Information & Ethics Committee on June 19th, 2006

Evidence of meeting #4 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 c-2.

On the agenda

Review of the Access to Information Act

Committee Business

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Carolyn Kobernick Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law Sector, Department of Justice

Joan Remsu General Counsel, Public Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

John Reid Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

J. Alan Leadbeater Deputy Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

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.

6:50 p.m.

Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

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.

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

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?

6:50 p.m.

Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

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.

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

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.

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

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.

6:50 p.m.

Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

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.