Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 27th, 2006

[The Clerk of the Committee]

Honourable members, honorables membres du comité, I see a quorum.

Our first item of business is the election of the Chair.

I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I would like to nominate our former chairman, who did an outstanding job for us, in terms of being fair, intelligent, informed, well briefed, and a delight to work with.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I would very pleasingly nominate Tom Wappel.

[The Clerk]

It has been moved by Mr. Peterson that Tom Wappel be elected chair of the committee.

Are there any further nominations?

I declare the motion carried and Tom Wappel duly elected chair of the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Clerk]

Before inviting Mr. Wappel to take the chair, we'll now proceed to the election of the vice-chairs.

I'm prepared to receive motions to that effect.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'll nominate David Tilson.

[The Clerk]

It has been moved by Mr. Wallace that David Tilson be elected as the first vice-chair of the committee.

Are there any further nominations?

I declare the motion carried and David Tilson duly elected first vice-chair of the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Clerk]

Now, the nomination for the second vice-chair, just to remind you.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

I nominate Mr. Martin.

[The Clerk]

It has been moved by Mr. Zed that Mr. Martin be elected second vice-chair of the committee.

Are there any other motions?

I declare the motion carried and Mr. Martin duly elected second vice-chair of the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Clerk]

I will now invite Mr. Wappel to take the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you, colleagues. Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

The order of business for today, after the election of the chair, is committee business.

Is it the will of the committee to go in camera, or do you want to do this publicly?

Everybody's okay with it in public then? Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have four notices of motion before us, and the proponents of all four are here. I've taken a look at the motions, and I want to remind you of the bullet points for committee business. However, if we deal with the motions, it may obviate the need to deal with some of the bullet points. I wanted to offer a suggestion on how to deal with the four motions, and I hope the committee will agree.

Three of the motions arise out of the same subject matter, namely, the motions of Mr. Zed, Mr. Kenney, and Mr. Martin. Having examined the motions, I think the motion of Mr. Kenney is the broadest motion and I would suggest that we deal with the motion of Mr. Kenney first. The reason is that if it were passed it would not be necessary to deal with the two motions by Mr. Zed and Mr. Martin. If it isn't passed, then we can go to each of those individually and have whatever debate we need.

Madame Lavallée's motion, in effect, springs from the appearance of Minister Toews last summer, and also from a letter that Mr. Wallace sent to the minister, the subject matter being the same. I feel we should deal with that motion after the motion of Mr. Kenney. Because it deals with access, it also deals with one of the bullet points.

Mr. Kenney, are you prepared to move your motion?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Yes, Mr. Chair, I move my motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Do you have any discussion on it?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Yes, Mr. Chair, I'll be brief.

I spoke very briefly with Mr. Martin about this after we both tabled our motions, coincidentally, without prior coordination.

I'll speak for myself. I think they're similar in intent. I tried to construct a general motion without limiting the committee. I don't think we need to spend several weeks in an exhaustive study of this issue, but it is an issue of importance. This is the appropriate committee to examine the question of the confidentiality of the names of access to information applicants, particularly as it relates to the alleged practice--the current or former practice--of furnishing those names to political staff in either the offices of ministers or in the Prime Minister's office. I think this is the right place to deal with it.

I do think it's important. I think Mr. Zed's motion, with respect, is much more limited and simply requests that the Privacy Commissioner come before us.

I am informed, just for the committee's information, by the President of the Treasury Board that when the reports were issued in the media last week about one particular name ending up in a circular memorandum from officials at Public Safety, Minister Baird and Minister Day both called Commissioner Stoddart, just to invite her cooperation with the government in general and with Public Safety in particular, to review the matter. I understand that Commissioner Stoddart informed the President of the Treasury Board that she had received a complaint—I say this generically—but had not yet, speaking as of last Wednesday, determined whether there were grounds for an investigation. Whether she does an investigation into this matter or not, to the best of my information at this point, is undetermined.

I think it would be more important for us to look at this in a broader context.

I just want to close by saying that I think it's very important that we look at both current and previous practices, because we can be less partisan here than in the House, obviously. I honestly believe that there may be certain practices that were inherited by the current government that were just normal business, such as the circulation of minutes of meetings where occasionally these names came up. If that's the case, we'd like to know, our government would like to know, what the source of it is, whether this is some kind of longstanding practice in certain departments or in all departments or in no departments, and then assist the executive branch of government in putting an end to it. Because I think we all agree that it's inappropriate.

I would argue in favour of either my motion or Mr. Martin's, or some version thereof, because I think the intent is effectively the same.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you, Mr. Kenney.

The motion is:

That the committee investigate and report on issues related to the alleged disclosure of the names of Access to Information applicants to political staff of the current and previous governments.

Is there discussion? Mr. Zed.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have no problem at all whatsoever with Mr. Kenny's suggestion and his motion. My motion, as you may remember, colleagues, was as a result of a certain set of circumstances that had appeared, and I was trying to come in a timely way to the committee.

I appreciate what Mr. Kenny has said, that we are not trying to politicize things, that at this committee we would just want to find out what practice should be adopted. And if there is something that has happened in the past that shouldn't have happened, or something that's currently happening that shouldn't happen, and it violates the law, that practice should end. I think in the spirit in which the motion has been put forward, I would support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion? All in favour of the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Martin, Mr. Zed, does that mean we don't need to deal with your motions?

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

I withdraw my motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you very much.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I won't move mine either.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

We then turn to Madame Lavallée's motion. Just let me find it. Does everyone have a copy of it?

I just want to make one comment on this. The notice of motion, in effect, calls for a report of the committee. If the committee were to report to the House, then under “motions”, it would be acceptable for a member of the House of Commons to move, concurrent with the report of the committee, thereby presumably putting more pressure on the minister.

This arises out of a heated discussion, I might add, that occurred after the minister appeared, debating whether the committee should begin further study—yet again, I suppose one could add—or whether we should, to the extent we can, insist that the minister bring forward some sort of bill so we have something we can physically look at. Subsequent to that, Mr. Wallace wrote a letter to the minister, in effect saying exactly what I just said, asking the minister to consider bringing forward legislation.

Madame Lavallée, are you prepared to move your motion?

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

Yes.

First of all, I have to say that I haven't seen Mr. Wallace's letter. I don't know why it wasn't sent to me or brought to my attention. Perhaps it was sent to me but unfortunately, I don't have a copy.