Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 5th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

You would; good.

Madam Freeman, that amendment, which actually would add the word “and”, and then your motion...to the very end?

Mr. Siksay, does that seem to be right?

Do all the members have this motion?

I think the members understand the gist of the motion: there's a calling on the government to introduce a bill to reflect our work--and anything else, I assume--by March 30, 2010.

Madam Freeman, are you going to speak to your amendment?

Okay.

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

Yes. In fact, I made the same motion last February. That being said, I want to point out that all the work has been done by this committee and all the commissioners have submitted their recommendations. Mr. Reid and Mr. Marleau have made their recommendations. So we have all the information. The government has all the information.

Now, I would like to point out that it is up to this government to demonstrate its political will. As Mr. Marleau said, it is a question of leadership, of political will, from above. If they absolutely do not want to give the Canadian and Quebec public access to information and they reject all transparency, that has to be clear. Canadians and Quebeckers have to get the very clear signal that this government does not want transparency and it wants to retain a culture of secrecy. It is important that this be very clear. Let's stop passing the buck with Mr. Nicholson's responses, which simply dilute things.

However, that being said, that does not prevent me from also asking that Mr. Nicholson appear before us to explain his political will and so that we know exactly where it stands.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Just for clarity, that could happen, but you're not suggesting that it happen; you're not going to amend it.

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

I am making my motion. However, that does not prevent the request I just made for the Minister to appear before us from also standing, without being an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Je comprends.

Madam Simson, please.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

With respect to the actual motion, I think it is extremely important that we hear from the minister directly. To Mr. Siksay's point, I think it has been judiciously worded, but it doesn't even tell the tale about the disappointment and the lack of thought that went into his response. I'd almost question whether or not he'd even bothered to read it.

I'd like to address what Mr. Dechert said about having the minister appear.

I do take great exception to the fact that you believed it was for the purpose of making a speech. I'm not interested in speaking, I'm interested in listening. I would love to hear why he put on paper what he did in terms of a response. I'd like to hear it from his own mouth.

I'm really concerned about what seems to be a systematic closing of doors and tackling of--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Del Mastro, on a point of order.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would just remind the member, or perhaps you could remind the member, Mr. Chairman—I don't want to overstep my bounds—that we're talking about a subamendment that specifically speaks about tabling a new Access to Information Act by March 30, 2010. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the minister might appear at the committee.

We are actually talking about the amendment right now that was proposed by Madam Freeman, and I think pretty clearly.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

This is always a difficult judgment call, because if the next words out of the member's mouth were, “For that reason, I am opposing the amendment”, then it becomes quite relevant.

I haven't heard her final words, but I will just say, for the member and maybe for all honourable members, that it is in our best interest and in the public interest to be additive to the conversation. It's not just relevance. It is also repetition.

We talked about ragging the puck on the minister's behalf. We shouldn't be ragging the puck ourselves, either, unless it's absolutely necessary for you to bring things together.

I think we understand, but I do want the members to think very carefully. This is just a suggestion for consideration. Think very carefully about where you want this to end up. If it is a full stop and we don't agree with you and you don't agree with us and somebody else is going to have to pick up the ball, that is one thing. That would not be my personal view, but again, we'll hear how the committee goes. Let's see if we can start targeting in on ultimately what makes sense for us with regard to our mandate.

Madam Simson.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

With respect to the amendment, I am not convinced that a new Access to Information Act is required at this time, but I am prepared to support it only because it has taken this committee the better part of months to get quick fixes done. We have heard from witnesses, and without question, every witness agreed that this Access to Information Act is broken, is not working, and is denying Canadians the right to access information to which they are entitled.

I do believe we have to let the minister know, in the strongest possible terms, that it's unacceptable to have the status quo and further study. Based on what he had to say in his letter, I don't know how successful we'll be. One man decided that what we did was trash, that the Access to Information Act is a strong piece of legislation.

It's over a quarter of a century old, from a time when people had no access to computers. I agree with Madam Freeman: we need to convey to the minister that it's unacceptable, not only to this committee but to all Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, then I have Mr. Siksay.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I support the sentiment of this amendment. It shows an attempt in a responsible way to compel the government to respond responsibly. But the original motion was a motion expressing our sentiment about the correspondence and the communication back to the committee as a consequence of our report.

I worry that if this amendment were to pass at this point in time, I believe we can have another motion that's put forward as a separate motion that deals with this particular issue of the government's response to it and timelines, but I think that should occur after the minister appears before the committee to provide an explanation as to why he has dismissed the report so out of hand.

Although I support and concur with the sentiment, I wouldn't want this to take away from intent of the original motion. Even more worrisome, we've seen how the government has tried to avoid dealing with this particular issue. I would hate to see our committee members' measured and responsible approach to this as an excuse for the minister to say there's no reason for him to appear before the committee because we have already said he is not expected to give a response until March 30.

