Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 5th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I think your motion does express a sentiment. So we're not going to put that.

Just for clarity, this motion from Mr. Martin is an effort by one of our colleagues to bring this subject matter to a conclusion in order to move on with other business.

Mr. Martin's motion is amendable. Any member can make a motion. There's no notice requirement. As long as you're sitting at this table at this meeting, you can make amendments. I guess it's obvious; even the motion to put the question actually exists in the House and it is debatable, so it really doesn't do anything except stop anybody from making an amendment.

That is not permissible in committee. That's the new little wrinkle. Amendments are possible to the Martin motion. We've had Mr. Del Mastro....

The whole subject matter of the response to the minister's thing is still alive, but in the context of the Martin motion.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

We just heard that the reason the minister has dismissed our report is that...well, the government doesn't want to amend the act twice. It was an explanation provided by Mr. Dechert. I find that transparently disingenuous. The government has not given any indication that it has any intention of amending it even once, never mind twice.

It is interesting; it's in such stark contrast to the Conservative Party's platform from 2006 during the election campaign, when they said a number of things. There was reference to John Reid's “open government” proposal paper, and a commitment in their platform to put that into legislation. There was a commitment to address the problem of access we have due to cabinet secrecy, and the inability of the commissioner to take a look to verify whether or not cabinet secrets are at stake when the government decides they will not provide documentation.

We heard the current commissioner's response to some of these. The government has not moved on any of these fronts, whether it's proposals that were made by John Reid or any of the proposals made by Mr. Marleau that we spent a tremendous amount of time looking at. And those were quick fixes. We were trying to help the government address this very important situation where the transparency of our government was being undermined.

All the data clearly indicate that a fundamental principle of our democracy is seriously being eroded. We can't take lying down this sort of dismissive response from the minister. We would not be acting in a responsible manner as elected representatives of the public if we were to allow this to pass without a challenge.

These attempts at explaining the minister's dismissive attitude toward the committee's report and the current and previous commissioners on this fundamental principle of transparency of government is....

What is transparent here is that the minister has made a decision not to address this issue. What really worries me is that this is running in a parallel track to a situation where our government is engaged in one of the biggest expenditures in the history of our country. It has to be done expeditiously. Mistakes will happen. Public accounts will have the opportunity to look at some of those mistakes. But it's worrisome when we see the manner in which the government has conducted itself over the last months when it comes to infrastructure funding. Whether it was the affair with the cheques, where the Canadian flag was replaced by the Conservative logo, ministers and the Prime Minister putting their names on cheques, it's worrisome. It shows an attitude.

We have to remember that it wasn't the money of a member of Parliament. It wasn't—

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Del Mastro, please.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

The motion we're dealing with from Mr. Martin is quite different from the point Mr. Wrzesnewskyj is making.

I would encourage Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, based on the comments I've heard from opposition members across.... I think they've bought into what he's saying. Perhaps the chair could encourage him to stay somewhere within the confines of the relevance of the motion.

The chair has on many occasions--in a previous Parliament for sure--suggested to me, in my comments, that I may wish to guard them and keep them within certain confines. I encourage the chair to be consistent on that and encourage Mr. Wrzesnewskyj that his point is taken.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, I'm sorry, I'm not going to critique what you've been saying, but I will pass on from the member an encouragement to stay within the relevance of the motion before us.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Absolutely. This is perhaps something my colleague hasn't connected the dots on, but let me do this for my colleague across the way.

This money doesn't belong to the Conservative Party. It's 100% the taxpayers' money. We have a responsibility to provide transparency on how the taxpayers' monies are being used, especially at a time when this money is being pushed out in a rapid manner and we have worries about the attitudes that the government has when it comes to these projects.

I can't help but feel that the minister--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

You're straying again. Bring it back, please.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I was about to get back to the minister.

I can't help but think there's a connection here. The minister is worried. The minister may not want these quick fixes because the government is worried about providing transparency. In their platform they said clearly and unambiguously that they wanted greater transparency. We had session after session where we went through this and heard from witnesses. There was a consensus at this committee table. A well-thought-through and well-documented report was tabled in the House, and it's been dismissed out of hand.

Why does the government want to hide behind a veil of bureaucratic secrecy? Why is the PCO stopping Canadian citizens, their elected representatives, and the media from accessing information about what the government is doing with Canadian tax dollars--the people's money?

I can't help but feel that we would not be acting responsibly if we didn't call the minister before this committee to explain why he, as a minister of the crown, is acting on behalf of the government in this manner; why this government does not want access to information; and why they don't want transparency in the way they go about governing our country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Siksay, you're on the list next.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

With regard to Mr. Martin's motion, I think it's very important that the committee express its disappointment with the minister's response, with the government's response, to our report and to the work we did.

I think that Mr. Martin, who is known for his ability to turn a colourful phrase in his work as a member of Parliament, was judicious in his choice of language. The word “disappointment” is a clear word, but I don't think it's inflammatory. I think it's a good motion in that regard.

