Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 20th, 2011

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

We're now in public.

We have a motion in front of us.

Dean, if you have it in front of you, would you mind reading it as it was presented?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

The motion I'm presenting says that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics call witnesses to hear testimony regarding the access to information dispute and the resulting court actions concerning CBC.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Is there debate on this motion?

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'm rather disturbed that the first meeting of our committee is focused on an obvious attack on CBC. I would encourage the Conservatives, if they have issues regarding CBC, if they want to take the side of Brian Lilley and the Sun machine in their continual attempt to get information from their number one competitor through access to information, to do so in a general review of access to information.

We have a number of issues with regard to access to information. For example, in the Togneri case, the access to information commissioner clearly found problems, yet the RCMP did not follow up. I don't know whether or not we need to examine the legislation in place to see if it provides the RCMP with the tools to follow through when people are breaking access to information obligations. There are problems for many people who are trying to get access from this government.

I think if we want to get into access to information it's an excellent issue, but it would look fairly partisan right now for the Conservatives to ignore all that and simply go after CBC. I think it sends the wrong message on day one.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Ms. Davidson.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

I would just like to caution or to suggest to my colleague opposite that it would be nice if we could all keep an open mind until we have heard from the witnesses.

The motion I've heard presented here this morning is not in any way taking sides. The motion is asking for information from both sides on an issue that I have in particular been receiving questions on, as have, I expect, most of the others around this table. It's something that I need to know the answers to. I need to know so I can answer my constituents. They are interested in what's happening. The access to information should apply to us all, to everyone, as it applies to crown corporations. We need to see what the answers are to that. We need to know why this has become such an issue. It may be, once we've looked into the matter, that there is no issue, but I think it behooves us, as the committee responsible for access to information, to keep an open mind, and not try to determine what one party is trying to do. The motion in no way suggests that.

I'm in favour of the motion. I'm entering into it, and I'm going to support it because I'm going in with an open mind and I want to know the truth of the matter.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you.

Mr. Del Mastro, and then Mr. Angus.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree. Frankly, my colleague has made most of my points. The motion does not take sides. I would simply say that last year there were two crown corporations red-flagged for their performance with respect to access to information, and one of those is currently undertaking a court action. I would simply like to get all the sides before us and find out why this is happening.

I think the backdrop of it is not good, and I do have Canadians asking me questions about it, about what's going on. This is the access to information, privacy and ethics committee. Access to information is obviously something we are concerned with here. We have a case right now that at least appears to be going against the spirit of the Accountability Act, and I'd like to hear about it.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus, and then Mr. Andrews.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

I certainly don't want to impugn the motives of my esteemed colleagues across the floor. Perhaps I was just being sensitive, having sat on the heritage committee and never ever once having heard any of the Conservatives ask a positive question of CBC. There seemed to be a continual attack against our public broadcaster. Despite some extraordinary reviews and the updates on CBC planning that we heard, there always seemed to be an underlying sense of suspicion. Perhaps I'm just being overly sensitive to the Conservative government having an agenda to continually attack our public broadcaster and to undermine it.

That being said, I would like to take my colleagues at their word. Their desire for openness is certainly important. Access to information is about openness, so I'd like to just amend it. We have political staffers interfering time and time again with access to information requests. We have the access to information commissioner raising serious red flags about people's ability to get information. Perhaps to defuse this we could simply say that we will look at the issue of access to information as our first study, and Mr. Del Mastro can bring all the witnesses he wants against CBC, but we can get into a much broader general discussion without this being seen as just a pulpit from which to bash the public broadcaster.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Before I get to Mr. Andrews, the way you've done this--

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

It's not an amendment.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Yes, I'm not sure it's an amendment. It feels like a distinct motion.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'm attempting to find common ground--

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

I understand.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

--whether common ground exists or whether this is going to be a committee that is used, when you're the Conservative Party, by the attack to push a particular agenda.

This is our first day together, so I'm reaching out in the spirit of openness, but if they're going to blow us off and say “our way or the highway”, then they'll send their message on day one.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Just to be clear with our process, this isn't an amendment. It's a distinct motion, so in order to hear it and debate it, we have to remove the one we're discussing right now to get to this broader topic you're talking about. The committee has to essentially remove Mr. Del Mastro's motion to get to this larger question in order to hear it.

We're going to go to specific debate on that question.

[A voice]

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Okay. So here's just a clarification on the rules. The only way to withdraw the motion presently in front of us is by unanimous consent. I can see from Mr. Del Mastro that there's no unanimous consent to do that, so we're back to the original motion.

Mr. Andrews.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I just have a question for Dean. Would there be an openness to have a friendly amendment to expand it to review how the freedom of information laws apply to all government departments? I think the CBC is a specific one, but it's just underlying the surface that they are not consistent across all government departments. Would you be willing to amend it with a friendly amendment to include a review of how our freedom of information is released across all government departments?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I think you're making a valid point. I think it's a valid concern, Scott, but this specific motion deals with a specific incident that is occurring right now, an issue that is occurring right now that involves a crown corporation and private individuals seeking access to information.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I would argue that it's happening across all departments. It just happens that this is a court case.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Right, but this is specific to an incident that is occurring. We'd like to get some answers on that.

We can certainly, in future studies in access to information, take a look at the broader issue and issues impacting others, but this is a crown corp that was red-flagged and is currently in court. I think we need to find out, one, why they were red-flagged, two, why they are in court, and three, what it is that these people are seeking that they're not getting answers to and whether it is an issue of public concern. If it's not, then I think the committee can say that we have done our work here, so let's move on.

But I do think that this question right now is currently a significant one. I am hearing about it from people in my riding, and I think it behooves this committee, as a committee that has as the first part of its mandate access to information.... Here we have a court case involving a crown corp on an access to information request, and what I'm hearing from the opposition is “let's dumb it down, let's water it down, and let's not get any answers”. But I--

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

That's not what I said, Dean.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Let's--