Let's get the minister before us here. Let's have him answer those questions. Then perhaps we can put a motion on the table that would deal with this particular issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'll just remind members that we can only have one motion on the floor at a time, but there can be an amendment and a subamendment to a current motion. For instance, the Martin motion has an amendment and there could be a subamendment, but I think the member is suggesting a new motion. We wouldn't be able to entertain moving that at this time until the Pat Martin motion is disposed of; just so it's understood.

Members, I really need to know this. Does anyone have a copy of the minister's discussion paper that he referred to in both of his letters? Has anybody read it? Has anybody ever seen it? Does it exist?

I raise that a bit facetiously because the researchers and the clerk have been scouring, and we have no evidence of any kind of recommendations or discussion paper that we can bring to the committee for its interest.

That concerns me. There was no title to this apparent discussion paper and no date other than the year, but it may be relevant to what we're discussing. I simply raise that it was referred to in both his letters, his original response as well as in this supplementary response.

I hope I don't have to explain to committee members or justify why I sent him the blues of Mr. Marleau's appearance and asked if he had any further comments, and he responded. That was not directed to me. The chair took that as a chair's decision, as a courtesy in case there was any clarifying information, and he has some. So that's how that happened, if members are interested.

Mr. Siksay, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to say very briefly that I strongly support and thank Madam Freeman for tabling this amendment and for bringing forward yet again this idea that we want the government to bring forward a new Access to Information Act and giving them a deadline to do it. I live in hope this will be the last time we have to request that from this committee, that we will get the government to agree to do that in the timeframe that's suggested in her motion.

Mr. Chair, I also think this amendment complements very nicely our sense of disappointment that's expressed in the original motion. I think it gives a concrete suggestion about what we think needs to be done that would deal with our sense of disappointment and deal with the fact that we believe change is needed to the Access to Information Act.

I think this is a very helpful amendment and will support it strongly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Madam Freeman, you're next on the list.

Do you want to comment?

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

As far as I'm concerned, I think we should vote on Mr. Martin's motion and my amendment.

To answer our colleague who just spoke, I will say that in my opinion, having the Minister appear before us and give oral answers is a common procedure in the parliamentary system. At present, he is sending us letters that say nothing or just dilute the issue. In fact, my amendment and the Minister's presence are not mutually exclusive; quite the opposite.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

I am going to ask Madam Davidson to take the chair now. I'd like to take a chair on the side. I'll be subject to the rules of relevance and all other good things in order to sit at the table.

Madam Davidson will be chairing my intervention.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Members, the next on the list is Mr. Szabo.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am the only member of this committee who was here at the beginning; everyone else is new. As a matter of fact, I did participate in the all-party committee of former member of Parliament John Bryden, where we considered the proposed bill by Mr. John Reid, the former Information Commissioner. We had several months of discussions, and we did bring forward a report, which we circulated to all members of Parliament. But because it wasn't an official committee, we couldn't table it in the House.

The open government act, which is a complete rewrite proposed by former Information Commissioner John Reid, was considered and basically recommended by the John Bryden committee. The transcripts are still available of that discussion with former Commissioner Reid, for those who are interested. This whole subject we're dealing with about reforms or amendments to the Access to Information Act has been around for a long time.

The reason I asked Madam Davidson to take the chair, the reason I wanted to express my personal views, is that I'm concerned about the direction we're going in.

First of all, I'm concerned about our relationship with the minister. I'm not happy with the Pat Martin motion, in terms of its language. I understand the frustration, but we also have to respect that the minister has to take a certain position. Committees cannot generate legislation; all we can do is propose matters for consideration. It is only the government, and indeed only this minister, who can do legislation.

I think we are aware that the current government, in an election platform, in fact had promised to implement the open government act fully. Unfortunately, that has not been acted on.

The reason I raise it is that our committee, in my recollection of how all of this worked, didn't feel it was important for us to review the act in its totality and to come forward with suggestions and do the hearings, etc., for the reason that the government had promised to do it--without having what the minister, in his letters and so on, created in terms of this disappointment that we're talking about--and it wasn't necessary for us to do that. All we could do was recommend to the minister. But the minister had already committed, indirectly, to do the open government act.

That's point one. Point two is that the Minister of Justice has appeared before this committee on the Access to Information Act only once. Even then he restricted it to an hour: one hour. We didn't get a chance to have a conversation with him. I think the clerk will verify that it even took a long time to get him to come to committee. I always thought there was a reluctance....

I think the committee has demonstrated that we do want to see a serious commitment to some reform and some changes. Now, if you look back at our steering committee recommendations—what we're doing and what we have been doing—the committee came to the conclusion that in a minority government, which is quite short, it would be virtually impossible to do a comprehensive review of the entire Access to Information Act, to come forward with recommendations, to have the government consider them, to have the government propose them, and then to have the government bill handled through the House and its normal channels.

