Information & Ethics Committee on June 7th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Order.

We will be discussing the fifth report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, and since I chair that particular subcommittee, I will report on behalf of the subcommittee.

Your subcommittee met on Monday, May 14, 2007, to consider future business of the committee. It was the consensus of members present, but not unanimous—we've heard that phrase before—that the most senior officials from the Department of Justice be invited to appear before the committee with respect to the Access to Information Act and related matters. That is the recommendation from the consensus of the subcommittee.

What is the rationale for it? Allow me to explain.

The very first report of this committee—I think it was the first report—asked for the Minister of Justice to bring forward an act by no later than the end of December for us to consider. We never did receive a response from the minister in any way, shape, or form.

The minister then was moved laterally to the Treasury Board, and a new minister came on board. We've asked repeatedly to have that new minister attend before us, only to be told that he's too busy to attend before our committee, at least until the fall.

Your subcommittee in consensus felt that this was an inappropriate attitude of the minister—in fact, of ministers, plural—and we struggled with how we could impress upon the minister how serious we believe it is that he appear before the committee on the issue of access to information.

It's very appropriate that Mr. Dewar reminded this committee of the conversations and debates that took place with respect to Bill C-2, and in particular of the apparent disappointment of some that access to information was not dealt with in full in Bill C-2, but rather that there was a promise that it would be dealt with separately. Of course, this committee, I think it's fair to say, sees absolutely no evidence of that occurring at the present time.

We were reminded by Mr. Walsh—maybe it wasn't Mr. Walsh, but it is a known fact—that we have no authority to require or compel a minister of the crown to appear before us. We can only invite a minister of the crown to appear before us. If the minister of the crown chooses not to appear, then we have to end up being relatively creative in trying to convince or cajole that minister to appear before us.

One of the methods that was suggested, and frankly it was suggested by me, was to require the attendance of, shall we say for illustration purposes, though there's no particular number in this subcommittee report, the top ten officials at the Department of Justice, from the deputy minister on down, following the chain as it relates to access to information—there's no point in having somebody who's involved in something entirely different at the Department of Justice, but it would be with the deputy minister included—and have those people summoned to appear, so that they must be here, and have them sit here, even if we're too busy to hear them, until we get around to hearing them. That might be in two, three, four, five, six meetings, because we're very busy with this subject, with identity theft.

This would certainly give the message to the upper echelon of the justice department that the committee is very unhappy at having been snubbed by the minister.

One would hope it wouldn't get to that.

If the committee were of a view to adopt the fifth report, obviously that fifth report would very quickly be brought to the attention of the department. They would have the entire summer to think about it and to consult with their minister. In the meantime, if this report were adopted, I would ask the clerk to again ask the minister to make himself available, and we would indicate that we would be prepared to meet with him at any reasonable time, including scheduling a special meeting if necessary, perhaps on a Wednesday evening over supper, or whatever the case may be. We would be as accommodating as possible to the minister's schedule, but at the same time he would recognize that if nothing transpires, then we expect the top officials, including the deputy minister and on down, to be in attendance at our committee at every meeting we have until we're ready to meet with them.

That should send, we hope, the appropriate message of how seriously we view this issue and how important it is, we think, that we have the justice minister back to discuss what the government's plans are with respect to either a new Access to Information Act or amending the information act.

That's the rationale, basically, behind the fifth report. Again, it's what some might call a mini-nuclear option, but perhaps if the department were of the view that the committee was prepared to use the mini-nuclear option, it might reconsider the busy schedule of the minister. Let's put it that way. That's more or less the breakdown of this, and it would give lots of time for the department and the minister's scheduling people to think about things. We're not talking about doing this, I don't think, frankly, in the next two meetings. I'm talking about when we return.

Of course, if there's a prorogation, this committee is defunct. There may be new members on it, it may be an entirely different situation, and that committee will have to come to grips in its own time with how it wants to deal with this issue.

If we were to adopt this report it would at least send the appropriate message, in my view, to the department, about how serious we are about having the minister here to talk about the government's plans with respect to access to information.

So on behalf of the consensus—although not unanimous—of the subcommittee, I'm urging our committee to accept this report. I'm urging them to accept it unanimously so that we send the appropriate message. If the committee does accept this report unanimously, I'm already undertaking in advance, as chair, that I would ask the clerk to seek a reasonable time in late September, early October, for the Minister of Justice to appear before us, and thereby obviate the necessity for this kind of thing.

Those are my comments. I invite comment.

Mr. Tilson.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I will be opposing the proposal. What this motion will do, if it is carried out, is essentially paralyze the Ministry of Justice, and I think that's totally irresponsible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

It would only do so if the minister doesn't come.

Any other comments?

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

The fact is we have the request to the minister and he's decided that he has other things on his plate and this isn't important. It's not like we decided this was the first shot at it. This was because of the frustration of the committee. If the minister's deciding, and he has that right, as was mentioned, that he isn't able, or perhaps some would say willing, to come before our committee, then as a committee you have to look at other options.

