Information & Ethics Committee on June 19th, 2006

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

You're asking why we didn't do more of this under Bill C-2. We did some of it under Bill C-2, and quite frankly, we did as much as we could under Bill C-2 without getting into areas we thought were simply too contentious in the divergence between what we believed was the right answer and what the Information Commissioner was suggesting.

I've listed the main issues where I have a concern about what we need to do. We've outlined them in the discussion report we've tabled here in the House, which you now have. Those are the issues we would like you to address.

Do I have specific answers to all of these issues? Personally, I do. I know where we should be going on all of these issues. What I would rather do is simply point out where I have concerns and leave it to the committee to determine whether my concerns are valid or whether they can be discounted so you can adopt the Information Commissioner's position.

I could go away in a couple of days and write what I believe should be done, but I think that would lead to all kinds of other issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Ms. Lavallée.

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

I was somewhat disappointed in what you said, Minister. I asked you whether you had a timetable for the new access to information bill, but you did not answer that question. We know what that means. When a government has no timetable, that means there is no political will. Many people sitting at this table, who have a great deal of political experience, could confirm that fact.

Ultimately, you want us to work on this for no good reason. While Mr. Martin may feel like doing that, I do not.

Rather, I would suggest that you come forward with a bill. Based on what you just said, you know that some steps must be taken. Do not wait, Minister: draft this up and present it to us. Then we can talk man to man!

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Let's look at it. You have the Information Commissioner's act. If you want to proceed in that direction as a committee, you may. You also have the concerns I've outlined in the discussion paper and in the address I gave you here today. So you have the information you need to consider. Are you prepared to simply write the act now?

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

Drafting laws is your government's responsibility, Minister. If you want to do that, please do not hesitate. However, if you have no intention whatsoever of doing that, do not give us work to hide the fact that you do not intend to do anything.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

If you're suggesting we set a schedule, I know the first thing the committee would say is, “You're interfering with the operations of a committee.” I can tell you that this bill we brought forward, Bill C-2--

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

I am sorry, Minister, I must interrupt you. That is not what you did in the case of the Bill C-2. You really intended to pass legislation on accountability and you have done that. You behaved as a responsible government.

At the moment, you are trying to demonstrate to us that you are responsible. However, you are not trying to be transparent. The fact of the matter is that you cannot have one without the other, Minister.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Well, I think we're getting into discussions that lead nowhere.

I can assure you that the number of amendments in Bill C-2 have demonstrated a good working relationship among all the parties, even though it was spirited at times. It's a priority for us. Bill C-2 is our priority, but we have to still be cautious in terms of the legislation we bring forward.

If you had wanted, we could have had an Information Commissioner's act. We could have said, these are the suggestions for what we would change. We could have asked what the committee thought about it, and we could have you given two weeks to make a decision. I don't think it's the appropriate way to proceed, because the first thing you would have said is that we were restricting the area of inquiry that the committee should be looking at by suggesting these are the only issues. Secondly, by putting a time limit on it, you'd say that we were interfering with the privileges of this committee.

I know that no matter what decision I made, I would have made the wrong one. But I can tell you that I believe the decision we made with respect to bringing the discussion paper here is the best decision. We are committed to moving this matter ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Good afternoon, Minister. Thank you for being with us today.

My colleague, Mr. Martin and I sat on the Legislative Committee on Bill C-2. We realized quite quickly what the government had asked for. Moreover, my colleague Mr. Stanton asked a question, and there was subsequently a discussion about the information that a member of Parliament should provide. We are wondering whether ministers, because they are also members of Parliament, must provide information. Conversely, a member of Parliament may also be a minister.

When we were studying Bill C-2, Mr. Martin, myself and the committee almost caused the proceedings to go off the rails, because we had forgotten to ask a particular question. It was actually the law clerk, Mr. Walsh, who pointed out that some provisions of the bill could violate members' privileges. We had not wondered about that until that time. So I would like to know whether there could be a violation of privilege when members have to provide information. For example, if a lobbyist meets with an opposition MP and the latter subsequently goes to see a minister, the member has indirectly done something the act prohibits him or her from doing.

In short, you are asking us to ask ourselves some questions about our immunity as ministers and members of Parliament with respect to information.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Absolutely. It's a very good example of issues where, whether it was inadvertent or not, it was an infringement on the traditional privileges of a member of the House of Commons and Parliament generally.

We had to re-examine that particular issue. I know the clerk basically said that from a constitutional point of view, whether it's a Charter of Rights point of view or a division of powers point of view, you could go ahead and legislate to restrict your own privileges, but to be mindful of what you were doing. It wasn't unconstitutional in a traditional sense, but it very directly had an impact on your privileges as members.

When we talk about the privileges of members, I want to make sure people understand that we're talking about the tools you need in order to better serve your constituents. Similarly, when we're talking about this legislation, we are looking at the necessary tools to properly make decisions in government to serve the people of Canada.

Whether it's the retention of cabinet confidences, the retention of solicitor-client privilege, or some of the other issues, these are not issues that need to simply be looked at from a narrow point of view. We need to examine them. That's why I think the committee process is the best process to examine it.

Again, as your colleague, Mr. Wallace, pointed out, there are not that many issues, but I think we need your input on them. I don't see the actual drafting of the bill taking very long, but the fundamental policy issues behind these sections are profound.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you very much, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Minister Toews, you've said to more than one member of the committee that if we're serious, we're free to adopt the Information Commissioner's package as a bill, if we're comfortable with the 15 points that you've raised. What you don't say is, where do we go from there? We can't introduce that bill into the House, even if we were perfectly satisfied with every clause in it, or even if we changed 15 clauses and were then satisfied with it. You're the only one who can stand up in the House and introduce it, because there's a money matter associated with it. We can't even do it as a private member's bill, because I presume some of those costs that you itemized would be deemed to be a money bill; it would need a royal recommendation.

It's not quite fair to say that you've given us everything we need to have a bill. We don't. We have Mr. Reid's ideas that he thinks would form a good bill. I have a private member's bill that John Bryden drafted; he spent 10 years anguishing over that bill. He had an all-party task force of MPs.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Of which I was a member.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I remember. This has been studied to death. I thought, and I still believe, that if you are serious about our having true input and control as a committee, had you given us that bill at first reading, prior to it getting approved of, in principle, at second reading, then we would have a proper bill, a working document, with the latitude to make significant amendments to it, because it's at first reading. Why didn't you go that route?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

If what you're suggesting now is that you're comfortable with the recommendations that I've made on those 15 points and some of these concerns I've raised, and other than that you want us to simply introduce that kind of bill, that's a recommendation this committee can make.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I think Mr. Martin's question is more specific, and that is, why didn't you bring forward an Access to Information Act, table it, and allow this committee to look at it and study it before second reading?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I can't answer that question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Was it discussed as a possibility?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I can't say because I don't know.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I will deal with something more specific then. One of the pieces of unfinished business at Bill C-2 was an access to information amendment that was agreed to by all the parties, but it was ruled out of order, and that was the duty to create documents. We had all-party agreement to that.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Duty to document....

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes. Would you consider making that change now, as an independent stand-alone piece of legislation, as there was all-party agreement, instead of waiting for this bill, which I'm afraid may not come in this Parliament?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

All I can say is I can get back to you on that particular issue. I know there's a bit of controversy about the bill. It was ruled out of scope here, but there's a bit of controversy as to the extent to which that documentation needs to take place. Are you talking about final decisions that need to be documented? Are you talking about every interim decision along the way? It could be a very complex bill; it could be a very simple bill--