Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 121 - 135 of 208
View Dan Vandal Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Dan Vandal Profile
2017-10-04 14:16 [p.13911]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honour of the national day of vigils to remember and honour the more than 1,000 murdered and missing indigenous women and girls.
Today, we are encouraged to come together to remember those we have lost, to promote awareness of this national tragedy, and to provide support to those who have lost their loved ones.
There are a number of ways that we can honour the victims, such as a moment of silence, a family gathering, or a large community vigil. People could also hang a red dress in commemoration, a project started by Winnipeg Métis artist Jaime Black.
I ask all my colleagues in the House to take a moment today to remember and honour these murdered and missing aboriginal women and girls.
Thank you. Merci. Meegwetch.
[Member spoke in aboriginal language]
Collapse
View Dan Vandal Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Dan Vandal Profile
2017-09-29 12:10 [p.13757]
Expand
Madam Speaker, it is my honour to rise to present petition e-1007, initiated by one of my constituents, with over 1,000 signatures.
The petitioners are requesting that changes to the pardon system that were made in 2012 be reversed. The changes brought forward under the previous government in 2012 resulted in a significant increase in wait times before a pardon could even be applied for. As well, the changes resulted in a 400% cost increase for those applying for a pardon. That has negatively impacted constituents in my riding, as well as many ridings throughout Canada, as families work hard to rebuild their lives.
It is an honour to submit this petition to the House.
Collapse
View Dan Vandal Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Dan Vandal Profile
2017-09-26 11:04 [p.13508]
Expand
Madam Speaker, this bill will clearly ensure that over 240 government departments, the Prime Minister's Office, and parliamentary institutions will have to proactively disclose information.
I would like to ask the hon. member why he does not think this will be an improvement for Canadians who want more access to that information.
Collapse
View Dan Vandal Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Dan Vandal Profile
2017-09-26 11:23 [p.13511]
Expand
Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today to speak to this bill, a comprehensive set of amendments to the Access to Information Act.
It is always with great pleasure that I rise in the House on behalf of the constituents of Saint-Boniface—Saint-Vital to discuss important amendments to the Access to Information Act.
Bill C-58 would enact a number of the reforms called for on numerous occasions since the act first came into place some 34 years ago. I think we can all agree that the current act is out of touch with the expectations of our citizens in today's digital age. This is hardly surprising when we consider that the act has not been updated significantly since it received royal assent in 1983. That was a time when most government records were on paper. Today, the vast majority of government records are digital, and Canadians increasingly expect to be able to find information online instead of having to request it.
To appreciate the groundbreaking nature of Bill C-58's reforms, it is worth looking at recommendations that have been made over the years to improve the act. In 1987, 30 years ago, the first review of the act by a parliamentary committee identified inconsistencies in its administration across government and recommended clearer Treasury Board policy direction. The committee also made two noteworthy recommendations: first, that the act be extended to ministers' offices, administrative institutions supporting Parliament and the courts, and crown corporations; and second, that the Information Commissioner be granted order-making powers for the disclosure of records. In the end, the government adopted some administrative proposals, but neither of these two key recommendations. The bill before us today would finally put these two reforms into law, some three decades after they were first proposed.
In 1990, the Information Commissioner, academics, and parliamentarians requested additional improvements. Let me highlight two of interest. First, there was a recommendation to extend the act to all government bodies, and second was a recommendation to grant the Information Commissioner order-making powers for the disclosure of records. Neither of these recommendations was implemented. Instead, over the next decade the government made several targeted amendments to the act. For example, in 1992, it enabled requesters with sensory disabilities to obtain records in alternative formats. In 1999, the act was amended to make it a criminal offence to intentionally deny a right of access under the act by destroying, altering, hiding, or falsifying a record, or directing someone else to do so.
In 2001, it added more national security protections. Around that same time, the access to information review task force commissioned numerous research papers and consulted Canadians, civil society groups, and experts across Canada. The task force's 2002 report, “Access to information: making it work for Canadians”, made 140 recommendations for improving access to information at the federal level. These included extending the act to the House of Commons, Parliament, and the Senate; establishing broader access to government records, including those in ministers' offices and those produced for government by contractors; permitting institutions to not process frivolous and vexatious requests; granting the Information Commissioner order-making powers; providing more training and resources to federal institutions; and strengthening performance reporting. While these proposals were not acted upon at that time, I am pleased to report that the bill before us today addresses many of these important recommendations. I will highlight a few in just a moment.
