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.