It's clear to anyone who knows the parliamentary process that it would be impossible to go through all of that in the life of a minority Parliament. The Privacy Commissioner had come forward with quick fixes to the Privacy Act. That was before we got the quick fixes to the Access to Information Act. She was of the same view that I could come forward with all kinds of things, but we are not sure that any individual change would be acceptable to the government or whether they would be prepared to touch the act in any way.

As a consequence, I approached Mr. Marleau, the access to information commissioner, and asked him what he thought about quick fixes. He told me that they had also come up with the quick fixes and--

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Mr. Del Mastro, on a point of order.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Vice-Chair.

I am interested in this. I think the history of how we got to this point is valid. Perhaps Mr. Szabo, as the independent chair of the committee, could provide this timeline and narrative to committee members to read on their own time, but I would stress that committee time is valuable.

We do have a subamendment or an amendment that has been brought forward by Madam Freeman that I know she would like to vote on, which I believe was presented in order. We have a motion by Mr. Martin, which I believe is also in order, and out of respect to those members, I think we should be moving to the motions at hand. We have other motions to deal with today at the committee. I just suggest that while I am interested in hearing all of the timelines and how we arrived at this point, I think this morning might not be the appropriate time.

I'd encourage Madam Vice-Chair to encourage the member to speak specifically to the motion. Perhaps, out of respect to the members who have brought those motions, we could deal with them.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro.

Mr. Szabo, I remind you that we are debating the subamendment at this point. If you can bring your discussion to the subamendment, that would be appreciated....

I'm sorry, it's an amendment, not a subamendment.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you.

The amendment deals with coming forward with a new Access to Information Act. What I have been saying, Madam Chair, is that this committee, as you may recall from my presentation here, came to the conclusion that we could not do that. If the government were to be so moved, it is quite unlikely, during the average life of a minority Parliament, that this could ever achieve anything.

I don't want to say how I'm voting, because I like to vote after we've had all the discussion. But my sense right now is that this subamendment would simply go into a black hole, and we would never see anything. That's my own view, and I wanted to express it. That's why I left the chair. It was so I could say that and have an opinion.

I'm hoping that members want to see some changes. The reason Mr. Marleau came forward with his quick fixes was for that very reason. We have no time, or we won't have enough time, for the committee to do a whole review and then have the government do a bill. So let's try to at least get some things that would accomplish two things: one, address administrative efficiencies in the act, and two, deal with some of the legislative components. Those are the two areas of difficulty that have been expressed to us by that commission.

The reason I've taken this unusual step of leaving the chair--it occurs sometimes--is that I'm concerned about the direction we're going in. I'm concerned that we have entered into a situation where our relationship with the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for this act, is being eroded in terms of quality. I know the minister personally. I respect him. I've read carefully what he's written in his letters, and I try to understand the underlying thinking. The words on the paper reflect a lot of other consultation and stuff that we don't have on paper.

You assume good faith, but there is a problem. The government is not in a position, for whatever reason, to come forward with the John Reid open government act. If this motion goes forward with the amendment, I'm pretty sure about what the outcome will be. That's why I want to make this intervention. If this amendment passes, this matter leaves our desk. It leaves the order of business of this committee, and we wait until next March to see. But I'm pretty sure that we won't see a bill.

I don't want it to end like that. I want to appeal to the committee to reconsider the decision we made at the beginning of this process. Rather than try to do the impossible, which would be a full review of the Access to Information Act--to do it properly would take a couple of years--consider that the quick fixes are important and that maybe what we should be doing is paring them down. Let's see what the committee, not Mr. Marleau, is recommending as quick fixes. Let's see whether we have one or two solid positions we would accept and recommend to the minister and seek, at least, amendments to the act. That's the test. The test of whether there's good faith is whether the minister is prepared to accept and implement changes this committee would unanimously agree to, based on its knowledge and understanding of the act.

I referred earlier to this discussion paper. I am a little concerned that we don't have it. We're going to keep looking. I think what I'm going to do, if we can't find it by the end of the day, is ask the minister if he could provide us with this discussion paper that we're unable to find. I think it's very relevant, because that's the whole basis on which he said to us that we should consider those recommendations on this discussion paper, and we don't have it. If that's his view, I think we should respect his view, but I think we should look at it before we take a decision.

Chair, I think I've gone on long enough. I think the members understand where I'm coming from. I simply don't like where I think this is going to end up, and I hope we would consider trying something that would get us in a position that would help us to reaffirm a positive relationship with the minister and see if there is any common ground on some modest amendment or two with regard to the Access to Information Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, you have the floor, sir.