Returning to the history of reform of the act, in 2006 the Federal Accountability Act expanded coverage of the Access to Information Act to officers of Parliament, crown corporations, and institutions created under federal statutes. This increased the number of institutions to which the act applied to about 240. The 2006 amendments also established a duty to assist, meaning an obligation on institutions to make every reasonable effort to assist requesters and to provide a timely and complete response to a request.
Finally, in 2009, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics undertook a review of the act. The committee consulted with civil society, media, and legal organizations, as well as provincial information and privacy commissioners. Its report made a number of suggestions, including granting the Information Commissioner the power to order institutions to search, retrieve, and reproduce records; granting the Information Commissioner a public education mandate; requiring a review of the act every five years; and extending the act to cover the general administration of Parliament and the courts. Once again, regrettably, these recommendations were not implemented at that time.
The bill before us today takes on the challenge of addressing issues that governments have been avoiding for over 30 years, and while there is legitimate debate about ensuring that we get these changes right, our government has the conviction to welcome debate and to listen.
Our bill would break new ground by giving the Information Commissioner the power to order government information to be released. That is very significant. For the first, the act would also include ministers' offices, the Prime Minister's Office, officers of Parliament, and institutions that support the courts, all through a legislated system of proactive publication.
At the same time as we are breaking new ground by providing the Information Commissioner the power to order that government information be released, and legislating a system of proactive publication across government, we are also developing a new plain-language guide that would provide requesters with clear explanations of exemptions and exclusions. We are investing in tools to make processing information requests more efficient, allowing federal institutions that have the same minister to share their request processing services for greater efficiency, and supporting the new legislation with training across government to get common and consistent application of the changes we are introducing.
Another important change would give government institutions the ability to decline to act on overly broad or bad-faith requests that simply gum up the system. This would be subject to the oversight of the Information Commissioner. If a department decides to decline to act on a request, the requester would have the right to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner, and the commissioner could use the new order-making power to resolve the issue. Finally, Bill C-58 would entrench a requirement that the Access to Information Act be reviewed every five years.
This is the first government to bring forward legislation to enact the important improvements that have been proposed at one time or another over the last 30 years. That is because we believe that access to information is an important pillar of a democratic system of government. It allows citizens to request records about the decisions, operations, administration, and performance of government, subject, of course, to legitimate and very rare exceptions. In short, it allows Canadians to know and understand what their government is doing, and when people have timely access to relevant information, they are better able to participate in the democratic process.
I am proud to be part of a government that has the courage to act on these principles, and I encourage my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, a bill that would dramatically improve the Access to Information Act and thus strengthen our democracy.
Collapse
View Dan Vandal Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Dan Vandal Profile
2017-09-26 11:33 [p.13513]
Expand
Madam Speaker, clearly, access to information requests to the federal, municipal or provincial government are sometimes simply not serious. Each level of government has a right to decline them. However, the requester always has the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner. That is usual practice in access to information laws at all levels of government. It is important that requesters have a right to appeal if their requests are denied.
Collapse
View Dan Vandal Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Dan Vandal Profile
2017-09-26 11:35 [p.13513]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the hon. member is bang on. This act has not been significantly amended for more than 30 years. Thirty years ago governments were keeping records on paper. Thirty years ago was before the computer age. It is quite clear that although other governments have promised to make changes, none have delivered.
Among the proposed improvements to the act today, proactive disclosure would be implemented in more than 240 government departments, the Prime Minister's Office, cabinet ministers, institutions of Parliament, and the courts. It is clear in my mind that this is a significant enhancement and improvement in Canadians' access to information from the federal government.
Collapse
View Dan Vandal Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Dan Vandal Profile
2017-09-26 11:37 [p.13513]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I have worked in municipal government for 15 years, and the reality is that some of the access to information requests we received were not reasonable. If we were to act on every single one of them, it would simply not be in the best interest of government and not be good use of time by the administrators who are doing this. That said, it is important to note that there is an appeal process to the Information Commissioner on any request that gets denied. There is an avenue of appeal. If the commissioner decides that the denial is not reasonable, then the applicant would get the information requested.
