Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 30th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Your time's up, Mr. Owen.

Madame Lavallée.

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

: I was struck by what you said about access to information being primarily a matter of political will. I am sure you have heard of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The Information Commissioner proposed an open government act in November, 2005. The committee recommended that it be adopted and referred back to the House of Commons.

When we resumed business, I, as a representative of the Bloc Québécois, was delighted to remind the committee of this proposal. I know that you are all familiar with the Open Government Act; however, Mr. Rubin, you do not seem to think that it goes far enough. What really surprised me though was that my colleagues from the Conservative Party and the NDP, who are here today, voted against the motion.

I just wanted to say that I believe this to be an example of the lack of political will to which you referred. Perhaps my colleagues will have the opportunity to explain their decision.

[David McKie]

You are perhaps right, but for the moment, it is very difficult to say.

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

The political will to which you referred is—

[David McKie]

The nature of the relationship between journalists and Mr. Harper's cabinet make it very difficult to answer your question. For example, how do we know what is going on behind closed doors?

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

I was not going to broach either the stormy relationship that Mr. Harper has with the press or his desire to control the questions that are asked at press conferences. However, I am only too happy for you to bring it up.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Rubin, would you mind if I asked you a few questions?

[Ken Rubin]

I was just going to say, documents speak for themselves. So when you get a document from the Privy Council Office that's comparing the Gomery commission's final report to the Federal Accountability Act, and then you get PCO's assessment and the whole darn thing gets exempt, that's what we're up against. We're up against a problem and we've studied it to death. We have to move on. But everybody has this mindset in Ottawa that secrecy counts. No, it doesn't any more, if you want people to trust you, and that's what I think all of you want.

I remember that blue report.... Blaine Thacker was the chairman. I appeared in front of the statutory review committee. It was a non-partisan effort. Everybody agreed that there should be reforms. We should have had them back in 1987. So let's move on.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you for your brief and your recommendations, Mr. Rubin. In my opinion, the Conservative Party should accept three of them very quickly.

Your second recommendation talks about making documents of the Prime Minister and the ministers accessible to the public. On page 13 of the Conservative platform, we read that a Conservative government would prepare to amend Bill C-2 in order to comply with this principle.

In point 4, you talk about treating crown corporations like other organizations and about reducing rather than increasing, the number of exemptions and special exclusions. On the same page of this Conservative platform, we see that a Conservative government would apply the act to all crown corporations, officers of Parliament, foundations and organizations that depend on taxpayers' money or that carry out public responsibilities. So your recommendation should be of immediate interest to them.

In point 3, you talk about following up on the commitment to have a stricter Information Commissioner. As my colleague pointed it out to me, the Conservatives have stated in writing elsewhere that a Conservative government would enforce the recommendations made by the Information Commissioner about reforming the Information Act. Despite what they stated during the election campaign, the Conservatives voted against the motion.

You recommend that this be included in Bill C-2, and I don't think this will fall on deaf ears. You are reminding them of their lofty promises and the Conservatives will no doubt demonstrate their intention to act on them.

My question is to both of you. If Bill C-2 were to be passed tomorrow in its present form, without any amendments whatsoever, is there a guarantee that there could not be another sponsorship scandal?

[David McKie]

I would say no.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

What do you think, Mr. Rubin?

[Ken Rubin]

Well, as one of the people who used the access act conservatively during the sponsorship scandal and got the auditors' notes, got the lists of all the different sponsorship things, first of all I had a great deal of trouble convincing the media that there was a scandal there. But no, it's going to make matters a lot worse.

Listen, how can I put it to you this way, to appeal to all inclined? I can remember when Prime Minister Mulroney issued a memo, or his people in the Privy Council Office did, saying, “Check if you're going to release my foreign travel expenses under access to information; I have to know so it can be massaged.” Yet the same gentleman, once he left government, asked me to get his records because he felt abused because of the Airbus situation with a different government. So what goes around comes around.

Let's have a level playing field. Everybody should keep their promises. I think we're seeing it's high time we live in a different kind of situation.

