House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2019, with 58% of the vote.
Minister of Public Works and Government Services April 10th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, we know for a fact that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services accepted donations on behalf of the Conservative Party during the recent election campaign. The minister now has the ability to single-handedly award contracts of up to $40 million. For the sake of transparency and accountability, can the Prime Minister show to the House that the minister will disclose all the individuals and organizations that he accepted donations from?
Minister of Public Works and Government Services April 10th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I was planning to direct this question to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, but unfortunately, the Senate is not sitting this week.
The Minister of Public Works and Government Services is responsible for a department that spends $13 billion annually. Given the fact that before accepting his appointment to the cabinet the Minister of Public Works raised funds for the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party, how does this not put him in a conflict of interest in discharging his ministerial responsibility?
The Environment April 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, accountability is no joke. The Speech from the Throne demonstrates the government's lack of commitment toward the environment. After years of progress on greening government procurement, the government is turning back the clock. Why?
The Environment April 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, and I hope someone can relay the message.
Why is the minister backtracking on the department's green procurement policy by closing down the Office of Geening Government Operations?
Petitions November 23rd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the following petition to the House. The petitioners call for an amendment to the Canada Health Act and corresponding regulations to include intense behavioural intervention and applied behavioural analysis therapy for children with autism. They also ask that the provinces provide funding for these essential treatment for autism as well.
All India Pingalwara Charitable Society November 17th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the work of Dr. Inderjit Kaur. Dr. Kaur is the President of the All India Pingalwara Charitable Society.
She is presently in Canada touring the country on behalf of the local branch of the association. I would like to welcome her to Canada. This organization is dedicated to helping the poor, the mentally challenged, the orphaned and those who are terminally ill. It is an exceptional organization with a noble cause.
Presently it has three schools for the poor and have five branches and service over 1,000 patients.
Dr. Inderjit Kaur has dedicated her life to helping individuals who are less fortunate and in dire need of her assistance. There is nothing more honourable than that.
My thanks go to Dr. Inderjit Kaur for her good work.
Supply November 15th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns brought forth by the member. The member sits in committee with me and we have had the opportunity to examine this issue in great detail. The member would have to agree that during our consultations with the Minister of Justice and other individuals who came before the committee, including the Information Commissioner, as we started to discuss the complexities of this particular subject matter, we saw the need to further investigate certain elements of it. I think he should have an appreciation for that. It is very important that we acknowledge that.
The discussion paper for me is not something we should take lightly. It is a very important part of the evolution of this important element we are discussing with regard to access to information and making sure that we bring about proper reforms.
I believe, as the member does, that we all want the same things. We want openness, transparency and accountability. We want to make sure it is done in a fashion that respects the laws and makes sure that cabinet can function and that we can govern in a fashion that is in the best interests of Canadians.
We cannot ignore the complexity of this issue. We need to be mindful of that. My remarks reflected on cabinet confidentiality and the components brought forth by the Information Commissioner and some of the concerns and reservations I had. I just outlined those and I hope that he takes them into account when we eventually vote on the motion.
Supply November 15th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the fact that I was very calm with my remarks does not mean that I lack passion or interest in this very important topic.
There is no doubt in my mind that freedom of information is a key pillar of our democracy and is a key pillar of how our government functions. We have a responsibility to recognize the openness of government but also to recognize the confidentiality elements of it with respect to the function of the executive branch of government. The discussion paper brought forth by the justice minister clearly outlines the various components of this very complex subject matter. It also takes into account the notion that we need to consult and further address these issues with very important stakeholders who have a vested interest to make sure that a decision we make is in the best interests of Canadians.
I might not speak loudly or use body language such as flailing my hands up and down, but that does not mean I lack passion for this very important subject. Clearly, freedom of information and access to information are very important components of our democracy. They are things which the government champions very clearly and it has made major reforms.
We all acknowledge that the status quo is no longer acceptable. We are all working toward those changes, but we are doing so in a more professional manner and in a manner that reflects proper public consultation to make sure that we make the best decisions for Canadians.
Supply November 15th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.
Today's discussion is with respect to the opposition motion regarding reforms to cabinet confidences in the Access to Information Act and the Canada Evidence Act. By motion, the member for Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre stated that in his opinion, the Access to Information Act should be amended to, among other things, establish a cabinet confidence exclusion subject to review by the Information Commissioner, provide a general public interest override for all exemptions and make all exemptions discretionary and subject to an injury test.
I will be voting against the motion, but I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to certain elements of the proposals set out by the member for Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre.
On April 5, the Minister of Justice presented a discussion paper on the subject of access reform to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. In his opening remarks, relating to the issue of cabinet confidences, the Minister of Justice noted that it was an item “where current protections in the Access to Information Act have been the subject of much criticism and dramatic reform proposals”. A discussion paper provides useful background that should be considered carefully before proposing reforms to the cabinet confidence regime.
The pressure to reform the cabinet confidence regime by making them subject to the ATIA flows in part from the fact that neither the Information Commissioner nor the courts may examine a record request under ATIA in order to determine whether or not the government has properly identified the document as cabinet confidence as defined by ATIA.
The federal government's approach to the protection of cabinet confidences is unique. In the provinces and other Westminster-type jurisdictions, the law on cabinet confidence protection provides for reviewability and balancing by the courts and administrative tribunals, and in some cases for the examination of withheld information.
Both the Information Commissioner and the access to information review task force have recommended that cabinet confidences no longer be excluded from the Access to Information Act. Instead, they recommend that documents be subject to a mandatory exemption under the act.
