Evidence of meeting #2 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meeting.
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Are there any other comments or questions before we vote on the motion?
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Thank you.
That means we will meet May 29 at 3:30, and we will go through and try to complete it within three hours.
The second item is a notice of motion that we received from Madame Lavallée, which you also have. It's in front of you in both official languages.
Madame Lavallée, the floor is yours.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
When the committee met on November 3, 2005, it was agreed that it would ask the Information Commissioner to issue some recommendations pertaining to the draft bill that had been tabled. The request came in the form of a motion from Mr. Pat Martin. We ultimately asked that a bill be referred to this committee. If you like, I could supply you with the minutes of the November 3 meeting.
The motion that I am introducing today follows up on the motion contained in the minutes of the November 3 meeting. It reads as follows:
That this committee reaffirms the need to maintain the independence of the Office of the Information Commissioner and recommends that the Justice Minister consider the advisability of introducing before June 23, 2006 legislation in the House of Commons based on the provisions of the “Open Government Act“ presented by Information Commissioner John Reid, with the assistance of the Legislative Counsel of the House of Commons.
Those who served on the committee in the last Parliament will see that my motion is indeed a follow up to the earlier motion.
Mr. Martin, in particular, will agree that this follows up on his motion of November 3. Correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
The motion is moved.
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Martin, since your name was mentioned....
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Carole, for the opportunity of bringing this forward.
I guess we would want to be certain that the motion says what we really want it to achieve. So I don't understand why we need to reaffirm the need to maintain the independence of the Office of the Information Commissioner. I'm not clear why we would preface a motion like this with a comment like that. I don't think the independence of the Office of the Information Commissioner has been threatened or challenged in any way, certainly not in this Parliament.
The idea that we should have a draft bill to work on here rather than a discussion paper, which has been tabled, is something that I share. I think our time would be much better spent if we had draft legislation and we were working with a meaningful working document rather than spinning our wheels once again and revisiting this whole immense subject of access to information legislation.
John Reid did table a very helpful package last fall that was set out as draft legislation. Clause by clause, he would have in there, “Here's what we seek to achieve, here's the change that would be necessary in the bill, and here's the actual language.”
Page by page, it would be very easy to collate that into a draft piece of legislation, and that's what I think our starting point should be. So I would vote in favour of this motion, subject to clarification of what we mean by the opening sentence.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I'm a little taken aback. Perhaps some finer points escape me. The purpose of the motion that was unanimously adopted by this committee on Thursday November 3, 2005 was to instruct the Justice Department -- the wording was different, but the meaning was the same -- to consider the advisability of introducing legislation, not a draft bill, in the House before December 15, 2005 based on the provisions of the act and the proposed amendments. It was understood that this would be presented by Commissioner Reid.
I see no reason for a draft bill when we're perhaps at the stage of drafting a bill. The proposed changes to the Access to Information Act have been amply discussed, in my view. FIrst, we had the Bryden committee. I've been told a Senate committee also examined this issue. The committee has done many studies and analyses. In addition, the Conservative government recently tabled a discussion paper.
I think the time has come for the government to table a bill to this committee. Then, we'd have something concrete to debate, not mere recommendations, guidelines and suggested topics of discussion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
At this point, no one has spoken against your motion. Mr. Martin has asked you to clarify why you feel you need the words “reaffirms the need to maintain the independence of the Office of the Information Commissioner”. I believe he clearly said that he would support the rest of your motion as indicated. Do you have some explanation as to why you included those words?
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
My motion is further to the work done last November. Having said that, I'm not particularly attached to it. If Mr. Martin wishes to withdraw... I would find it odd if we were to withdraw them. I fear it might send out a message that we're not concerned about maintaining the independence of the Office of the Information Commissioner. However, if, in withdrawing the motions, we're not at the same time sacrificing the independence of t his Office, then I have no objections.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I don't think this committee has ever challenged the independence of the commissioner. In fact, if you ever meet him, you'll find out he's pretty independent.
This committee requested the commissioner and his staff to prepare a bill, Mr. Chairman, which was prepared after much debate in this committee about proceeding with information. We did it out of frustration, quite frankly, with the lack of action by the former minister. The minister did come to us and present us with a paper, I recall, and the commissioner prepared a draft bill. He came, and we were briefed on that bill. I think there was even a report that went to the House, although I don't think it went on concurrence. But it did get to that stage.