I remind committee members of this report from the Information Commissioner. As I said before in committee, it's not a great report card. There's some remediation required. If we can't get the minister to come forward—And I must note that one of the ministries that gets a failing grade is the justice department, and we've seen the foot-dragging from them.

I guess I just have to buttress the comments made by the chair. How the heck do you deal with a ministry when the minister doesn't come forward? You have to look at other ways of doing it, because the people demand accountability from the government, and if the minister of the crown's not willing to come forward, what other options do you have?

This is a government that ran on accountability. This is a government that brought forward the accountability act. The foundation of accountability is transparency, it's access to information. If we don't have that and we don't have the ministers willing to come forward, then I think we have to try other options.

I think the Canadian people demand that, and that's not a rhetorical flourish. That's the foundation of what we're here to do. It's to provide representation to citizens. One way of doing that is access to information. The way you do that is through a minister of the crown. If he's not willing to come, well—

I think the chair's being very reasonable in saying make accommodations for the minister. He's a very busy person, granted. We all are. What's important? He is paid by the public to represent them on issues like this, and I think it's really important that we send a strong message, and if he's not willing, then to bring officials forward to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Coud we have Mr. Stanton, followed by Madame Lavallée?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I take Mr. Dewar's comments to heart. The only thing is the fifth report doesn't say anything about again asking the minister. This is really a secondary tactic based on the fact that there has not yet been the ability to get the minister scheduled. I'm reminded that the minister did indicate that he wouldn't be able to meet this committee until the fall. The fall is going to be reasonably quickly upon us. We were talking here today about perhaps one or maybe two meetings before the fall.

What I see is in fact, as the minister has stated, a willingness to come before this committee in the fall when we resume our committee work in mid-September, presumably. I don't disagree with the sense that the committee should probably consider elevating the pressure. But to Mr. Tilson's point, it's awfully obstructive as well, and I wouldn't want to resort to that tactic until such time as we in fact can't get the minister before us, and I see that there's a willingness by the minister to come.

If we could amend the report—I don't know if that's technically possible—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Yes, it is.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

—by saying “That the committee follow through on the minister's assertion that he will appear before the committee in the fall of 2007, and that if it comes to pass that we cannot schedule that meeting”—or words to that effect—“that this secondary tactic be considered”, or something to that effect—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Before we start drafting a motion, technically fall begins around September 21 and ends on December 21. So by definition, “fall” includes a long time, and I don't think anybody would suggest that we expect the minister to attend on December 19 or something like that.

So if you wanted to perhaps amend the motion in some manner with a specified date by which the minister would have to appear, something like that—

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

October 31.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

If we're looking for consensus, that might seem a bit long, given that the ministers have both had a long time to come up with this. On the other hand, we don't know when we're going to come back. There's even discussion that we wouldn't come back until after the Ontario election. That is entirely up to people beyond us. That will take place on October 10, and I believe shortly thereafter Thanksgiving will occur, and we may have a week's break there. I don't have the schedule in front of me.

It might be a good idea for September. In theory, we're supposed to return on September 17, sit for three weeks, and then break for the week of October 8. I take it October 8 would be Thanksgiving, and October 10, which is a Wednesday, would be the Ontario election.

So if we do come back on September 17, we have three weeks there. If we don't come back until after the Ontario election, there are going to be four solid weeks of sittings. I'm looking to try to come up with some consensus rather than an argumentative vote or anything like that.

Yes, sir.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Chair, if I might, what if we considered, for example, because of that uncertainty around when we resume, that we could say “within 30 days of the resumption of the fall session”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Within 30 calendar days?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Within 30 calendar days, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Dhaliwal, on a point of clarification.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Is it the same topic we were talking about, that the minister was supposed to respond to us by November 15?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

It was December. Yes, it's the same topic. We're still talking about the same topic. That's correct.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

So I mean—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I'm sorry, that's the point of clarification. I will put you on the list, but you can't interrupt others other than on that point of clarification. I hope that doesn't change your opinion of my chairing of the meetings.

Mr. Stanton is making the suggestion, not that we not do this, but that we amend it by at the same time inviting the minister to appear within 30 calendar days of the resumption of Parliament. And I presume, failing that—

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

And should that not occur—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

—that the most senior officials, etc.

So I guess to help with this, the motion would be that the committee invite the Minister of Justice to appear before the committee within 30 calendar days of the resumption of Parliament, failing which, that the most senior officials, etc., be invited. Is that about it?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Almost. I would say that we can invite him, but that doesn't mean he necessarily appears. So I would say, “that the Minister of Justice appear before the standing committee within 30 days of the resumption of the fall session”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

That's fair. Okay.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

And if that does not occur, then the final paragraph.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Okay. Do we understand what the suggestion is?