Evidence of meeting #46 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 report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
That's correct. The motion to switch the order was defeated, as I understand it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
There were two “noes” there. The motion is defeated.
Mr. Wallace, are you prepared to move your motion?
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Mr. Chair, I am prepared to move my motion.
My motion has the same wording I presented at committee, and it is very close to what Madame Lavallée had, with some editing:
That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics address the internal report by the Department of Foreign Affairs entitled Afghanistan 2006: Good Governance, Democratic Development and Human Rights. This review is to occur after the Information Commissioner completes his ruling(s) on any and all ATI requests his office has received regarding this document.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
First of all, let me just say that you're moving the motion. I find the motion is order. You may discuss it.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
That's a good point. Monsieur Vincent asked that question to me the other day.
I understand Madame Lavallée's interest in this item in terms of seeing whether the document in question was properly handled by the administrative staff of the foreign affairs department, which I believe is where it comes from, but the fact of the matter is that we have a system in place, and I think this committee, of all committees, should be respecting the Information Commissioner's role. They have had official requests for a review of whether that was an accurate blacking out of that document or not.
I think it would be very much premature of us to call witnesses in the middle of that review going on. I believe there's a number of ATI requests that have come in, as they weren't happy with the document they received. They are appealing to the Information Commissioner to rule on those issues, whether there needs to be change.
As we know, the Information Commissioner, who was here a few weeks ago, indicated to us that through their investigation they have the right to look at the document. They look at all 13 sections of the law that allows for the blacking out of certain areas, and they make a determination of whether that was the right thing to do or not. Then they make a ruling on whether that should be released or if there should be changes.
For us to get involved as a committee in the middle of that process.... I've talked to Mr. Martin about this before. I'm not one opposed to looking at access to information legislation, when it could be from a broader piece, but I don't think we should be getting involved in the middle of an investigation that's done by the commission that reports to this committee.
My guess would be that you could call them in as witnesses and they'd tell you that they're in the middle of an investigation, a quasi-legal procedure, and that they can't answer that question for us, or can't give us a determination, because that would prejudice the work that their investigators are doing. I think there are some issues on timing here, but I think this will be done fairly quickly because of the newsworthiness of the requests, and the commission will work on that fairly quickly.
I think it's appropriate for this committee. If we're interested in seeing what the answers are from a procedural point of view, I think that's great. But I think we need to get the ruling first, before we start calling witnesses who are in the middle of an investigation, who won't be able to answer any questions on this particular item because they have a legal obligation to do otherwise.
I don't mind doing a study on it. On this piece here...I only indicate the one because that's what my friend from the opposition wanted to look at. We got a report and an update from the commissioner saying he misled us a little bit, that he thought there were 66 but there are only 55 or 51--I can't remember the number--pieces of legislation that had requests. The department had refused to listen to the advice of the commissioner and they had to go to court on it.
The commissioner won on a number of those areas.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
All but three.
I don't mind looking at that as a big picture item, call witnesses, people who were involved in those court cases--those court cases are now public--but to get involved in the middle of an investigation.... If there had been no ATI requests, I'd have a different story. But they are in the middle of looking at it. He told us about at least one. I think Mr. Peterson mentioned that the Liberal Party was going to bring one. So I don't think we will get any good answers. I think we're better off waiting until the rulings, and then the committee can look at the rulings to determine whether it is the right thing to be doing. If we're not happy with the interpretation of the 13 sections, that's where we can make recommendations to the government of the day that these are the kinds of changes we need to have made to the legislation so that this type of activity, if we find it inappropriate, can't occur.
I'm prepared to debate the 13 sections and all that stuff, but I think my motion basically says that as a committee we'll agree to look at it, but we'll agree to look at it after the Information Commissioner rules on whether it was appropriate or not, and then we'll look at the policy issues surrounding that document.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Thank you, Mr. Wallace.
I have Mr. Stanton, Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Martin at the present time.
We'll go to Mr. Stanton.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know we are debating Mr. Wallace's motion, but the background, or context, we're dealing with is really the difference between Madame Lavallée's motion, which is presumably the next piece of business after this one, and Mr. Wallace's I think more thoughtful approach to this issue, which has been raised in the House of Commons. We know it's been a point of debate over the last two weeks.
Mr. Wallace, I think, has made the point quite clearly that there is an access to information process. A review and investigation of this issue is before the Information Commissioner. We heard that loud and clear when the commissioner was here two weeks ago.
