Information & Ethics Committee on May 4th, 2009

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I know there has been an interpretation that under the Access to Information Act ministers' offices would be treated separately and distinct from other government departments. But once you raise the issue, once you bring these things out, it seems to me you have to have a full discussion and a full consideration of these things, so that nobody is taken by surprise.

Again, you have those recommendations before you, and I think you should have a look at them and express your own opinion as to whether you think this should apply to your offices--whether it should, and what your view of that is.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Minister, I understand that you have a firm commitment at 4:30. The committee members have had a little discussion. We're going to allow each of the parties to have one more question of you, and then we'll wrap up the session with you.

If that's acceptable, we'll have Madam Simson, then Mr. Nadeau, Mr. Siksay, and then Mr. Dreeshen to use up this last fifteen minutes. We'll split it up evenly.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Minister, for appearing before the committee.

We've heard testimony from you and several witnesses about the Federal Accountability Act that was introduced in 2006 and described in some quarters as significant.

On the other hand, this committee has heard testimony from several expert witnesses that would describe it as being akin to comparing the financial viability of General Motors with Chrysler's. In other words, it didn't go nearly far enough. It included 67 new crown corporations, but it also contained a number of new exemptions and exclusions. Could you give us the number of those exemptions and exclusions and outline a few of the actual bodies that have been exempted?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I actually don't agree with you. You've said it's been described as significant in “some quarters”; I think most people who've had a look at it think it was a significant step forward.

You quite correctly point out that now this applies to 67 crown corporations. In fact, quite frankly, I like the way it is set out in the Federal Accountability Act; it applies to all crown corporations, so actually I can't agree that it's--

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

No, Minister. The question asked how many new exemptions were included in that legislation.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I can undertake to have a look at that. I'd be glad to do that for you.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

If you could do that, I'd really appreciate it.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Yes.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

You've stated that this accountability act was a crucial statute of crucial importance. As late as this weekend, a national Canadian paper described Canada's transparency in government and our Access to Information Act as dismal on the world stage and said that our government is shrouded in secrecy, which is part and parcel of the whole issue of the culture.

How would you propose bringing about a cultural change when we've been described as dismal and shrouded in secrecy? Obviously the Federal Accountability Act hasn't been the tonic to fix our access to information.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I want you to know that I completely disagree with anybody who would suggest this country has a dismal record on anything related to access to information. We blazed the trail in this world, going back to the early 1980s. I was there when this bill was being fully implemented, and when they say it is dismal on the world stage, I want to see who they're putting on that list. I'm going to tell you something: there are some countries that have pieces of legislation on there that don't work as well as ours. We have a close--

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Minister--

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Just a second.

When we bring forward any legislation, we do check with other like-minded countries, but I'm going to tell you something: this country has an outstanding record. If anybody has anything different to say to that, I say that they are completely wrong. This is an excellent piece of legislation. This is a huge step forward, and so was the Federal Accountability Act.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Minister, all I'm--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I apologize, Madam Simson. We'll have to move on to Monsieur Nadeau, s'il vous plaît.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Nicholson, we don't have much time left, and probably we will not see each other back at this committee anytime soon. As you know, this is 2009. I'm telling you this to situate you in time and space. I'm going to read you something that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, that is to say, this committee, passed quite recently, actually on February 11, 2009. This motion was tabled in the House of Commons the following day, on February 12, 2009. You can read the transcript, which will be made available. The motion reads as follows:

That the government introduce in the House, by May 31, 2009, a new, stronger and more modern Access to Information Act, drawing on the work of the Information Commissioner Mr. John Reid.

Mr. Nicholson, you haven't wasted your time here today. You know our position on the Access to Information Act. So you know exactly what you have to do. This motion was passed by this committee, with all parties present. There are four parties at the table, and there are 12 parliamentarians here today. The work that we are currently doing has been around for more than 20 years. Mr. Reid has done the work for the Liberal government, the Conservative government, the entire House of Commons and the Canadian Parliament.

The recommendation has been written down black on white, and it was tabled in the House of Commons. So you can't ignore it, Mr. Nicholson. So don't try to waste our time and sidestep the question. You know what the committee and the House of Commons expect of you. You can pass on the message to Mr. Stephen Harper, your leader, who promised to modernize the Access to Information Act. The motion that I read out to you was passed unanimously in November 2005, and then on division in September 2006. This committee passed it yet again in February 2009.

Thank you.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I have to say, Mr. Nadeau, even just with respect to the wording, that it makes no mention whatsoever of the recommendations from Mr. Marleau, who is the present commissioner. If you're saying to me that you want to see a piece of legislation based only on recommendations from the previous commissioner, I would have to disagree just on that basis alone.

The present commissioner has made a number of recommendations that I hope you will take seriously. I have a feeling that if I comply with that and say, “Here's a piece of legislation based on Mr. Reid's proposals”, I think you might be one of the first ones up in the House of Commons. The question might go to me or to the President of Treasury Board: “Why didn't you pay attention to what Mr. Marleau said? He had very reasoned and well-thought-out recommendations. Why haven't you taken those into consideration?”

You know something, Mr. Nadeau? You'd actually be correct, because any legislation, any changes, should take into consideration all these recommendations. You may disagree and say to me that we've looked at these recommendations carefully and we don't like any of them. I would be pleased to have that, but the government is open to looking at these things.

I pointed out to you the Federal Accountability Act, and you ask why we aren't doing more things in this particular area. You know the priority of the economy, for heaven's sake. That has dominated the last six or seven months, and rightly so; it wasn't easy to get the economic action plan through, and all that it has meant.

We have to keep an open mind on all these things, but please don't limit your recommendations just to what Mr. Reid has to say. I think it's only fair and only reasonable to take into consideration the recommendations of the present commissioner.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

Go ahead, Mr. Siksay, please.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, I have two specific questions.

You've mentioned several times that you thought extending the ATI act to cover cabinet confidences, and also the order-making power, would mean that more issues would end up in court. Can you provide any examples or evidence from provincial jurisdictions or other countries where that order-making power exists, or where cabinet confidences are covered by ATI, that show more disputes end up in court as a result of those powers?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I did raise the possibility. Since you've raised the whole question of access to the courts, that was one of the concerns I had with one of the specific recommendations. If the ability is given to the access commissioner outright to not investigate certain complaints, that would have the effect, in my opinion, of possibly overloading the courts, so--

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Do you have any evidence of that from other jurisdictions where that power exists?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

On that particular issue, I can have a look and see what information--

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

It could be very important to back that opinion up with some evidence.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Yes, but you can see that if you make a complaint to the access commissioner and he or she turns that down completely and your only recourse is to the Federal Court, it only stands to reason that we would see more applications to the court because their issues and complaints haven't been dealt with.