Evidence of meeting #21 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Well, I'm trying to. I would respectfully ask Mr. Peterson to stop interrupting me. I have some things to say, and he keeps blathering on as if he wants to kill time.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Now, Mr. Chairman, there he goes again. That's most improper to say that I'm trying to kill time. I'm trying to put out reasoned arguments as to why I'm opposed to this bill, and you insist on allowing Mr. Peterson to continue with his rant.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Mr. Tilson, surely you shouldn't rise to the bait. Carry on with your remarks, please.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Oh, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Peterson brings out the worst of us sometimes.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chairman, my position is that these bills are justice bills and this is before the House. In his interruptions, Mr. Peterson said it has nothing to do with this motion, but it does, unless you want us to drop all the justice bills and move into this topic. And that can be done. It may be that Madame Lavallée and others should start pushing for some of these bills so we can get to the information legislation, which is indeed very important.
Mr. Chairman, I think the motion is premature and she should wait until the 15th to hear what the minister is going to do. The committee has heard from the commissioner and the minister. The minister made some comment on a discussion paper when he spoke to us last June, I think, which was tabled in April, dealing with access to information. This committee has yet to even start looking at that topic.
I assume from the motion made by Madame Lavallée, which carried, that Madame Lavallée doesn't want to talk about former Commissioner Reid's proposed bill, which was adopted by this committee. It has essentially been rejected. Therefore, I can conclude from her motion that she wants the government to ignore that bill and proceed with another bill.
The minister came to this committee and said, here's a discussion paper. We've put it on our bookshelf and we haven't looked at it. Before we start getting on a rant as to why she hasn't heard from the minister, even though she's given until December 15, at the very least she should look at that discussion paper.
Once the committee has had an opportunity to speak to the stakeholders and review the issue of the cost of the proposals suggested by the Information Commissioner, the government would be in a stronger position for the next stage of access reform. The committee hasn't dealt with that. I would hope the committee, before getting into that, would review that discussion paper and talk about what these proposals are going to cost.
Mr. Chairman, those are the main issues. Quite frankly, I think it's a flippant proposal, and I say that with due respect to Madame Lavallée. She should wait until her original motion, which is December 15.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Thank you, Mr. Tilson.
As far as I can tell, this motion is simply for the chair to write a letter.
Mr. Dhaliwal.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With due respect to Mr. Tilson, a long-serving member of this committee, when I look at the amount of time Mr. Tilson took to talk about this issue, all Madame Lavallée is asking for is the progress report. I think this comment was on transparency and openness, so it's very fair to ask you to write. There are only five or six days left. By the time you write the letter, if he thinks we should wait until the 15th, then by the 15th we will get that response anyway. I think we should ask for this, to write a note, and let the minister's staff handle the progress of the bill. It's not asking any more than the progress made by the minister.
I support this motion, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I won't be supporting it, based on what I've heard so far.
I have one question before I continue. I'm assuming you're ruling this is in order even though we have tabled an official document in the House of Commons saying the deadline is the 15th. Does that not take precedence over this? I don't understand why we would not wait until that deadline passed before this committee takes an additional action.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
The answer to your question is that the motion asks the minister to bring forward an Access to Information Act by December 15. This motion simply asks the chair to write for an update, since we haven't heard from the minister. I don't see any conflict.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Okay. It is only appropriate to give the minister an opportunity to follow through on what this committee asked. We had a very interesting day when he was here talking about the item. As a government, we have tabled the previous commissioner's report. We have made a conscious decision, rightfully or wrongfully, that we're not looking at that, expecting the minister to do something different. That is what he'd heard and what he did.
As previously mentioned, the priority for the justice committee at this particular moment has been on the other justice items, mostly Criminal Code items, and there's only so much time available for his staff or the staff of the group to work on different things.
Based on my discussions, I think the ministry is likely aware of the deadline put forward by the committee. To be absolutely frank, I don't know whether they have had time to work on the issue or not. It is more appropriate and more professional for this committee to set a deadline and put it in the House, have it voted on and accepted, that we honour that commitment and that commitment be respected. Then, for example, by the end of next week, if there has been no indication from the ministry that there is anything coming before Christmas, we will be back at this in late January or early February. I hope we'll be done with PIPEDA shortly thereafter. Then if this is the real work of this committee and this is what the next project is, we should get a response from the ministry on whether they're prepared or have the time and ability to do that, to present the bill. If they can't, they probably could provide reasons why they can't, but they should provide them to this committee.
If this is an invitation to show up in the new year, I may give some consideration for the minister to come to tell us where they're at, if they haven't met that deadline, but we're not asking for that at this point. It is only fair to give them the length of time we said we would, which we have all voted on and which was accepted in the House.
From my side, the previous speaker, whether you liked his approach or not, was absolutely right. We've set a deadline already, and if the ministry doesn't make that deadline, let's invite them back and talk about what's realistic. They indicated to us that we have put a document on the table that was well researched, well done, by the previous commissioner. It was referred to this committee. I don't recall our ever even looking at it. Maybe that's the approach we need to take. If they don't have the time to do it, we need to put it as a priority.
For me personally, access to information is important. I had a choice whether to stay on this committee or move to another committee, as I got moved to finance. I chose this committee specifically for that purpose. I am very interested in access to information, and as a municipal councillor, I spent many years dealing with stuff at the local level.
How am I doing, Pat?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Access to information has always been important to me over the last 15 years as a public servant. I don't know if any of us around the table have taken a good hard look--maybe we have, but I know I haven't--at what the commissioner had put forward. Maybe there are things we should be recommending if we're not getting what the committee had recommended and sent to the House. Maybe we should be putting forward some recommendations from that piece, saying here are some positive things for improvement of access to information. We have had delegations on that issue in the past talking about things such as people being identified whether they were from the media or from government or from wherever, and if we have issues with that, we need to discuss those. There is a variety of opinion on that.
I'm particularly concerned with timing and how long it takes to get a piece of information back. If it doesn't hurt the government, I don't know why....
I have five more minutes. Thanks, Jim.
I don't know why it would take so long to get that kind of information. I think we should continue to respect the deadline that we and the House of Commons previously supported, and I don't think writing a letter is going to do anything more or less, so I'm prepared to not support this and respect the previous decision of this committee.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Thank you.
Is there no further discussion? I call the question.
I'd like a name roll call.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Aren't we in the middle of a vote? What's going on here?
