Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 27th, 2006

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

We'll try to remedy that, but not immediately.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I drafted this motion without realizing that a letter had been sent out. I don't know exactly what the letter says, although I get the impression it is consistent with my motion. Is that the case? Is the subject matter of Mr. Wallace's letter the same as that of my motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I'll let Mr. Wallace speak to it.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'll speak in English, I'm sorry. I have a copy of my letter in French for you right here.

I spoke to the minister after our meeting and indicated that from the discussion around the table it would be great for this committee to have legislation to deal with access to information. The response was, “Send me a letter and we'll see what we can do in the fall.”

The letter basically says, “Based on our conversation, please send us a bill if you have the ability to do so this fall, if your ministry has time for it.” It's slightly different, but that's basically what the letter entails.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Has there been a response?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I have not seen a response yet.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you very much for clarifying that for me. I don't know why I didn't receive this letter.

In short, I drafted this motion because on May 15 last, I had tabled a motion to the committee, essentially calling on the minister to bring forward a bill. The wording of the motion was identical to one unanimously adopted by the committee on November 3, 2005, Unfortunately, my May 15 motion was defeated.

Moreover, we basically agreed that we needed to hear from the Minister and the Information Commissioner. Since these two conditions were satisfied on June 19, I thought that when we returned in September, we could consider a new motion calling on the minister to bring forward draft legislation. I'm very happy to see that the subject matter of both Mr. Wallace's letter and my motion is the same.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

You have the notice of motion in front of you. It has been duly moved by Madame Lavallée.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

We will now move to further committee business.

I just want to point out that in view of Madame Lavallée's motion, I don't think there's any need to discuss access to information, because the committee's views on access to information are clear.

I want to bring to the attention of the committee that the PIPEDA review has been referred to this committee by the House of Commons.

PIPEDA is....

[Nancy Holmes, Committee Researcher]

It's the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I don't believe there's a time limit or anything. It's simply been referred to us because the statute itself requires that a House of Commons committee review the act within a certain period of time--five years. Therefore, that has been referred to this committee by the House of Commons.

We also have the main estimates.

We have the review appointment of a new Information Commissioner. I don't think that has happened. I think Mr. Reid's term ends at the end of this week and it will be up to the government to name another Information Commissioner.

Then we have a review of a proposed inquiry process for the Ethics Commissioner.

I'm in your hands, but it would seem to me that given the motion of Mr. Kenney, we'll be working on that as soon as possible, calling witnesses, etc. But it seems to me that if the House of Commons has referred something to us and there is a command in the statute that a House of Commons committee review it within a period of time, we have to pay particular attention to that. I would think it would be our next order of business, or possibly even at the same time, depending on how long it takes to get witnesses set up for the inquiry that we're going to conduct pursuant to Mr. Kenney's motion. I'm simply throwing that out for discussion.

Mr. Zed and then Mr. Martin.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps if the committee is interested, what I would suggest or offer—I'm not sure you need a motion to this effect—is that as our chair you would create some sense of order from the committee business that I think you've outlined for us and come back to us with a proposed schedule of events, some timing based on the priorities you've outlined. From where I sit, I think that would make the most sense, that you as our chairman come forward with a plan. If that would help facilitate the meeting today, I would move that as a motion. I don't think you need it, but--

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Why don't you hold that in abeyance until I hear what Mr. Martin has to say? I am ready to propose a plan.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

My only point, Mr. Chairman, is that the appointment of the new Information Commissioner might be the most topical and timely issue that we have to deal with, for the simple reason that we might want to consider, as a committee, some of the grievances we've heard about the appointment process to date.

I spoke to the current Information Commissioner. The posting to serve notice that a new Information Commissioner was going to be appointed went up on the government website for exactly seven days. There was no publishing of it in the Gazette; there was no nationwide advertising or notice served that interested applicants could come forward. The current Information Commissioner was so horrified that he personally phoned half a dozen people that he thought might be interested, to alert them to the fact that they had seven days to apply for this seven-year appointment at $250,000 a year. Most people would want a little more time to make application for such an important life-changing situation.

I'm thinking that rather than wait until the new Information Commissioner is appointed and bring him here for the token review that committees do--they ask him if he's ever been convicted of beating his wife, or whatever--I think our committee should get proactive and insist that the process stop in its tracks and that a proper posting and notice be served nationwide, even if it means extending the current commissioner for a month or two months, and do this correctly. I say this in the context of Bill C-2. The Federal Accountability Act changes forever the way appointments are made and does away with patronage. The only reason I can think of for having such a short period of notice is that there's a pre-approved applicant in the minds of the government and they want to reduce the pool of people that they have to consider. It's completely contrary to the idea of casting a wide net to get the best applicant, with transparency and accountability and all the buzzwords we're so used to.

I think perhaps I would speak in favour of making the first order of business to review the appointment of the new Information Commissioner, but actually go further and review the appointment process of the new Information Commissioner and perhaps intervene with a strong recommendation that it be reconsidered.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

All right. That's a recommendation.

Mr. Kenney.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I would agree with Mr. Zed that your job, as chairman, is to organize the committee's business. You're an experienced member, and I trust your judgment in this respect because you understand. I don't know what the timelines are on the legislative review we have to do, but we would be comfortable with your judgment on how to organize committee business.

The motion that was just adopted in my name is a matter of some current controversy. We expect this matter will be examined and resolved in a timely fashion, so we would encourage you to consider making that a priority for the committee.