We have the Internet. We have a lot of credibility in a lot of other information channels. We have to catch up or we won't have the accountability, and this act does not speak to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Rubin.

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, and thank you for both your presentations.

I think what you've done is underline the importance of the tools that are available to what in your case I'll call the fourth estate to do the job that I think is severely lacking in our society; that is, to give us a window into how decisions are being made and what those decisions are. All you have to do is pick up a newspaper and do a content analysis of the stories. Today you'll pick up the paper and see a tabloid story being thrown out as news. I think that's a sad state in many ways. You have to then do an analysis to ask what's lacking; why are we being offered this as news? I would suggest what you've presented is the fact, that we don't have access to the information; we don't have a window in.

I can't dispute or even counter some of the things that are in this bill, in terms of the goals. What I'm hearing from you is the same thing: these are laudable goals. The problem—and my colleague, Mr. Martin, has mentioned this before—is we don't have a window in to assess whether these goals are being met.

I appreciate, Mr. Rubin, what you've said about the extended powers of certain people. But on a couple of your recommendations, Mr. Rubin—and then I'd turn to you, Mr. McKie, and some of your comments about access to information—you talked about the importance of changing the proposed Public Appointments Commission. I couldn't agree with you more. We have some amendments that we will be putting forward.

The fact that you're going to try to change accountability through the PMO.... Good public policy shouldn't be dependent upon there being a benevolent person in office; it should be based on having good structures, and then functions that follow.

I'm curious about your concerns regarding lobbying and the statements you've made and the recommendations. Maybe I'll just start with that, Mr. Rubin, and your concerns with how this bill is structured. I'm someone who has been very concerned about lobbying and the effects lobbyists have on public policy and on access to decision-makers. Would you elaborate on that, please?

[Ken Rubin]

I guess I'm enough of a democrat to believe that dollar-a-year men with influence, or a small group of lobbyists, aren't the kind of interaction with the Canadian public that is healthy or the only type that's warranted. When you have an act like this act that endorses rather than really restricts their ability to have a priority say in government, I don't think it helps anybody.

When you don't record really any of the meaningful activities.... It's one thing to have a registrar who says vaguely, “You're lobbying for X person or company.” It's another thing to ask: “What did you do with Industry Canada in the technology partnership program when it came to the Pratt & Whitney grants, and what were the conversations?” It's a whole huge, different area.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

So, if I may interject, it's about full disclosure of the business between government officials and lobbyists, is that right, as opposed to when they met and where they ate and that kind of thing?

[Ken Rubin]

That's right, yes.

I wouldn't mind also very briefly commenting on the Public Appointments Commission, because it's a lightning rod for what's wrong with this bill, and what I guess your amendment is trying to do—and I hope there are a lot of other amendments—to make this constructive.

But I would go further. I would say that commission has to be independent, selected by Parliament, and also covered under the Access to Information Act. I have a briefing note from the Public Service Commission that says in the United Kingdom one of the commissioners is a public service commissioner, because they at least have some experience in what merit appointments should be, and also that the appointments commission should be more transparent.

In B.C., the information commissioner is selected. Three people are brought before a legislative committee, who look at the appointment and then decide. They don't just put forward a PM appointee and that's it. It's a real, transparent situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. McKie, did you have a comment? No.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I just wanted to ask one question to Mr. McKie regarding access to information—that was a primary focus for you—and other jurisdictions. You touched on it.

In your mind, if we were to have the best access-to-information system possible, would it be modelled on one you can look to presently, or one that is maybe nascent presently about which we can say it's the one we should be following, or do you have a model in your own mind?

[David McKie]

Well, before September 11 I would have said the United States, but now that's a bit of a mess. That's why I think we have a real opportunity to be a leader.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just one quick question, and I'm sure my colleagues have others. It's directed to Mr. McKie, but I'm sure Mr. Rubin will make a comment as well.

Do you believe the CBC should reveal its sources for news stories, as the Information Commissioner has suggested?

[David McKie]

No.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Why?

[David McKie]

Well, I think the courts have had some positive things to say about that. If we were forced to do that, it would be very difficult for people to talk to us.

So, no.