Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues I deal with as a politician every day in my riding is an increasing sense of cynicism. A lot of the cynicism I see among many Canadians, and in fact worldwide, is based on the fact that everyday Canadians cannot get access to information. They do not understand how decisions are made. They see things happening behind closed doors, and they are very concerned.

I wonder if the member could speak to the fact that we are still not there in this country. What is the impact on the government and on the people who represent their constituents of this lack of action?

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Mr. Speaker, I think that is one of the fundamental debates about access to information. I would tend to agree with those who argue that if we allow more access to information and provide more information publicly about what considerations are informing public policy decisions by government, we will end up with better public policy. We will have less of the private interests of political actors playing a role in government decision-making if people know that this is going to become public and that they may then suffer political consequences for it.

The other side of the argument, which seems to be the side of the argument ultimately backed by the government, is that somehow, by keeping the reasons for government decisions private, we will end up with better decisions in the public interest. I think that is demonstrably false.

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak to the government motion on the Senate amendments to Bill C-58.

Before I do that, though, I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate my brother Toron and his wife Jacqui.Today is their wedding anniversary, and I know that they are spending the day with my nieces and nephew, Abby, Malcolm, Josie and Zylia. I just wanted to acknowledge that this is another day, as many of us know in this House, that we do not get to be with family. I wanted to make sure that they know that I am thinking about them today.

Today we are talking about something that is fundamentally important, which is access to information, the tools we have to access information as parliamentarians representing everyday Canadians, and how that information can be accessed by journalists and reporters in this country.

I have been in this place for almost four years. I have worked really closely with my constituents on these issues. I have talked to them about the different tools I have as a parliamentarian and where they need to go to get information. They need to feel more connected to the government and to the people who represent it here in this place. I am very passionate about this issue.

Today we are talking about Senate amendments that would improve what I felt was a bad bill by making sure that the Information Commissioner would have real teeth, real power, to address some of the issues that come up in this place.

One of the things I have found very distressing, and the member who spoke before me also addressed this issue, is how often folks request information and are given a letter from a department authorizing itself to delay. Someone asks a question and now is told that the wait will be another 200 days for that information.

One of the most startling examples was that The Globe and Mail reported in April 2018 that it took one year to receive RCMP statistics for its well-received investigative series “Unfounded”, which revealed that police have been dismissing one in five sexual assault claims as baseless. This is really important information. When we see these kinds of startling facts, we know that there is something happening in this place and in this country that we need to address. These important investigations need to happen so that we know that something in the system is not working that we need to see addressed in multiple ways. If that information is not released, how are we supposed to do our work, and how do Canadians trust us?

I asked a question earlier about cynicism. I see that growing. I see it growing all the time. I talk to people who are frustrated with the government. They feel that when they want information, they have no way of knowing it. The automatic response is that something sneaky is happening and that they cannot trust those people.

I think we need to discuss what happens to democracy when we have everyday Canadians feeling that every politician is sketchy. We have an oath in this country. We sit in these seats and represent thousands of our constituents. We have the honour, as I do, to represent hard-working people who do everything in their power to live a good life, look after each other and look after their community. If they cannot trust the people who represent them, that should concern every single one of us.

If information cannot be uncovered to understand how things work, and, when something seems unfair, why it happened, how do we build that relationship, and how do we improve democracy?

I just want to take a moment to acknowledge the member for Vancouver Granville, who used to be the justice minister. I have a deep respect for her. I have known her for many years. I am very proud to represent the nation she comes from. I am very proud to represent the people of her traditional territory.

When that happened with SNC-Lavalin, it sent shock waves through my riding. It was very personal. I had constituents from my riding calling me and saying that she was in their class, that they know who she is, that she was from their family. They could not believe what was happening. They asked, do Liberals not know who she is, because they know who she is? Constituents were frustrated by the lack of information. They were frustrated by the process that unfolded. It was very troubling to them.

When I think about that and look at that happen, it takes away that sense of trust and connectivity. It brings all of these issues to the forefront when they are not addressed in a good way, and, in my opinion, these issues were not addressed in a good way. A lot of constituents contact me and say that they still do not know what happened, but that what happened was not right.

We look at the systems, and that is important. As legislators in this place, what we look at, debate and discuss is the process, how something is going to happen. Right now, we know that the Information Commissioner still will not have the ability to review whether in some cases like that one cabinet confidence is being claimed and whether it should be claimed.

I think about this a lot. I want to see a better democracy. I was very frustrated when the government campaigned to have electoral reform. It was very meaningful. I did multiple town halls in my riding. It was really interesting. People came forward. They were not sure and they did not know if they wanted to move to a different system, but they wanted to talk to me about it. They wanted to hear information. We tried to bring people in who were non-partisan to talk about different systems and how they would work. We had a lot of intelligent questions.