When we look at the minister's response, we see that we have a very skimpy concession to further progress on the reform of access to information. The only thing the minister grants in the official response to the committee's report is that there should be an opportunity for enhanced guidance and training. That clearly is valuable but is, in the minister's reply, over-valued in terms of a response to the need for the reform of access to information. It doesn't address the need for dramatic legislative change. It doesn't address the need for a better compliance model. I don't think it addresses many of the other issues related to the reform of access to information.

Mr. Martin has tabled the former Information Commissioner's “open government act” as a private member's bill. I believe Madam Freeman has also done something similar with legislation in this area. Opposition members have tried to keep those excellent suggestions from the former Information Commissioner. They are specific and detailed, a full draft bill. This is an unusual step for an officer of Parliament to take. We've kept the importance of those changes alive. It shows that in the opposition benches there has been an attempt to do the proper homework on this matter.

I have spoken about Mr. Martin's measured language. Other members of the committee this morning have characterized the minister's response to our report as dismissive. Perhaps that's a strong term, but I think other people in the community who have an interest in the reform of access to information have seen this matter in even stronger terms.

I want to quote from a letter from three organizations that have a clear interest in the reform of access to information. They are the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, through their federal and Ontario director, Kevin Gaudet; the Canadian Newspapers Association, through their president and CEO, John Hinds; and the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, through Darrell Evans, their executive director. They recently wrote to the Prime Minister about the government's response to our report. They are upset with this response. They reiterate the promises that Conservatives have made in past elections and show how the government's response comes nowhere close to keeping those promises. They also use strong language. I want to quote from the paragraph in which they react to Minister Nicholson's response to our report.

They say to the Prime Minister:

Your government's response is contemptuous of the members of the Committee, including the members of your own party, and reflects similar contempt for the right of Canadians to have access to government records in order to hold their government accountable.

Those organizations and individuals who have a clear interest and have worked hard on these issues used strong language to describe the inadequacy of this response from the government.

I agree with Mr. Wrzesnewskyj that there are many issues of government accountability before Parliament and before the public. Given the size of the stimulus package and the quick roll-out of it, there are good reasons to want to ensure that we have the best possible regime for access to information, the best possible means of holding government accountable.

We would be turning our back on decades of work by this standing committee and others, as well as by concerned members of the House of Commons, if we didn't move to express our disappointment in the government through this motion. We need to continue our work to ensure that there is significant and real reform of access to information in Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We'll carry on with the list.

Madam Freeman, please.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Chair, to get back to the Minister's letter, certainly it looks to us, as it is, a contemptuous response, to the work all of the members have done here, on this committee, month after month and year after year.

Mr. Marleau said when he appeared that the responses he had given us were somewhat slight, so it is all the more so. To quote Mr. Marleau, this way of operating and this kind of response to the committee means that Parliament and the work of parliamentarians lacks credibility in the eyes of the public and the taxpayers to whom we are accountable.

This government that was elected fought its election campaign on the greatest possible transparency and openness. Since it was elected, all we have seen is closed doors, limits on access to information, a culture of secrecy and a lack of transparency. We also see an absence of any will to change things and carry out the commitments made.

As far as I'm concerned, I want to move an amendment to the motion, Mr. Szabo.

The last time, it wasn't noted that I wanted to move an amendment. I would therefore like to move an amendment to this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

If you can give it slowly, we will write it down carefully.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

We have the translation of the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Read it in French.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I also want to say that I made a motion last February. In response to the work done by Commissioner Reid and his report, I asked that the government produce a new bill on the Access to Information Act. That motion was made in February 2009, an we passed it.

I think that everything dealing with amending the Access to Information Act, all the information gathering and all the consultations, has been done. We have listened to the people. We have all the information needed. Commissioner Reid, before Mr. Marleau, did exceptional work in presenting his bill. Last February, in response to the work done by Commissioner Reid, I asked this committee, in a motion, to ask the government to introduce an access to information bill.

So may I move my amendment to Mr. Martin's motion now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

My understanding is that as a consequence of this, we ask that the government table a bill to amend or reform--

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

No.

This is my amendment. I am asking:

that the Committee recommend to the government that it introduce in the House, no later than March 30, 2010, a new Access to Information Act that would reflect the Committee's proceedings and recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

You're recommending that we do something as opposed to the minister do something, as in “recommend to the committee that”.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I want to add that to Mr. Martin's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Let me read for the committee what I've just received here.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I have the translation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I just want everybody else who's listening to also have the words: that the Committee recommend to the government that it introduce in the House, no later than March 30, 2010, a new Access to Information Act that would reflect the Committee's proceedings and recommendations.

This is what I understood it to be in the first instance. We're asking the minister to table a bill in the House by such-and-such a date.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think we're making really good progress here. I would be prepared to go to a vote on that.