Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Marleau, I'm pleased to see the tone of your comments today. You used the word “champion”, and I firmly believe the Information Commissioner has to be more than an administrator. He or she has to be a proactive advocate. You found, I suppose, in the original debate around the original bill that the notion of being an advocate isn't in any way contradictory to your appointment, but that's what we've been lacking.
A lot of us who have been at this for a while have been so frustrated and let down time and time again by successive governments: first the Liberals, now the Conservatives. The NDP has never let them down on access to information. We're consistent.
But this act needs opening up. I'm fond of using the term that freedom of information is the oxygen democracy breathes, and you can't overstate how critical it is.
So I appreciate the tone of your introductory remarks.
But having said that, I want to talk to you about the process. We've just passed Bill C-2, and we're about to give it royal assent today, I believe. When the government introduced Bill C-2 they said they would act as if the terms and conditions of Bill C-2 were already in effect, that they would stipulate themselves to this higher standard of accountability even though the bill hadn't passed yet. It was back in April, and it has a whole section on the public appointments process—in other words, getting patronage out of politics, etc.
I am by no means trying to infer that your appointment has anything to do with patronage, but if we're going to stipulate ourselves to a higher standard of process, why did it not apply to your arriving here today? What do you think of the process that nominated you? Is it in compliance with the spirit of this new process we're about to ratify today? What would you recommend as an improvement to that nomination process to make it more open and transparent in the spirit of this bill that we've all worked on?