Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak this evening regarding the member's earlier question and Canada's access to information laws.

As said before in this chamber, the member opposite is trying to create the impression that decisions about what information to release are driven at the political level. This is absolutely false. Access to information requests are never handled by ministers or political staff. Professional and trained access to information staff in the public service perform the work across departments and agencies. It is the heads of those departments and agencies who are responsible for the administration of this program within their organizations and we expect everyone to obey the law in every respect.

The Federal Accountability Act, which was introduced by our government, brought into force the new access to information policy. The act and its companion action plan instituted an unprecedented level of rigour and scrutiny across the federal public sector. It contains the most extensive amendments to the Access to Information Act since its introduction in 1983.

This government takes Canadians' right to access to information very seriously. To ensure that the Access to Information Act is complied with, we have created an inventory of best practices to raise employee awareness of their information management responsibilities. In the past year, 628 members of the ATIP community have participated in 51 training sessions to ensure compliance with the act. The latest statistics show that the government has been effective, accessible and transparent with access to information requests and the government continues to strengthen openness and transparency in government operations.

The Treasury Board Secretariat, for example, has developed a framework for the management of information in the Government of Canada to strengthen management across the public service. To suggest that it is the ministers or their staffs who decide what is to be released and what is not to be released is a complete misunderstanding of how the system works. The member opposite knows this.

In his testimony before committee, the Information Commissioner stated, “We have not found through our investigations direct political interference in the processing of access requests”.

This government is committed to openness and transparency with respect to government operations. In fact, 69 new institutions are now accountable to Canadians through the ATIA. For the first time ever, Canadians can see how these institutions spend their tax dollars. In 2007-08, the government processed a record number of requests, an increase of 38% over the last five years. These are tremendous steps toward openness and transparency.

I thank the member opposite for the question. This government does take Canadians' rights to access to information very seriously.

Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC)

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for giving me the opportunity to give some background and speak in support of the public sector equitable compensation act. This act was tabled as part of the government's budget implementation act on February 6. This act replaces an adversarial complaints-based system with a collaborative one as part of the collective bargaining process.

Our current pay equity system for federal government employees is broken. Complaints are made year after year. This is because pay equity issues are raised after compensation decisions are already made. Today, public service employers and unions are not required to take pay equity issues into account when wage setting. The issues are raised only when complaints are made. Pay equity complaints can take up to 15 or more years of gruelling and divisive court proceedings to be resolved. In fact, many employees have already left the public service by the time their complaints are settled.

This is clearly a case of justice delayed being justice denied and that is no longer acceptable. The new system will address any unfairness in women's wages and will deal with it straight up instead of allowing a settlement to drag on in the courts for many years. It will also make employers and bargaining agents jointly accountable for setting fair wages. It will ensure these decisions are made at the time of the collective bargaining for unionized employees and will impose a rigorous process to ensure employers address pay equity in a timely way for non-unionized employees.

In addition, it maintains women's right to file complaints with an independent watchdog, the Public Service Labour Relations Board, which is well equipped to act in that capacity.

Equitable compensation can only be ensured through a proactive, timely and fair system, a system in which employers and bargaining agents work together rather than as adversaries. That is what we are putting in place. This legislation respects the principle of equal pay for work of equal value by integrating pay equity into normal collective bargaining.

It closes the book on costly, adversarial legal contests which benefit lawyers more than women and it opens a new chapter on women's equality in the workplace.

It makes for a faster, more proactive approach and enables us to replace the current system, which is archaic, expensive and inequitable for employees.

Most important, it would ensure that women and men continue to benefit from quality working conditions in Canada's public service. This legislation moves us forward, not backward. It is important for women in the public service and in the wider workforce and I encourage every member of the Senate to support it.

Mr. Andrew Saxton

Madam Speaker, this is about doing the right thing finally for Canadian women. Our government makes no apologies for taking long-overdue steps to protect the rights of women to fair and equitable pay.

In 2004, a Liberal appointed task force concluded that proactive pay equity legislation is a more effective way of protecting the rights of women. The first proactive pay equity legislation was introduced in Manitoba in 1986, followed by Ontario and Quebec thereafter. Our new federal model will improve upon these existing models while incorporating provisions that have worked well.

The existing pay equity regime is a lengthy and costly adversarial process which does not serve employees or employers well. The last court case cost millions of dollars in legal fees and took a gruelling 15 years to settle. This is about ensuring that women receive fair pay up front, in a timely and proactive way rather than having to engage in expensive, decades long legal battles to enforce their rights.

Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak today about Canada's access to information laws and their role in our government and democracy. I would also like to reinforce that the right of Canadians to scrutinize their public institutions is not an issue that is to be decided on political grounds. It is the law.

As I have said previously in this House, access to information requests are never handled by ministers or their political staff.

Requests are responded to by professional access to information staff in departments and agencies. Further, it is the Treasury Board Secretariat who looks after improving the management of access to information and privacy acts for the government as a whole.

When we came to power, our priority was to make the public service more transparent, more honest and more accountable.

We did that through the Federal Accountability Act, which brought into force the government's new access to information policy, containing the most extensive amendments to the Access to Information Act since its introduction in 1983. The party opposite opposed efforts to expand access to information when it was in government. In 2005 the Liberals even voted against a Conservative Party motion to extend access to information laws to crown corporations.

Our action plan focused on making governments more accountable. As a result, some 255 public organizations are now subject to the access to information law, including 69 new institutions that are now accountable to Canadians. However, strengthening transparency and accountability goes beyond just expanding the reach of the law.

That is why we also required that institutions help requesters of information without considering their identity, and that is why we prohibited strictly verbal public opinion research reports and required departments to make reports public and accessible through Library and Archives Canada.

Our record speaks for itself. In the last few years, there has been an increase in the number of access to information requests and we have processed a record number as a result. In fiscal 2007-08, more than half of the requests were dealt with within 30 days and nearly 90% within 120 days. This is an achievement we should be proud of. It shows that Canadians today not only have broader access to more information about their government than ever before, but better access as well.

We also created an inventory of best practices to make employees aware of their information management responsibilities. And since April 1, 2008, 51 training sessions for members of the ATIP community have been given and 628 people have attended.

This government takes the public's right of access to information very seriously, as do Canadians, the Treasury Board Secretariat and professional ATIP staff government-wide. To suggest that it is the ministers and their staff who decide what is to be released and what is not, is a complete misunderstanding of how the system works at best. At worst, it is an insult to the integrity of the public servants who uphold the law on behalf of Canadians every day.

If the member opposite is trying to create the impression that decisions about what information to release are driven at the political level, this is absolutely false. The Information Commissioner stated this recently in his testimony before committee.

This government has worked and continues to work in concrete ways to make our access to information system better because we believe in Canadians' right to information. Our democracy and those who uphold it deserve respect and this government will stand up for them.

Mr. Andrew Saxton

Mr. Speaker, our government believes in transparency and accountability, which is why we introduced the Federal Accountability Act, something the Liberals failed to do. Let us look at the facts. In 2005, the Liberals voted against a motion to extend access to information laws to crown corporations, but since coming to power, we have opened up the Wheat Board, the CBC and dozens of other institutions to the Access to Information Act.

ATIA requests are up 14%, thanks to our changes. We have had almost 30,000 requests in 2007 from less than 25,000 in 2005. These are tremendous steps forward for openness and transparency, steps the Liberals never took. Despite this increase, our public service was still able to respond to a record number of requests last year.

This government is continuing to train and equip our public service so it is better able to keep up with growing demand for information. We fought for the right of Canadians to know how their government operates and we will continue to do so.