As it relates to reviewing the appointment process for the ATI Commissioner, as per Mr. Martin's remarks, I don't think it's the job of this committee to review the appointments procedure. Other committees have dealt with or are dealing with Bill C-2, with the appointments process. If it's the committee's will to get into that, so be it. But I can assure Mr. Martin there's no hidden agenda in terms of appointing an ATI Commissioner. I haven't heard of any secret candidates out there. Moreover, if the government had a candidate it wanted to push through, it wouldn't matter whether there were 100 applicants or 1,000 applicants, we'd still have the prerogative to put that person forward.

And finally, I'd point out to him the fact that Mr. Reid's term is expiring is hardly a secret. We could Google “Access to Information Commissioner term” and find hundreds of hits. Anybody who follows access to information or these matters knows that there's a change coming. I've received unsolicited letters and applications from people I've never heard of, expressing an interest in the position. So I'm not as pessimistic as Mr. Martin that this is a closed competition per se. But I'll leave that in your hands.

Generally, I can speak for government members here in saying that we trust your judgment as to how to organize the committee business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

Colleagues, here's my view on things. First of all, I'm not entirely of the view of Mr. Martin that it's a token review. I think the idea, beginning in the last Parliament, was to try to give committees more power to review appointments and to make recommendations. It's true that in some cases the Prime Minister of the day didn't accept the recommendations, but that did not prevent the committee concerned from rejecting the proposed person and giving reasons. That indeed has happened in this Parliament, as I recall. I don't really consider it tokenism, depending on the committee--how feisty the members of the committee are--and the nature of the candidate.

We have a requirement, I believe, to review the Information Commissioner matter when it comes before us, and I think Parliament will be looking to that. If I'm not mistaken, and I could be, the Information Commissioner is an officer of Parliament; Parliament has to approve the appointment. Is that not true? Then it is our committee, we presume, that will be offering guidance to us as members of Parliament--not as people of different parties--as to whether the person proposed should be approved by the House of Commons. I think that's a pretty substantive responsibility for us as a committee.

We can't do that until we hear who the candidate will be. I think, recalling previous practice, there's usually discussion, informally at least, with the leader of the opposition and possibly even the other parties to determine whether there would be a huge fight over it in Parliament or whether everybody could more or less live with the proposed person.

Here is what I would like to recommend to the committee. We have two meetings next week, one on Monday and one on Wednesday. I will not be here Monday, and Mr. Martin will be in the chair. I'd like to suggest that we ask the clerk to see which witnesses we can get here by Monday to get that inquiry started. If possible there is Commissioner Stoddart in particular, as Mr. Zed requested in his motion. I agree with Mr. Kenney that there's some expectation out there that we will deal with this matter with some clarity. I recommend that we try to set that up for Monday. If it's not possible, then we'll shoot for Wednesday of next week. By Wednesday of next week we should be able to line up some witnesses to get the inquiry started.

In the meantime, I can, at the earliest opportunity, table the first report of this committee as soon as it's done. That will take care of that item. Then I think it's necessary for us to schedule in some manner a PIPEDA review as the next order of business after we conclude the inquiry with respect to revealing names of people who make access to information requests. We don't know how long that's going to take, but I would assume as a guesstimate that four, five, or six meetings should be enough to at least hear the appropriate evidence. Then we could begin discussing a report. I'm not comfortable with leaving a statutorily mandated review on the back burner for too long, so I'd like to move on that.

Numerous people at different places have approached me to indicate great interest in a PIPEDA review, which frankly surprised me.

[A voice]

What is it again?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. They're also waiting for this committee to proceed with that review as well, so I'd like to do that. One would hope it would be early November through to December, and then we'll see how we go. That's what I'm proposing.

In the interim, we have main estimates. That is usually something the opposition parties like to deal with. My past practice in other committees has been to try not to slough that off, because a lot of good information can be obtained under proper and relevant questioning with respect to main estimates. It's been suggested that we have a briefing session on the new parliamentary funding mechanism, which follows this committee's recommendation, before we do the estimates. We might even inquire if the Auditor General would be willing to help us prepare some questions with respect to estimates, as the Auditor General did for the fisheries and oceans committee when I was the chair.

So that would leave me with some flexibility, depending on the availability of witnesses.

I'd like to move on Mr. Kenny's motion immediately and perhaps schedule an extraordinary meeting for a briefing session on the estimates, and then find out what kinds of witnesses we would be looking for, for PIPEDA, and then come back at the next meeting I'm at, which would be a week today, and possibly make some recommendations where we could have estimates stuck in amongst that. I would think those would be the only three things we would do for the balance of this year, subject to the new Information Commissioner and a review of the new Information Commissioner's qualifications.

That's how I'm looking at it. Does that seem like a reasonable plan?

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Yes, I'm willing to support that plan, Mr. Chairman. The only suggestion I would make is if you could put it in writing so we have a sense of what's coming when, that would be great for us, whether it's on Monday or on Wednesday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

The clerk will do that. And we'll endeavour not to lose a day by having nothing to do on Monday. We'll try our best to get something organized.

Mr. Zed.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

By coincidence, on Friday I bumped into the Privacy Commissioner and she indicated that she was going away on Wednesday. So I said I had no idea whether my motion was going to--

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I'm sorry, Wednesday being today?

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

No, Wednesday being next week, and she was going away for a couple of weeks. I think she might be available on Monday, because I asked when she thought she might be available. That's just a point of information. Other than that, I'm fine with your plan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

So we'll ask the clerk to immediately contact the Privacy Commissioner to see if she can appear, to get the ball rolling, possibly with some other witnesses, on Monday. And we'll see what we can do with respect to Wednesday. That's the plan I propose to follow. Do I see consensus on that?