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

[Stanley Tromp, Research Director, B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (FIPA)]

Yes, briefly, Mr. Owen, about order-making power.

We are aware that Mr. Reid advises against order-making power, but we respectfully disagree. The model works well in B.C. and in the four provinces where it helps to avoid litigation. For example, the Prime Minister's Office has mounted more than twenty lawsuits against the Information Commissioner on various issues. We believe that litigation could have dealt with that much more quickly and we had hoped that the incoming government could have cancelled those lawsuits on the issue of whether the Prime Minister's and cabinet ministers' records are covered under the act. So that would help it be dealt with much more quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Tromp.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.

My first questions are for the Canadian Newspaper Association, although I also have some questions for Mr. Rosenberg.

I would like you to answer my question by providing me with a concrete example. Bill C-2 has not yet been adopted. How does this affect your ability to do your work? Is Bill C-2 a step in the right direction in terms of the Access to Information Act?

You suggested eight amendments, but I did not fully understand which were the two or three that you consider the most important. I did not have enough time to note them down. In your opinion, what would be the repercussions of adopting Bill C-2 as it stands, and how would these repercussions vary were your suggested amendments adopted?

Was my question clear?

[Anne Kothawala]

Yes, it was.

I'll answer in English, if that's okay. My English is a little bit better than my French.

I think it can really be blocked into sort of three major themes, and I think the overriding theme of every amendment we are suggesting has at the heart of it that public information belongs to the public and that the burden of proof must be carried by those who would deem to keep information secret. That should really be the overriding theme as we look through this. Cabinet confidences fall into that theme; public interest override falls into that theme. Then there are things that are more administrative in nature but are still critical to ensuring that the Access to Information Act works smoothly.

I think at the core, again, is that the right to know is so critical to a democracy that when we have a system that is clearly outdated and has not seen any substantive reform in over twenty years, there are clearly some problems. The duty to keep records is one that is a huge problem, particularly in this information age in which record-keeping is not what it used to be. BlackBerry devices and what not are taking over, and if we don't have any records of those decisions and of that information, there's going to be a real gap in terms of understanding how policy gets made in this country.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Rosenberg, Mr.Tromp.

[Richard Rosenberg]

I'm sorry, I missed the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

Back to you, Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Firstly, thank you for your suggested amendments. Your work is very helpful and we will bear it in mind when we are amending the bill.

I have another question for the Canadian Newspaper Association, but do not worry, I will get to the others next.

I am sure that you have studied Bill C-2 in its entirety. Do you think that if it were adopted as it stands, as there is pressure for us to do, a repetition of the sponsorship scandal could be avoided? Do you think that the investigative capacities of journalists, which played such an important role in unmasking the sponsorship scandal, would be sufficiently facilitated so as to prevent a recurrence of this type of scandal? Is Bill C-2 strong enough to prevent such scandals happening again?

[David Gollob]

One of the positive features of Bill C-2 is that it now covers crown corporations and officers of Parliament, who were previously not subject to the act. That is a very positive measure, it is a good decision.

However, the mandatory exception...

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Excuse me.

Could I put a pause on this for a minute?

[David Gollob]

I could continue in English.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't know what is appropriate any more.

[David Gollob]

Our position is that we believe that this was done with the best possible intentions to include the crown corporations, to include the officers of Parliament, but they must be included in such a way that there is really an advantage to their inclusion and so that we don't end up with a sum-zero game. And that is our concern.

This is why we propose that the amendments tabled by Commissioner Reid be adopted by the committee, because these would in fact neutralize the ill effects of the conditions that were applied to the inclusion of the officers of Parliament and crown corporations.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you. I will address my last comment to our witnesses from British Columbia.

It is just a comment, but please feel free to respond, should you wish to do so. I liked the way in which you incorporated into your presentation the content of page 13 of a document called Stand Up for Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada's election platform. Given that the Conservatives wrote it, I would hope that they have read it! It speaks about strengthening the Access to Information Act.

This committee is being made to sit 29 hours a week on the pretext that there has been talk of a Federal Accountability Act for the past four years. You told us that there has been talk of reforming the Access to Information Act for the past 20 years. Surely this means that we should be moving ahead four times as quickly on reforming the Access to Information Act as we are on the Accountability Act. However, that does not appear to be the case.

You went through the Conservative Party's election campaign platform point by point. It is a very comprehensive document. If our committee had the time, we could surely benefit from going through the Conservative Party election platform point by point in order to improve the Access to Information Act. I would like to thank you for the clever approach that you took in making your presentation. We will endeavour to draw on it, in spite of the limited time available to us.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Tromp didn't get a chance to respond.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Sauvageau, you talked for your time. You've got to leave them time to speak, and you haven't given them any time. So you're out of luck.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I guess I'm....

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You know what? I'm going to break the rules, because we keep cutting you off, Mr. Rosenberg, so you can--

[Richard Rosenberg]

I'm having an audio problem. Perhaps Mr. Tromp would like to say something.

[Stanley Tromp]

I'd like to very briefly note that I have a document from 1987 called Open and Shut: Enhancing the Right to Know and the Right to Privacy, which is almost two decades old, which recommends many of these same points that we and the others have recommended for so long. And if a backbencher, Reform-Tory MP, Myron Thompson, in 1997 proposed the crowns, they could be done quicker perhaps.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is everybody happy?

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you both, FIPA and the Canadian Newspaper Association.

I've been waiting for this type of group of witnesses, because I firmly believe, and I think it's the same tone in your presentations, that the access to information section of the FAA is probably the most meaningful and the most powerful in terms of changing the culture and the way we do things here in Ottawa. So, like you, I was crestfallen when the bill actually came forward and those key elements, what we believe to be the heart and soul of the Federal Accountability Act, had been ripped out of it.

So I thank you for your recommendations.

It is helpful, actually, Mr. Tromp, that you raise that book, because we have been studying this very issue for 20 years. That was the first review of the Access to Information Act. The first mandatory review generated that report, which made the recommendations that John Reid has just restated again here 20 years later. So we know what needs to be done in terms of reform to the Access to Information Act. We don't need to be hearing witnesses into next spring, as some parties would have us believe. In fact, we would miss this window of opportunity.

Now to specifics. I take it that you agree with Mr. Reid that the eight points he raised wouldn't give voice to his open government act, but it would mitigate any harm that perhaps Bill C-2 would have implemented. So you're recommending the eight amendments that Mr. Reid put forward?

[Anne Kothawala]

Yes, we are.

I guess our theme was “first, do no harm”. Really what we're saying is let's make it a little less bad. Sadly, I think that is a good way to summarize it.