I will admit, people walked out the door saying that they were not sure; they were not sure if that was the right way to go forward. However, when they were told that it was no longer a discussion, when the Prime Minister stood up and said that Canadians do not want electoral reform, people were upset. They felt that they did not get to be a part of the decision-making process. That is really important.

Sometimes people get frustrated in this House, and they let us know by their heckling. However, we need to look at these systems. We need to make sure that everyday Canadians are part of the decision-making process. When that does not happen, we should have systems in place for them to be able to find out why it did not happen that way.

Again, we are seeing a failed piece of legislation. I am really disappointed. It is another broken promise. One of the things that was talked about in the last election was making sure that the PMO and the ministers were subject to these acts. That was one of the promises of transparency, that Liberals were going to do it differently and that Canadians would see a more open, transparent government.

Unfortunately, what we are seeing, again, is that the PMO is still blocked off. It is something to really think about. When everyday Canadians cannot get access; when journalists cannot get information from these particular departments, these ministries, what are we telling people? We are telling people that their voice does not belong in those places. However, they do belong in those places. In fact, we are here to represent those very voices.

I am really disappointed in this legislation. I think we could have gone so much farther. It is time for daringness. When I listen to constituents in my riding, what they want to see is honesty, openness and an authentic touch. They do not want to hear lines repeated. Some people think that if they just keep saying the same thing over and over that people will believe them.

However, when we look at democracy, the invigoration of democracy, and when we talk about why people do not get out to vote, it is because we are allowing cynicism to grow. We are not making sure that we open these doors and allow things to go forward.

Toby Mendel, the executive director of the Centre for Law and Democracy, said, in response to this bill, “The proposed reforms are just not good enough. At this point, we need root and branch reform, not incremental tinkering.”

I am a person who stands in this House, who looks at a lot of legislation. Most recently, in my role as vice-chair of the indigenous and northern affairs committee, we looked at Bill C-92, which talked about indigenous children in care. One of the things that was really heartbreaking for me is what I see happening again and again, which is this: “We will do a little better. It will not be enough. It is not going to save people's lives in a profound way. It is not going to look at the very foundation of the things that are broken. But we are going to make it a little prettier on the surface, and hopefully that will fix it.”

A little bit better is not good enough. It is not good enough for democracy, and it certainly is not good enough for indigenous children in this country who are struggling in profound ways every single day.

We were told very clearly that the new score for Canada would be 92 out of a possible 150 with this legislation. That means we would get bumped up from 49th to 46th.

I do not like our country to be in the middle. I want our country to be challenged to do better, because I want Canada to be at the top. I want other countries in the world to see the work we are doing in this place and think they have to aim higher because of what Canada is doing. I want them to look at how accountable we are to our constituents, to the Canadian public, to our reporters, and that we are not afraid to have these discussions, even if they are really painful and really hard.

We have to talk about really painful things in the House. If we are not brave enough to do that, if we do not allow people to have the information they need to make decisions for themselves, it is like saying that we are separate. However, we are all one.

I remember one of the elders in my community, Alberta Billy, telling me that a long time ago the cedar trees were so big that they would go into the forest and pick one to build a canoe for the community. They would respect that tree and then they would make a canoe out of it to be used by the community.

We do not have those big trees anymore. We have to find two trees now and find a way for them to come together. Finding two trees that are going to fit seamlessly together is a lot of work. That is the world we live in now. We do not have those big trees.

If we look at that canoe as if we were all in this together, then we know we have a western world that came here as colonizers and we have an indigenous world and we are trying to build a canoe together.

Let us look at the fact that indigenous communities around this whole country had great systems in place. Let us look at how we can do better, be more accountable to the people we serve. That is what a leader is. It is the person who follows behind, who serves from behind. This legislation fails to do that.

Mr. Greg Fergus (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member for North Island—Powell River's characterization of this legislation. This is not merely a slightly incrementally important bill. The member is not doing justice to some of the very important elements in the bill.

The proposed legislation would give the Information Commissioner the authority to make sure that government information is released. The bill would, for the first time, require ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office to proactively disclose information. This is the first legislated system of proactive disclosures.

Most importantly, not only did we listen to the comments from the hon. member and from members of her party and of our government, but we also listened to members of the the Senate. Of 20 amendments that came from the Senate, this government accepted all but four of them, and they are very important ones. Where we did not accept them, there was genuine disagreement as to whether or not some elements were already included in the bill.

