Information & Ethics Committee on June 19th, 2006

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I want to expand on that. When you came with this--and like Mike and some of my other colleagues here, I'm new at this, so we weren't involved with the process--did you expect that these proposals would be adopted? Did you suspect, possibly, that we would look at some of these things? Let's take that a step farther. My colleague is somewhat concerned that this is going to be an exercise in futility. Isn't the process--we've asked you for a lot of opinions, so I'm going to ask you for one as well--one where we engage you, and then you give us your expertise, but could there not be a possibility that your side might be somewhat prejudiced on the one end so that we need to ask those on the other side to come to a consensus? I would agree, a lot of these proposals are excellent, but there are a few that I'm very concerned about.

[John Reid]

I should tell you that I do have a bias. My bias is contained in the act. The bias is that all government information should be freely available, except those that are kept secret, but the secrecy is to be kept narrow and limited. That's my bias. My bias is to follow that order in the act. I will always, generally speaking, come down on the side of openness. I've had a lot of experience in government, having spent 20 years in the House of Commons and some time as a member of cabinet, and I understand the necessity for secrecy in a whole range of areas.

What I basically do in my office is I sit there and I read government files that are in dispute. I have a pretty good understanding of what can go and what shouldn't go, as does my office. That's one of the reasons why I'm happy I don't have the order-making power, because that would turn me into a judicial tribunal. I think the ombudsman role is very powerful, because it does protect these secrecy interests of the government, which are legitimate, so that those decisions are reached by a court of law and can be appealed.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I have one more quick question.

Much allusion was made to the fact that this government, once it gained power--and I don't know if that's the case--seems to have backed off, and the same thing happened with the former government.

I'm sure you're a parent. I'm a parent, and before we had kids we knew how to raise kids, but all of a sudden you've got them and it's simply not that easy. Is it possible that this is what we're witnessing here?

[John Reid]

It's a very good analogy, but I did say, in response to somebody else about the paper the minister was talking about, that it had great echoes of the paper that came down from the previous government, and I thought it was maybe a governmental thing rather than a political party thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

I only have Mr. Tilson on the list. If anyone else wants to ask a question, they merely need to notify the clerk. We still have time, but we also have the second report of the steering committee that I'd like to discuss before we adjourn at 7:30 p.m.

I'm going to recognize Mr. Tilson next.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

During the Bill C-2 hearings, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms cropped up, so I have a question with respect to some sections in your proposed bill, as well as the existing bill, which I hadn't thought of when we reviewed this before and when we were being briefed by you earlier.

It may be a question to Monsieur Brunet, I don't know, but it has to do with the penalty provisions that are in sections 67 and 67.1.

Section 67 was left as is for your proposed changes, and section 67.1 talked about adding a new penalty clause if there was a failure to create a record in accordance with section 2.1.

My question to anyone--perhaps Monsieur Brunet--is, subsection (2) of 67.1 talks about the penalties and talks about a fine not exceeding $10,000. It also talks about incarceration for a term not exceeding six months. My question is whether any of you have directed your thoughts to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to that section.

[John Reid]

Mr. Chairman, that particular clause was in a private member's bill that passed. It was in the name of Madame Beaumier, and it was passed through the justice committee after a somewhat acrimonious debate, I am told. That clause had been there, so it sort of came into our domain without us thinking too much about the charter responsibility because it came directly from the justice committee and the House of Commons.

To my knowledge, it's never been used. But it was done because documents had been destroyed in the blood case, where the contaminated blood had been...and that was the reaction of the House of Commons to the destruction of those documents.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

That's fine. I don't want to get into debate with the justice committee or anyone else. I guess I'm looking at the issue as yet another area that perhaps you or your staff should be looking at--and it's probably a legal issue--as to whether or not that subsection (2) of section 67.1 creates problems with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[J. Alan Leadbeater]

In what sense, Mr. Tilson? I'm not sure I understand.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

The issue of incarceration.

[J. Alan Leadbeater]

Are you suggesting that the Parliament of Canada can't make criminal law?

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Well, no. It's not up to me to make any suggestion. I just believe--

[J. Alan Leadbeater]

I'm only wondering what your issue was.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Well, it's--

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

It would be cruel and unusual punishment.

[J. Alan Leadbeater]

I see.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I don't want to be flippant about it. I mean, it was an issue. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was raised in the committee reviewing Bill C-2 and it just popped up. I only question whether our attention should be drawn to that section with respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I'll leave that with you.

[John Reid]

Yes, we'll look at it.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you, Mr. Tilson.

Mr. Dhaliwal is next.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is to the honourable Mr. Reid. From the discussion, it's quite evident that the new government has done exactly the things for which its predecessor has been ridiculed. The government has only issued a discussion paper instead of a comprehensive reform bill.

I would like to echo Mr. Peterson's comment that if the government really has a will to pass this act, they should table that act asap. On the other hand, the minister was here earlier as well, and Mr. Chair you can be a witness to this. He said he wanted to be on the right side of this and he wanted to get it done right. If he had a bill to be on the right side, that is to bring this act before the committee, before Parliament, for a reading...though you cannot read the mind of the government, certainly you can comment on whether it would be wise to bring in an act in draft form rather than a discussion paper, as this new government brought in.

[John Reid]

Mr. Chairman, since I brought the open government act to this committee, the big change has been that Judge Gomery has had an extensive look at it, and his report is very clear in supporting it. It's had a pretty good legal examination to make sure everything in there is doable. So his comments are pretty clear.

There's no question in my mind that the best way to proceed with legislation is to do it in the form of legislation, because then we can see precisely and exactly what the definitions are. No matter how you do a discussion document, there's always a certain amount of vagueness about it. It's only when you sit down and actually have to work out what these provisions are and how they are to work that you really come down to the nitty-gritty of what you can do and what you can't do, and what continues to be ambiguous and what is clear.

So I always prefer to see things done in a legislative format, particularly before committee. I think the frustration some feel today is the same frustration felt by the previous committee, and I think the answer to this frustration is to proceed the way the previous committee did proceed.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

We go to Mr. Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

That is all right, I will pass this time.