For instance, the Information Commissioner will be given the authority to force a department to obtain approval prior to denying a request for any reason. That significantly strengthens the role of the Information Commissioner. We have addressed many of the concerns raised through the committee process, which stands in stark contrast to the work of the previous Conservative government at committee.

Strengthening proactive disclosure is an important part of the Access to Information Act. When we were in opposition and the member for Papineau, now the Prime Minister, was the leader of the Liberal Party, we led the charge for proactive disclosure of MPs' expenses. The Conservatives followed through quite quickly because they understood the importance of it. The NDP were not that happy about proactively disclosing MPs' expenses. I guess they do not like proactive disclosure today either.

[Access to Information Act, December 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Thornhill, who was a minister in the previous Harper government, is in fact very consistent. He is effectively advocating that we do nothing to update the Access to Information Act, which is consistent what the Conservatives did in the past, because for nine years they did absolutely nothing to strengthen the act, despite the fact their platform committed in 2006 to modernizing that act. They passed 250 pieces of legislation over the subsequent nine years, but not one of them touched access to information.

We are the first government in 34 years to act to significantly modernize, improve, and strengthen the access to information regime. For the first time ever, we would be providing order-making power to the Information Commissioner. For the first time ever, we would be applying the Access to Information Act to ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office for a strengthened regime of proactive disclosure, which is very much consistent with the principle of open by default.

Again, I commend my friend and colleague for his consistency, because today, by advocating that we not proceed with this modernization, he is fact being very consistent with the Conservative government he was part of, which did absolutely nothing to strengthen access to information. However, we are not necessarily listening to that, because we believe it is time to improve the access to information regime.

The member also referred to the amendments from committee that we have embraced and supported. Again, this was not something the previous Conservative government did very frequently. to actually engage committees respectfully and accept their advice. We believe that committees can help strengthen this legislation. In fact, some of the clarifications achieved through these amendments are consistent with our intention, which is to have a stronger and more accountable access to information system. We believe very strongly that these steps are in the right direction.

Furthermore, there will be a full mandatory review to commence within a year of this bill being passed. It would be the first five-year review, and subsequently there would be mandatory five-year reviews, which will ensure that the act never becomes as outdated as it is today. We are looking forward to engaging not just in terms of the specific changes proposed today, but we also believe that when we commence the first mandatory review, it will be informed by some of our understanding of the impact of these changes, which will help inform future changes.

The other thing is that in the movement towards proactive disclosure, as we see an increase in particular types of demand-based requests, that is a signal to our government and future governments to move them over to the proactive disclosure category.

[Supplementary Estimates (B), 2017-18, December 4th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, the presentation of this bill is identical to that used during the previous supply period.

[Supplementary Estimates (B), 2017-18, December 4th, 2017]

moved:

That the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018, except any Vote disposed of earlier today, be concurred in.

[Supplementary Estimates (B), 2017-18, December 4th, 2017]

moved:

That Vote 1b, in the amount of $153,352,138, under Department of Health — Operating expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018, be concurred in.

[Supplementary Estimates (B), 2017-18, December 4th, 2017]

moved:

That Vote 5b, in the amount of $24,896,194, under Department of Canadian Heritage — Grants and contributions, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018, be concurred in.

[Supplementary Estimates (B), 2017-18, December 4th, 2017]

moved:

That Vote 1b, in the amount of $31,952,332, under Department of Finance — Program expenditures, grants and contributions in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018, be concurred in.

[Supplementary Estimates (B), 2017-18, December 4th, 2017]

moved:

That Vote 5b, in the amount of $668,095,118, under Department of National Defence — Capital expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018, be concurred in.

[Supplementary Estimates (B), 2017-18, December 4th, 2017]

moved:

That Vote 1b, in the amount of $34,195,262, under Privy Council Office — Program expenditures and contributions, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018, be concurred in.

[Indigenous Affairs, December 4th, 2017]

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—