It is unusual for this committee, of course...well, I guess nothing's unusual in this place, but normally the government decides whether they're going to introduce a bill and when they're going to introduce a bill. I guess there's nothing wrong with this committee doing that, but to be fair to the minister, I believe the minister should be given some time to prepare. He may introduce it--I don't know.
This committee never had public hearings on that bill. We simply passed it off to the House, and it was done in frustration, really. So we've never had public hearings on this bill, and I can't determine from the motion whether or not the mover is suggesting that precise bill be put forward, or whether some other legislation be put forward.
I have a lot of difficulty with the wording of the motion, because of the suggestion that the Office of the Information Commissioner is not independent. I think he is independent. In fact, I think he'd be quite offended by this motion.
I believe a more appropriate action would be.... Commissioner Reid will be coming to this committee. Presumably that will be scheduled by the clerk in due course. I expect it will be some time before the House rises--
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Quite frankly, I believe any form of motion such as this would be premature. The commissioner, I believe, has had discussions with the government officials. I don't know whether he's had discussions with the justice minister. But I think that before we get into this, I'd like to hear from the Information Commissioner as to what his position is and whether or not he's had discussions with the government. Once we've heard from the Information Commissioner, it would then be appropriate to determine what this committee is going to do with respect to any proposed information legislation.
Of course, the topic of information is being dealt with in the accountability legislation, and that may cause some problems as well as far as this committee and that committee are concerned.
Quite frankly, I think the motion is premature, and perhaps it might be more appropriate to table it after the Information Commissioner has had an opportunity to come and present his comments to the committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
I don't think I'll entertain any further comments on the portion of the motion that deals with the independence of the commissioner. The mover has already indicated she'd be happy to remove those words, so there's no point in debating it.
I'm advised by our researchers that this is the exact motion that this committee moved in the last Parliament--word for word, including the word “independence”--and I am told that was at the request of Mr. Lee. That doesn't mean anything other than as a point of information.
Mr. Tilson's basic point is, why don't we hear from the Information Commissioner first, then consider this motion at that time.
I have Mr. Stanton, Mr. Zed, then Mr. Martin.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I concur with my colleague on the points he raised on this. In looking at both documents that were tabled at the time that the Federal Accountability Act was introduced--one being the draft bill and the other being the discussion paper--and having looked at this for the first time, I note that by the information commissioner's own admission there have not been public consultations on this. I think this committee, and I'm sure the House, would benefit from that.
I also recognize that the motion in its wording is essentially non-binding on the minister, in terms of considering the advisability. Certainly we may get to a point at which we may want to look at something along that line, but I don't see the need at this point, in terms of imposing a deadline on this committee's work, of getting to that point and setting that time in front of us by the adjournment date.
The other point I have some real interest in, having looked at the discussion paper, is the cost implications. There is no question that we need to consider the kinds of amendments that need to be made to the proposed act--that's very clear--but it also carries, at first glance, a significant implication in terms of the cost and operations of government that I would like, as a committee member, to hear more about before we move ahead with that type of discussion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Thank you, Mr. Stanton.
As I read it, the motion does not compel the minister to do anything. To address another point that Mr. Tilson made, the legislation is recommended to be based on the proposed open government act. This clearly indicates the minister would be able to do what he wants, but recommends the use of the proposed open government act as a guideline, as opposed to the simple photocopying of it and calling it a government bill.
Mr. Zed.
Liberal
Paul Zed Liberal Saint John, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I recall, Mr. Tilson was the chairman of the committee and there was quite a bit of interest on this side of the table at the time. The priority was...in fact, I think there was a consensus that had developed from all sides to comply with the June 23 deadline. Obviously, there's been a general election since then, but I'm wondering, colleagues, whether or not it would be helpful to hear from the Minister of Justice on his philosophy regarding the backdrop of this, as well as from the commissioner, who I understand is now scheduled. I'm drawn to the logic of Mr. Tilson, which is that we should wait and really hear from the commissioner.
Philosophically, it strikes me that we have a new Minister of Justice, and he may not be the appropriate person, because at the time this was drafted, he was the appropriate person. I don't know if he is or he isn't, but if he is, then it strikes me we would want to hear from him as well.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you, Chair.
I wanted to ask, what date was the motion put last year? Was that the November 3 date? Is that the date that this exact motion was put forward last time?
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I have here the minutes of proceedings of the meeting of Thursday, November 3, 2005. That's not quite what the motion says. It reads as follows:
Pat Martin moved, -That the Committee direct the Research Staff to draft a report to the House of Commons, that the Committee accepts the Proposed “Open Government Act” as drafted by the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada with the following changes [...]