{"id":129691,"date":"2017-11-09T00:38:49","date_gmt":"2017-11-09T05:38:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=129691"},"modified":"2017-11-09T00:38:49","modified_gmt":"2017-11-09T05:38:49","slug":"despite-outcry-committee-makes-few-changes-to-access-to-information-bill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2017\/11\/09\/despite-outcry-committee-makes-few-changes-to-access-to-information-bill\/","title":{"rendered":"Despite outcry, committee makes few changes to Access to Information bill"},"content":{"rendered":"<figure id=\"attachment_129697\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-129697\" style=\"width: 511px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><a href=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/information-commissioner-Suzanne-Legault.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-129697\" src=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/information-commissioner-Suzanne-Legault.png\" alt=\"Many who testified at the committee, including information commissioner Suzanne Legault, dismissed the legislation as a step backward. (Photo: Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada\/Facebook)\" width=\"511\" height=\"464\" srcset=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/information-commissioner-Suzanne-Legault.png 511w, https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/information-commissioner-Suzanne-Legault-300x272.png 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 511px) 100vw, 511px\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-129697\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Many who testified at the committee, including information commissioner Suzanne Legault, dismissed the legislation as a step backward. (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/OICCANADA\/photos\/a.443246252375326.104000.141246355908652\/1479193502113924\/?type=3&amp;theater\" target=\"_blank\">Photo<\/a>: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/OICCANADA\" target=\"_blank\">Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada\/Facebook<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>OTTAWA\u2014A Liberal-dominated committee is sending the government&#8217;s Access to Information bill back to the House of Commons with few changes, despite the deep concerns of transparency advocates and opposition MPs.<\/p>\n<p>Committee members rejected most of the amendments put forward Wednesday, including some from Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith.<\/p>\n<p>The Access to Information Act allows applicants who pay $5 to ask for federal documents, but it has been widely denounced as slow and antiquated.<\/p>\n<p>The Trudeau government says the bill, introduced last June, represents the first real modernization of the law since it took effect in 1983.<\/p>\n<p>It would give the information commissioner new authority to order the release of records as well as entrench the practice of routinely disclosing documents such as briefing notes and expense reports.<\/p>\n<p>But many who testified at the committee, including information commissioner Suzanne Legault, dismissed the legislation as a step backward.<\/p>\n<p>The bill is fatally flawed and will make Canadian democracy weaker, said committee member Nathan Cullen, a New Democrat MP.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe Liberals chose to ignore just about every piece of testimony that we were given. It just mocks the whole process and their commitment to evidence-based decision-making,\u201d Cullen said after the meeting.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe results of this for Canadians who are trying to hold government accountable will be felt for years, that&#8217;s the tragedy of what just happened.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The Conservatives considered the bill \u201cbeyond redemption\u201d and therefore did not suggest amendments.<\/p>\n<p>Erskine-Smith said he \u201cwould have liked to have seen some more amendments adopted,\u201d but he still considers the legislation a step forward.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI do think that we should have gone further than where we ended up,\u201d he said. \u201cDo I personally think it&#8217;s a step in the right direction? Yes.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In a special report to Parliament in September, Legault said the bill does not give her office genuine order-making powers.<\/p>\n<p>Although the commissioner would have new authority to issue orders about the release of records and additional time taken to answer requests, federal agencies could challenge those orders in wide-ranging Federal Court hearings, which often go on for years.<\/p>\n<p>The committee voted down amendments Monday that would have strengthened her orders.<\/p>\n<p>Critics say the bill backpedals on a Liberal campaign promise to extend the access law to the offices of the prime minister, cabinet members, senators, MPs and administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts.<\/p>\n<p>Instead, these offices and institutions would be required to regularly release certain types of records, such as hospitality and travel expenses and contract information.<\/p>\n<p>Legault objected to the scheme, saying it allows the government to decide what information Canadians can obtain, rather than letting requesters choose for themselves, and denies the commissioner&#8217;s office oversight of the process.<\/p>\n<p>The committee did approve a change that would allow someone who is dissatisfied with blacked-out portions of a proactively disclosed document to then request it under the access law and, if still unhappy, complain to the commissioner.<\/p>\n<p>Members also passed a Green Party amendment that would require the government to publish ministerial mandate letters within 30 days of being drafted.<\/p>\n<p>Earlier this week, they voted to give the information commissioner power to decide if an agency can decline to handle a request because it is too vague or frivolous. As originally drafted, the bill would have simply let agencies decide on their own whether to reject applications.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>OTTAWA\u2014A Liberal-dominated committee is sending the government&#8217;s Access to Information bill back to the House of Commons with few changes, &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":129697,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18,16,483],"tags":[31987,6678],"class_list":["post-129691","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news-ca","category-news","category-politics","tag-access-to-information-bill","tag-liberals","mauthors-jim-bronskill","mauthors-the-canadian-press"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129691","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=129691"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129691\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/129697"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129691"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129691"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129691"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}