Before we get to the stage where we want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, would the member agree that these are important and significant changes? Would she agree with the current Information Commissioner, who said that the bill should be passed, that it is an improvement, and that the bill has taken into consideration the criticisms that the previous information commissioner had about the shortcomings of the bill when it was introduced at first reading?

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer the member's question. I have had multiple interesting conversations with that member, and I respect the fact that he is doing his job. His job is to always find a way to make his government look like it is doing some good work, and sometimes a bit of good work is done.

However, this really does not speak to the core issue. When we look at our relationship with constituents and Canadians, with reporters and the masses of people we are here to represent, there is still a sense of distress. This bill, in its form, is not going to take it to the next level. I appreciate that some of the Senate amendments have been accepted. I want to remind the member that there were multiple amendments made by the NDP, by the Green Party and so forth, and those amendments in committee were not followed through on, which was unfortunate.

One of the things that I talk to constituents about all the time is that this place should be a place of vigorous debate. It should be a place where we can listen to one another and not play so many partisan games. Unfortunately, I do not feel that we are at that place yet.

When the departments have the ability to give themselves continuous extensions, I do not know how accountable that is. They can say that they are just going to be really great.

One of the things I find interesting is that systems are important. They give us a box that we can operate in, and it leads to more accountability. When we suggest nicely that maybe something will happen, usually those things do not happen. Therefore, let us get a little more teeth in it for the Information Commissioner.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, the NDP House leader provided comments about the New Democrats being like busy bees. That is not what I think of in terms of the analogy, because bees are kind of sweet and they provide some good things. I see it more as a mosquito sucking the life out of things. At the end of the day—

The Speaker

I would ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North to be judicious in his language. It is usually not helpful when we compare colleagues to animals, etc. I would ask him to be conscious of that.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mr. Speaker, as the member was speaking, she talked about and was very critical of the Access to Information Act. She was very critical of Bill C-91 and Bill C-92, all of these wonderful pieces of historical legislation that have moved the bar significantly forward.

The other day, we talked about national pharmacare, and the New Democrats asked, what about hearing and all of these other things? We talk about a national housing strategy, and they say we need to have more houses. We could never, ever please the New Democratic Party here. There is no legislation before the House that they would say they agree with it in its entirety and that we have done a good job on.

Does the member opposite not recognize that within this legislation, where there are significant reforms that have been long overdue, over 30 years overdue, along with other pieces of legislation, there are a lot of good things happening? They can say some positive things. Even when I was in opposition, I said positive things at times to the government. It is okay to agree that the legislation is good at times. Would the member not agree?

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting evening. We are are all maybe getting a bit tired in this place. It is unfortunate that the member does not understand the role I have in this House, which is to be a voice for the people of North Island—Powell River.

Although I have a lot of mosquitoes in my region, I certainly have never thought that I was one. That actually is part of the issue. Cynicism in this country is growing, because we are seeing this in the House instead of honest debate. As a person who has spent my life working very hard in my communities for different issues that I passionately believe in, I do not say things lightly. I do not say things just because I want to be partisan or negative. I say them because, in my gut, that is what I believe. I will stand behind everything that I have said. Every day that I am here, I take very seriously my role, and I will never, ever speak out of turn. I hope the member will reflect on that himself.

Mr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. She eloquently explained our role here.

We are debating a bill on access to information. The term privileged information is often thrown around. What I find interesting is that information is considered a privilege. In Ottawa, only a select few, such as the government agencies that respond to our requests or the ministers, have access to certain information. The idea is to protect the privilege, or information, that we have.

Information has an impact on people's lives, mostly thanks to the media. Journalists use privileged information to uncover stories or report on the government's actions, for example.

While my colleague was giving her speech, I was looking through the requests received by departments. The Minister of Health has not yet responded to an access to information request regarding her department's response to the opioid crisis.

The purpose of the bill is to make information more accessible to the public. Could my colleague explain why the bill does not meet this objective?

If we are supposed to look at the glass as half full instead of half empty, how can we make information more accessible, in accordance with the law, instead of hiding it?

I do not think the bill meets these objectives.

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier in my speech the fact that The Globe and Mail did a story about how the government delayed and delayed information, which unveiled the fact that one in five sexual assault claims was dismissed as baseless. That is what the RCMP and the police are saying. We know there is something fundamentally broken.

The member talked about information on the opioid crisis. A lot of people in my riding have died from opioid overdose. It is devastating to our communities, and knowing what is happening would make a big difference. When the government is selective about what people get to hear or what they do not get to hear, it creates a real problem with democracy, because it separates us from our constituents, and that needs to stop.

The Speaker

Resuming debate.

Is the House ready for the question?

Question.

The Speaker

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Agreed.

No.

The Speaker

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

Yea.

The Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Nay.

The Speaker

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 28, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 18, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.