Information & Ethics Committee on June 19th, 2006

[John Reid]

For example, the section that deals with cabinet records is basically common to all provincial legislatures, where the Information Commissioner can see cabinet documents to make sure that only cabinet documents are subject to that exemption. Only in Canada at the federal level are cabinet documents considered to be so secret that the Information Commissioner cannot see them, to assure that only the information that is truly cabinet confidence is kept private.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you. That's very helpful.

We'll now go to Madame Lavallée.

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

Good afternoon, Mr. Reid. I'm pleased to see you.

I do not know whether you heard me drawing a parallel between Bill C-2 and our committee's work a little earlier. The review of Bill C-2 could never proceed quickly enough. I think the committee sat up to 45 hours a week, while our committee did not meet every week. The members of the legislative committee on Bill C-2 said that they had enough information and enough analysis to proceed more quickly and pass the bill.

Our committee has the same type of information, but we've got both feet on the brakes. Moreover, some said that Bill C-2 was proceeding so quickly that it would be imperfect. Yet our committee is told to take its time, to debate and improve upon the bill you proposed.

From the minister's comments, which have been reported to you here and there, I really have the impression that this government has no intention whatsoever to modernize the Access to Information Act. I think Bill C-2 will be enough for the government to go back to the voters and have them judge their achievements.

Can you give me your impressions about what the government is doing, Mr. Reid? Do you agree with me?

[John Reid]

I must say, Mr. Chairman, that the approach taken by the current government is identical to the approach taken by the previous government, so it is more likely to be a governmental approach rather than a political party approach.

However, the government, having made its decision that it would separate the open government act into two parts,10% of it going into Bill C-2 and the rest into committee for discussion, I think we have to respect the decision that has been taken and try to work with it as best we can. That's why I offered to Mr. Tilson that we would come back with a cleaned-up version for you, so that in the fall, if you wished to take it forward, you would have the best information possible and you would be able to proceed at your own pace.

I think Bill C-2 being done and the 45 hours a week that they were putting in over it...I think that would give you the opportunity to do what you had to do. You could probably finish up within a month or so, maybe two months, and you would have a good report for the House.

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

With all due respect, Mr. Reid, I must tell you that personally, I'm not at all pleased to do another study of your cleaned-up open government act, because in my opinion, this government has no intention of proceeding.

So rather than listening to more experts telling us the same things, rather than making intelligent comments—because we are all intelligent—about the existential anxiety, concerns and reluctance of the minister, we could all go off and play golf. That would be a lot more fun and would produce far more results, because at least we would improve our golf game. I do not think that we are going to improve the bill here in committee.

Rather than asking us to work for nothing, would it be realistic to ask the minister to do his homework again, to take the open government act and to set aside his existential anxiety? He said he knew exactly what he wanted. So let him go ahead and do that and bring forward another bill in September. Do you think that would be realistic?

[John Reid]

I agree with you that it's always easier to work with a piece of legislation, and it's always easier to work with a piece of government legislation because you're dealing with something that's real, and that would be the way to go. If that could be done, I would be one of the happiest people around.

I have another agenda that I have to talk to you about at some point, but the extension that the current government gave me runs out at the end of September. So I would want to make sure before that term ends, if it does end, that I have provided you with the information and the material you need to make good decisions and be able to promote the open government act with the government.

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

Do I still have some time left? No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

On that point about a clean copy, the committee has yet to make a decision as to what it's going to do and how it's going to do it. But I can assure you that if the committee does make a decision that involves studying the Access to Information Act, we would ask you at the earliest possible opportunity to provide us with a clean copy of your views.

Next is Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Reid, thank you for appearing in front of us.

Would it be fair to say, about the open government legislation you proposed last fall, that parliamentarians have never had the chance to debate it at the committee level?

[John Reid]

I can't answer that question because the committee had it in its possession for about six weeks and then produced its seventh report, forwarding it on to the House of Commons.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

You were never called to talk to it?

[John Reid]

Mr. Leadbeater was called to give a technical briefing and I was called to give a discussion. But the committee itself held discussions and deliberations after that and then moved to its seventh report.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

You didn't have people following this to find out what the discussions were and the kind of feedback?

[John Reid]

A lot of them were in camera.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you.

The point my colleague from the other side is trying to make is that she doesn't believe that the government of today is serious about reform to the act. Even though you're quite critical in your response to the minister's response--in your language anyway, whether it's sincere or not--you state that part of it went into Bill C-2, but the rest has come here. It's not as if we've abandoned it; you just don't like the method by which we have decided to review it or tackle the issue.

Is that a fair statement?

[John Reid]

I accept that the government has made a decision to divide the proposed open government act of the committee in two, and I'm prepared to work with the committee on that basis.

[J. Alan Leadbeater]

The commissioner wasn't here during the minister's evidence that even though the discussion paper was cloaked as raising questions, they implied criticisms that he had already made his mind up. The Information Commissioner--

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I don't understand. You don't think the minister has the right to have a different opinion on what was proposed by a non-elected official?

[J. Alan Leadbeater]

I'm just saying this witness hadn't heard that part of his evidence before. I'd never heard before that the minister's discussion points were actually intended to be government positions contrary to the proposed open government act.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'm new to this and new to this piece of legislation. I've read most of the material, if not all of it. I don't know what else might be out there. I was struck by one area where you suggested, on information shared between governments, that if one government says we can release it, we should release it. On security and stuff, it really surprised me that you would actually recommend that kind of thing.

Internationally, what other governments are doing the same thing?

[J. Alan Leadbeater]

The idea of an injury test doesn't mean we're recommending that it be disclosed. You have to recall that in a changing world we have information in the hands of government here that has been provided in confidence by governments that no longer exist. How do you ever get that information released under the current provision, with no discretion and no injury test?

Injury tests and discretionary exemptions only allow you to take into account the circumstances and the times. They still allow you to keep secrets, if the circumstance and the time require it.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

But the decision-making ends up in your office. Is that not correct?

[J. Alan Leadbeater]

We don't make those decisions.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

You make recommendations that can be challenged in a court.

[J. Alan Leadbeater]

Only ministers make those recommendations.