Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 26th, 2009

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I echo the comments made by my colleague who just spoke before me. As a new member--and I don't know how long I can say “as a new member” because I've now been here a year, but I'm still new--it's been a steep learning curve over this past year as we've looked at the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. If there's anything that I have concluded, I think it's that over the past 23 or 25 years, governments have been committed to transparency and openness, and certainly I would state that our government is committed to transparency and openness, and our record is clear.

I've learned much about the Federal Accountability Act, and I know I've probably belaboured the point many times in our questioning of witnesses in terms of the comprehensive and toughest accountability legislation that we brought forward in 2006.

I guess what I would like to recommend to this committee going forward is that whether it be a study on the Privacy Act--and based on the response we get from the minister in January--or the Access to Information Act, I would like us to choose one rather than trying to work on both of these projects at the same time. I think often there has been some confusion. Are we talking about the ten recommendations in Mr. Marleau's report, or are we talking about the ten quick fixes plus the two in the Privacy Commissioner's report?

So those would be my comments. As we move forward, as we begin to look at our agenda into the new year and take quite seriously the charge that we've been given by the minister to do a more comprehensive review and consultation with regard to the discussion paper that's come to light for us...that we make a decision about which act we're going to focus on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I think I'm going to have to cut the list off there because there is another committee that has business at eleven o'clock. We're going to carry on with the list at the next meeting.

Let me leave a little homework, since I have to be working on a letter to the minister and I do want to get the blues before I finish that letter. We are actually working on the same project that Russ Hiebert brought to us when I first became chair. As a consequence, if you look back at the transcripts, the committee said there's no way we're ever going to be able to do a full review and basically rewrite the act. It was just impossible, and as a consequence our saw-off was to consider a parallel type of approach, looking at what things we can do to at least improve the administrative capacity of the bill and maybe deal with any legislative....

So we will finish this up. I would like for those members around the table who believe we should take a more comprehensive approach and consult widely to start working and suggest to the whole committee specifically a game plan, with as much information as possible as to what they are recommending the committee do. To just use the title, “we'll do a more comprehensive review” is one thing. I think the committee should appreciate what is entailed.

So those who feel very strongly about that I think should come back to the committee with a better focus for the committee as to what actually would be asked. Ultimately, the committee is going to have to determine its work plan for the new year, and I don't want to leave that any later than we have to, because work should be done during the Christmas break.

So, please, we're at a crossroads and we need some direction. We need the input of all committee members, and I hope members will take the time to look at some of these documents. There's a lot of good information here, so we can make wise decisions when we come back to our next meeting.

This meeting is adjourned.