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.