Information & Ethics Committee on May 15th, 2006

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I apologize. The following is noted in the last paragraph:

It is further recommended to the House of Commons that it instruct the Justice Minister to table legislation within the House of Commons, based on the provisions of this Act and these proposed amendments by the 15th of December, 2005.

As I said, some of the words used in the minutes are different. They refer to “instruct the Minister” and, at the end “that the Minister of Justice consider”.

That motion was introduced on November 3, 2005, but it's possible the other motion was adopted later, as the committee did meet subsequently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you. I just wanted the dates, most of all, but what I was going to ask then is this.

On that day we asked the clerk to write the seventh report, and I'm just wondering if the most recent action we could build from is not this motion, but that seventh report, which was to be tabled in the House. Can you tell me what date that was completed and ratified by the committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Clerk, can you help us?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Richard Rumas]

I don't have the date, because I wasn't with this committee, Mr. Martin, but I can certainly find out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

How about either of you? Do you know?

[Nancy Holmes]

It's the end of November.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That does seem like the most up-to-date action of this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

There are two issues, though. We have to find out if there was a report adopted by the committee—that's the first issue—and if there was a report adopted by the committee, whether it was in fact presented by the chair or the chair's designate to the House of Commons before the election was called. We do not know the answer to either of those—

Do we know?

It was adopted? What about being presented to the House?

[A voice]

I don't believe it was, but we can find this out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Okay, we'll find this out for you. If we can find it before the close of the meeting, fine; if not, we'll have it for Monday when we have our meeting.

Are there any...?

Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We said we wanted to listen to the Information Commissioner before we made a decision on this particular one. In fact, the commissioner already has presented a report to Parliament, the report I have here. He talks about the response to the government's action plan for the problem of the Access to Information Act. This is a 23-page comprehensive report where he has already said where the new government is heading.

In fact, he says: Finally, and most important, the content of the Federal Accountability Act, and the government’s discussion paper on access reform, is a cause for grave concern. What the government now proposes – if accepted – will reduce the amount of information available to the public, weaken the oversight role of the Information Commissioner and increase government’s ability to cover-up wrongdoing, shield itself from embarrassment and control the flow of information to Canadians.

Based on that, he has gone clause by clause through that information act. I'm certain, even before we listen to him, that he can clarify these things in his 23-page report on Monday. But we can make a decision on this particular issue today, before we listen to him.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Okay, but I think the answer to the question is.... The thinking was that if the commissioner were here, someone might be able to put the question: “Are you dealing with a minister on a new act; if so, who's the minister; if not, have you scheduled any meetings?”—that kind of thing. I gather that's what the general sense would be: that there be that kind of questioning of the commissioner.

We'll go back to Mr. Tilson.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Chairman, there was a letter, which I believe members have, from the minister addressed to you. I think we all have it. I think it was Mr. Zed who raised the comment.... This letter deals with the topic before us. In the final paragraph, he states:

I would be pleased to appear before the Committee to further discuss the issues raised by the discussion paper.

I'm only going to repeat what I said, that I believe before we get into legislation we should hear from Commissioner Reid.

Not only that; I believe we should hear from the minister. The minister says he'd be prepared to come to have a chat with us. I believe that before we get into rattling our sabres, those two people should come. Messrs. Zed, Martin, and I did hear Commissioner Reid, but we're only three people, and other members of the committee may wish to ask some questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Of course that is right along the lines of what Mr. Zed said.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

The point has been made.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

All right.

This is the last opportunity for the mover. Madame Lavallée.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Well, there is the motion that I am moving. There's also the letter from the minister in which he says he would like to meet with us to discuss this legislation. There's also the discussion paper “Strengthening the Access to Information Act” which was distributed on April 11, at the same time and along with Bill C-2.

We need to look at this at the same time, but it all points in the same direction, namely the tabling of a bill. No doubt that's up to the Justice Minister, since he's the one who wrote to say he wanted to meet with the committee. When he does, perhaps he could bring along the draft legislation. That would give us something concrete to discuss, unlike recent years where we've...

As I said earlier, a number of committee meetings have been held. The committee has also carried out some studies. A Senate committee has also explored this issue. We now have the Information Commissioner's paper which represents a response to the government's action plan. I think all of the documents tend to lean the same way, that is they advocate in favour of a bill. That's pretty much where we stand at the present time.

Perhaps our Conservative Party colleagues could let us know if their wish is to put the committee on hold until Bill C-2 is adopted, even if that means revisiting this matter later?

If that's indeed what they want, if that is their priority or strategy, then they should be honest with us, so that we can act accordingly. However, if that's not what they want, if they truly want to translate their words into action, then by all means, have a bill drafted and bring it to the committee table so that we have something to sink our teeth into, rather than just empty words or good intentions that lead nowhere.

Would you care to share your strategy with us? If it's your intention to have Bill C-2 on accountability eventually adopted, then we'll know better what we're doing here. Instead of sitting for three hours on Monday, we could perhaps focus on something a little more interesting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I'm not going to permit anybody to discuss political strategy. It's not relevant to this committee's work unless it impedes it, and we haven't seen any evidence of that.

We do have a request in writing from the Minister of Justice to work on this matter. We are going to hear from the commissioner, and it seems—this is simply my own point of view—that given those two points, this motion might be premature. I'm not saying it's forever. But it's not my decision; it's the committee's decision.

Having heard from the various people around the table, I want to ask Madame Lavallée—so we're clear on what we're talking about—do you accept the friendly amendment put forward by Mr. Martin to take out the words “reaffirms the need to maintain the independence of the Office of the Information Commissioner, and...”?

Yes?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I'll gladly accept the amendment, on condition, as I said earlier, that this does not affect the independence of the Commissioner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

The answer is yes. So the motion that you have put forward begins: “This committee recommends that...”. Now, that's what we're talking about.

Madame Lavallée, having heard what you've heard, would you like a vote on this motion, or would you like to see if the committee would unanimously consent to table it until after we've heard from the commissioner? It's your call.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I'd like us to vote on it immediately, since we're talking about a motion that has already been adopted by the committee. I'd like to see some consistency in this committee's actions where this matter is concerned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

All right, very good.

We'll have a recorded vote, please. It is on the motion as amended.

(Motion as amended negatived: nays 6; yeas 5) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

The motion is defeated; the vote was close, but it was defeated.

Those are the two items of business. There is other business. We've touched upon one, which is the letter from the Minister of Justice. I have also received a letter from the Privacy Commissioner asking for an opportunity to appear before the committee, and of course we're going to hear from her. We'll schedule her as well.

Her point, among others, will be that the Privacy Act is a first-generation act. It needs to be reviewed and brought into the 21st century, and I think that's pretty well a statement of the obvious. So it will just depend on how hard we want to work, because there will be no lack of work for us to do if we choose to seize it.

Is there any other business before I adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Tilson.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I just have a question, Mr. Chairman, through you to the clerk, on whether you have a specific commissioner who would be coming at the next meeting.