First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the Conservative government does not really seem to know what the word “transparency” actually means. We are still waiting for the Minister to come forward with the new Access to Information Act. You let it slip, at previous meetings, that the Minister of Justice has indefinitely postponed his meeting with the Committee and that he may come and see us in September, at a date that is yet to be determined. That is another demonstration of the fact that this Conservative government—which is starting to be old, as a matter of fact—has no desire to be transparent and is not transparent. One has only to read the internal report from the Department of Foreign Affairs, entitled Good Governance, Democratic Development and Human Rights, to see that this government is not transparent. This is a report that the government has denied ever existed. It has done everything possible to prevent its release. However, it was subsequently forced to make it public by the Information Commissioner. So, it had to go back and do its homework all over again, and ended up blacking out just about everything there was to be blacked out.
As regards the two motions in front of us, I would like to take you back to September 27, 2006, when Jason Kenney tabled a motion almost identical to these ones. It read as follows:
That the Committee investigate and report on issues related to the alleged disclosure of the names of Access to Information applicants to political staff of the current and previously governments.
The Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary came here to ask us to analyze, study and investigate a special case involving privacy. That is exactly what we did. We had at least seven meetings, in addition to the one where we voted on the notice of motion, and an additional meeting, held in camera, to prepare a report. We had approximately ten hours of meetings with witnesses. In other words, we worked very hard, and our legitimacy is an established fact.
Indeed, it's worth looking at the arguments made by Mr. Kenney to sell us on his idea of an investigation. He began by saying that this was: “[…] a general motion without limiting the Committee.” Have a look at the blues yourself; that is exactly how it is written. He said, and I quote: “This is the appropriate Committee to examine the question […]” and that the Commissioner had told us she had received a complaint. This is exactly the same situation. He added that it was important that we look at the practices of the Conservative government in this Committee. I am still quoting Jason Kenney's exact words on September 27, 2006. Go and have a look at the blues. He also said this: “[…] because we can be less partisan here than in the House, obviously.” Finally, he said—and we can all agree with this: “[…] we all agree that it's inappropriate.”
Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you can understand that I will not be supporting Mr. Wallace's motion and, if he agrees, I would like to ask that we put this to a vote immediately so that, out of respect for our guests, we can quickly dispose of these two motions and move on to discuss identity theft, as Mr. Van Kesteren is asking, in order that at the next meeting, or at a subsequent meeting, we are able to look more closely at government practices with respect to access to information.
Thank you.