While the Information Commissioner proposes that he should have the power to examine a withheld record to ascertain whether or not it is in fact a cabinet confidence, the task force recommended that only a judge of the federal court be empowered to make such determinations.
The Information Commissioner and the task force also advocate narrowing the scope of the cabinet confidence by confining it to the information which would reveal the deliberations of cabinet or among ministers and by reducing the maximum period of protection from disclosure of 20 to 15 years.
At this time, the government is also reviewing the proposed legislation of the Office of the Information Commissioner, entitled the open government act, which appears to reflect most of the elements of the motion which has been brought forth by the member for Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre.
The importance of confidentiality for the inner workings of government at cabinet level has been widely recognized by Parliament and the courts. Indeed, the convention of cabinet confidentiality was expressly recognizing Canada at the time of change that was headed by the Right Hon. St. Laurent to the time period of the Right Hon. Diefenbaker in 1957. Furthermore, in its 2002 decision in Babcock, the Supreme Court of Canada referred to cabinet confidentiality as essential to good government.
The cabinet confidence exclusion was designed to protect key political functions of the executive, long recognized as essential components of our Westminster-style of parliamentary democracy. Collective decision making by ministers in cabinet ensures the solidarity of the government as a collective body which is responsible to Parliament. It also requires that the cabinet speak with one voice. Thus, if ministers are able to make decisions collectively, the privacy of their deliberations on government policy must be protected.
During the April 5 appearance before the committee, the Minister of Justice stated that the status quo was not an option by the government and that it was committed to substantial reform of both the Access to Information Act and the Canada Evidence Act. The government believes that any reform to the federal cabinet confidence regime must start with CEA and follow with consequential amendments to Access to Information Act and to the Privacy Act.
The government's April 2005 proposals included narrowing the definition in the CEA, as well as in the ATIA and PA, to focus on core deliberations of cabinet. Currently, these acts do not define cabinet confidences but provide a list of examples.
The legislation in most provinces focuses on protecting the substance of cabinet deliberations, which we believe is the better approach.
The definition would continue to cover only information such as submissions made to cabinet, deliberations between ministers, cabinet decisions and draft legislation. This would allow more documents formerly considered as cabinet confidences to be brought under the acts, subject to other exemptions that might apply. For example, agendas of cabinet could be disclosed, unless they revealed the substance of deliberations of cabinet. Furthermore, the government agreed with the task force that the Federal Court should be able to review the Clerk's decisions whether a record was of cabinet confidence.
The Canada Evidence Act provides a judicial review by the Federal Court to hear challenges to the Clerk's decision to issue a certificate by weighing the public interests at stake, public interest disclosure and parallel regimes for Access to Information Act and Privacy Act, but without public interest balancing.
By allowing reviewability by designated judges of the Federal Court, it would give this specific forum the opportunity to build expertise and to ensure a consistent approach.
With respect to the period of protection, the government believed that it should remain at 20 years, based on the following. In other jurisdictions, namely, at the provincial level, the period of protection varies between 15 to 30 years. In British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Yukon, Nova Scotia it is 15 years. In Ontario it is 20 years. In Quebec and Saskatchewan it is 25 years. In Manitoba it is 30 years. In the United Kingdom the period is 35 years.
The government also proposed to maintain the exclusion of cabinet confidences from the Access to Information Act and CEA. Exclusion means that unless it is overturned by a court, a decision that is a record is considered cabinet confidence is final.
The Information Commissioner cannot examine the record to determine whether he agrees with the decision. The Information Commissioner would, however, have the power to go to the Federal Court to challenge the determinations made by the government that information falls within a definition of cabinet confidence.
As secretary to the cabinet, the Clerk is best placed to determine what information constitutes a cabinet confidence. He or she has institutional knowledge. The Information Commissioner does not possess the same institutional support or expertise.
The Clerk is the custodian of cabinet papers. The convention of access to papers of former ministers, which is based on British precedent and practice, appoints him or her as such. Based on this convention, the Clerk has a duty to ensure that a new ministry does not have access to the cabinet papers of the preceding one. Under this convention, members of incoming ministry agree not to have access to the confidential documents and papers of preceding ministers. These agreements are signed by the incoming and outgoing prime ministers.
By qualifying cabinet confidences as exclusions as opposed to exemptions, Parliament clearly has recognized the importance of the principle of cabinet confidentiality. If the Information Commissioner is of the view that the Clerk has not properly decided that something is a cabinet confidence, the Information Commissioner can go before the Federal Court. The proposal would make this clear in a way that was not the case before.
As I said earlier, the government believed that the proposals it put forward in its April 2005 discussion paper would enhance transparency while safeguarding principle of cabinet confidentiality.
As we know, the Information Commissioner has proposed reforms to the cabinet confidence regime consistent with the motion of the member who brought this forward today. The Information Commissioner would make cabinet confidence subject to the act. Although they would be protected from disclosure by mandatory exemption, it would be possible to override this protection against disclosure in the public interest. This means that any cabinet confidence could be disclosed if it were in the public interest to do so.
In addition to cabinet confidences, the act requires consequential amendments to the Canada Evidence Act, the Privacy Act and other statutes that refer to confidences of cabinet. These necessary amendments have not been considered by either the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre or the Information Commissioner. This may seem like a small point but it underlines why the motion of the member for Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre cannot be accepted.
Question No. 210 November 15th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, government policy provides that all ministerial responses should respect the protections afforded by the Privacy Act and Access to Information Act, regardless of whether those acts apply to the government organization providing the information in the responses. Consequently, ministerial responses prepared by a government organization should not include information whose disclosure would be prohibited by those acts, if they were to apply.