By point of background, the question is really whether we should be jumping into this now. Or should we wait for the proper time if, in the course of our mandate as a committee, we still consider it worthy to even open up this topic once the Information Commissioner's office has completed its review? So is it now, or is it at a proper time later?
To that point, I would say that there are at least two other committees that have this in front of them. As far as I understand, this has been brought forward. Our mandate, our purview, is to consider aspects of the protection of privacy, the release of information, and access to information. That's our purview. There are other components to this Afghanistan 2006 report that may concern other committees. It's certainly well within their realm to look at those issues.
The point is that we have a busy agenda in front of us. Now here we are interrupting our important work today on an important matter concerning privacy. It's an issue that was debated at some length and brought forward to us by numerous witnesses in the course of our PIPEDA review. We're continuing on the identity theft topic. It's a topic we all agreed to. We also have, if we look ahead, a possible review of the Privacy Act in front of us.
It makes no sense at this stage, because of what appears to be political expediency on the part of some opposition members, to try take that proper course of study off track to get into something that already is in front of two other committees. And it's already in front of the Information Commissioner, who, I might add, is the key person, the impartial office, that is the right office to look at these matters.
Mr. Wallace's approach is good. It recognizes these facts. It puts the potential study of this issue after such time as the Information Commissioner has had a look at this. Then when and if the results of that particular investigation are made public, they might become a helpful piece of study for this committee if at that time it chooses to proceed.
So I think this is a sensible approach. I certainly argue in favour of waiting for that time and certainly for keeping this as a potential item for study by this committee. But it shouldn't be now. It makes no sense to do it right now.
Liberal
Jim Peterson Liberal Willowdale, ON
Can I ask the staff how long it takes the Information Commissioner to respond to a request? Is it 30 days?
Nancy Holmes Committee Researcher
That's to respond to an access request. If you're asking for information, it's not the Information Commissioner; it's the ATIP coordinator in the department who has 30 days to respond. There's no time limit on the complaint process for the Information Commissioner, if that's what you're asking about.
Liberal
Liberal
Jim Peterson Liberal Willowdale, ON
It says “any and all ATI requests”. That would mean that future requests could put off our study of this issue. I think it's far too open-ended. I don't see any problem in going with Madame Lavallée's approach. If there are things that prevent us from looking fully at this when it comes up, we'll be made aware of them at the time. But I would not support a motion that could indefinitely sideline us from dealing with this issue.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Thank you.
We'll have Mr. Martin, followed by Mr. Van Kesteren and Mr. Dhaliwal.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I can be quite brief, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Peterson summed it up quite well. I am also concerned that the language Mr. Wallace has chosen leaves open an opportunity to postpone and delay.
I asked the Information Commissioner very specifically, when he was here, given the urgency or the way we view this matter as being very urgent, is it possible to bump it up on the waiting list at your office?
Quite rightly, he answered no; they are very consciously and deliberately blind as to the intake of cases. This the way it should be, now that I've thought it through. But this means that for all we know, this could be number 50, 60, or 70 on his list of investigations to get around to. I'm just pulling figures out of the air; I have no way of knowing.
Given how serious this matter is, the Information Commissioner's investigation will take a great deal of time.
It's a rare and unique situation. It's probably an unprecedented situation where the government blacks out a bunch of a document. First, that the government denies the existence of the document is a very serious offence. It's rare that the government would get tripped up on having denied its existence and then be forced to reveal it.
Second, it's very rare to have huge sections blacked out and then to get to see the original document and see what they've blacked out. That doesn't happen very often. I don't know of any case where that's happened. It gives great cause for concern. I think that's why the public is so seized with the issue, and we should be.
Regarding Mr. Wallace's argument that we have lots of other important business--or maybe it was Mr. Stanton's--I don't think we have anything as pressing, given that the title and mandate of this committee involves being the guarantors of freedom of information in this country. Overseeing the fair administration of the freedom of information is the responsibility that we've been charged with. I don't see any other issue that's as pressing or as poignant. So I think this issue should have primacy over less timely or time-sensitive issues.
The other reason—and I won't drag this on—is that our committee has unique investigative powers, which the Information Commissioner doesn't have, to compel witnesses and the production of papers. The magic of the Information Commissioner's package of powers is that he has more of an ombudsman-style office. He gets good cooperation from the departments, but the flip side or downside is that he doesn't quite have the clout to produce the information we may want.
I don't see any contradiction to having our investigation going on parallel to the Information Commissioner's.
I will stop there and simply say that I will be voting against Mr. Wallace's motion and in favour of Ms. Lavallée's motion.