Collapse
View Dan Vandal Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Dan Vandal Profile
2017-09-26 13:42 [p.13529]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that this bill will improve access to information for all Canadians. According to the specifics of the bill, proactive disclosure will apply to 240 government departments and agencies, including the Prime Minister's office, MPs' offices, and the institution of Parliament.
Why is the NDP siding with the Conservatives in refusing to give Canadians better access to information?
Collapse
View Dan Vandal Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Dan Vandal Profile
2017-09-26 15:04 [p.13542]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, for decades, the RCMP has had Métis artifacts, including clothing, a book of poems, a crucifix and a hunting knife belonging to Louis Riel.
Advocates have been calling for the items to be returned to the Métis nation for generations. Can the Minister of Public Safety please update the House on the status of the artifacts?
Collapse
View Dan Vandal Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Dan Vandal Profile
2017-09-21 12:22 [p.13329]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to be in this chamber again after the summer break. The member gave a long speech. However, the reality is that the preamble of the ATT recognizes the legitimate trade and lawful ownership of guns, including for recreational, cultural, and sporting events. Therefore, my question for the hon. member is straightforward. Can he point to precisely what section in the legislation affects domestic hunters and gun users and does not permit that?
Collapse
View Dan Vandal Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Dan Vandal Profile
2017-06-21 14:53 [p.13072]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very clear that no relationship is more important to him and to this government than the relationship with first nations, with the Métis Nation, and with the Inuit people.
Today, on what will now be known as National Indigenous Peoples Day, could the Prime Minister give the House an update on the government's plan for the former U.S. embassy across from Parliament Hill, as well as Langevin Block?
Collapse
View Dan Vandal Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Dan Vandal Profile
2017-06-20 14:10 [p.12989]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, in mid-April, researchers at the St. Boniface Hospital Research centre announced an important scientific breakthrough that could help in the fight against antibiotic-resistant bacteria. PEG-2S, which could help in the fight against antibiotic-resistant bacteria, was developed by Dr. Grant Pierce and Dr. Pavel Dibrov to combat two of the top 10 antibiotic-resistant priority pathogens. This antibiotic is novel in that it does not affect healthy cells. It only targets bacterial cells that act as a form of energy supply that help the harmful bacteria proliferate.
Although we have to wait until this new drug passes through the necessary steps in order to reach pharmacy shelves, this announcement is important for the international medical community and represents the first potential discovery of a new antibiotic in the past 30 years.
This is a reminder of the impressive work being done every day by researchers at the St. Boniface Hospital Research Centre.
Collapse
View Dan Vandal Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Dan Vandal Profile
2017-06-13 19:57 [p.12621]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, first, I congratulate the minister for her leadership on many files in indigenous affairs, but specifically, for withdrawing the appeal by the previous federal government against the Quebec Court of Appeal so that we can find solutions to this.
There are impassioned arguments for a much broader reform for registration and membership under the Indian Act. Many argue that Bill S-3 would not go far enough. I know this is only the first stage of our response, the government's response, to the Descheneaux decision. Would the minister explain what is anticipated in stage II of the plan?
Collapse
View Dan Vandal Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Dan Vandal Profile
2017-06-13 20:19 [p.12623]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, this is something that emanates from an August 3, 2015, decision of the Superior Court of Quebec, which at the time ruled that the Indian Act unjustifiably violated equality rights. The Superior Court of Quebec at that time gave Parliament 18 months to try to make the necessary legislative changes to right a wrong.
The hon. member appears to understand that this is in fact unjust to many indigenous women, yet her government, the former Stephen Harper government, chose not to right a wrong but to appeal the decision in September 2015. It is in fact due to the leadership of the minister and the Prime Minister that we withdrew the federal government appeal.
If the hon. member understands that this is a wrong, why did they choose to appeal the decision of the Superior Court of Quebec?
Collapse
View Dan Vandal Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Dan Vandal Profile
2017-06-13 21:19 [p.12630]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member could comment about the diversity of opinion on this issue. There are organizations such as the Native Women's Association of Canada that feels we cannot move fast enough on this. Other organizations such as the Indigenous Bar Association support the principle of the bill. All of us on this side of the House support the principle of the bill. These organizations have some real concerns about the drafting of the bill, the actual words in the bill, as does Senator Sinclair, who had concerns with its drafting but ultimately supported the spirit of the bill.
I am wondering if the hon. member could comment on those concerns.
Collapse
Results: 121 - 135 of 208 | Page: 9 of 14

|<
<
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data