Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 11th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

This is meeting number three of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We have a number of orders of the day. We're going to deal with the supplementary estimates (B) that have been referred to our committee; we also have a motion from Madame Freeman that we will deal with; and then the last order of the day will be, if it's still the will of the committee, to move in camera to have a discussion with Mr. Walsh, the law clerk of Parliament. We'll address that later.

If it's acceptable, Madame Freeman has given proper notice, and it's pre-circulated.

Madame Freeman, I understand all the members have the motion, so I won't read it into the record. Is it your intent to move the motion now? Okay, it is so moved.

We don't need a seconder, exactly, but perhaps you'd like to make a brief statement about your motion.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the members of the committee for allowing me to move my motion now.

The Access to Information Act has been around for 25 years and has been reviewed a number of times. In 2000, a working group that included the president of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Justice was set up. In November 2001, there was the Bryden committee. In 2005, our committee asked the Information Commissioner, John Reid, to draft a bill. The bill was drafted, but then there was an election, which put an end to that. Private members have also introduced bills.

The Access to Information Act has been studied so many times that we already have all of the reports we need. We know that Mr. Marleau came out and said that the act was a disaster and that he was going to put forward something new in May.

With this motion, I want the committee to ask the government to draft a bill that brings the Access to Information Act into line with what is actually going on because after 25 years, the act is behind the times.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Is there any discussion?

Oui.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Chair, the motion has been moved twice in the past. This is not the first time. It has already been passed, but each time, elections intervened. We put forward a similar proposal on November 3, 2005, and it was passed on September 27, 2006.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you kindly.

Mr. Siksay, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to say very simply that I think new access to information legislation is very important and I strongly support Madame Freeman's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay. Seeing no further interventions....

Oh, there is. Mr. Poilievre, I apologize.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank Mrs. Freeman for being so passionate about the Access to Information Act. She is very passionate about this issue and knows a lot about it. Unfortunately, I do not agree with her motion. I do not disagree with the underlying principle, but I cannot support it for practical reasons.

March 31 will be here before we know it, and it is not realistic to think that a bill like this can be introduced in two months. Maybe we could reconsider the deadlines. If we were to pass this motion, no government on earth would be able to produce a bill that big by March 31, which is what Mrs. Freeman wants. That is the problem with this motion.

I understand the urgency behind these reforms. We have been talking about this for a long time. I can see that many of the members are very passionate about this issue. I understand why they are moving this motion, but we will make more progress if we are more realistic about the dates.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Madame Freeman.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I would like to thank Mr. Poilievre for his comments.

He agrees that this act needs to be completely revamped. His only concern is the timeline. However, I would ask my distinguished colleague to bear in mind that we have asked for a bill like this a number of times. In fact, Commissioner Reid already submitted a bill. Most of the work has already been done. This is a very important file, changes have been requested repeatedly, and a bill has already been submitted, so my proposal is totally realistic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Dechert, please.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd just like to reiterate Mr. Poilievre's concerns. I think we all know the circumstances and needs of our economy right now and the need to pass the budget and all the budget implementation acts that go along with it. I would suggest that we as a Parliament should make that our priority for the next 60 days. We have to do some hard work to make sure all that legislation is passed and those funds start to flow to our economy.

I think this is something that's very important, but perhaps we can put it second to the economy and then come back to it when we have the budget implementation act fully passed and implemented.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

There are several difficulties that I see with this, notwithstanding the fact that the Information Commissioner may already have tabled a bill. There are, first of all, the obvious problems regarding the time limit that is inserted here. Mr. Poilievre was being generous in talking about two months. In fact, it's under six weeks, or about six weeks, and although I know things move at quite a speed in the House, it does seem to me to be unrealistic to expect the government to prepare an appropriate response.

It has always been my view that the more important something is, the more carefully the groundwork should be laid. It could be that the members of this committee don't attach that much importance to this matter, although I rather suspect the opposite. But if in fact the members of this committee do attach importance to this subject, I suggest that we really ought to deal with it in a more thorough way.

I'm also a bit concerned in that, speaking as a member of the committee for today at least, I haven't seen the bill that my honourable friend opposite has mentioned as having been tabled, so I don't have the details of that. I notice the wording of this motion doesn't refer to that bill, by the way; it just talks about the work of the Information Commissioner. Again, speaking as someone who is only a member for the day, I find that to be somewhat vague, and I'm not sure what anyone would make of it if this motion were entered into the record.

Those are my comments. I'm not sure, particularly in light of the economic circumstances we're facing today, why we would want to try to rush the government into this when we may be able to get farther with a more considered approach.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

I think the member is quite right. There isn't a bill, but there is the work, and it refers to the work, which was fairly extensive. In fact, we had an unofficial access bill, chaired by former member John Bryden. We used to meet in this room regularly and met with Mr. Reid.

I think the motion is clear. The member has made it clear that there's an urgency here, and members have had an opportunity to express their concerns. Are there any new interventions?

Mr. Poilievre.

I'm sorry, I did have Madame Freeman first. Would you like to wait to hear Mr. Poilievre's final intervention?

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I just want to respond to Mr. Woodworth's comments. He said that he was not aware of Commissioner John Reid's work, to which I referred.

That is exactly what I wanted to bring up. There have been so many studies, reports and committees, and so much work. So many of our parliamentary colleagues have worked on this, so many people have been involved. Commissioner Reid, who was in the position before Mr. Marleau, drafted a bill. So much work has been done. Everything is in place. We cannot just start over. We have to consider what has already been done. We know what does not work. We have been working on this for years. Now we have to stop studying the issue and take action. We have all of the information, the reports, the committees, the bills. The work has been done. We cannot start over just because we have new committee members. We cannot go back to the beginning. We have to respect the work that other people have done, and we can ask people to summarize certain parts if need be.

I read the Bryden committee report and the bill. The work has, for the most part, been done. The work has been done, the data are available, everything is ready. This is not really a big job because everything is in place. We just have to see what Mr. Marleau has to say. All he will say is that things are worse now than they were before. I think we need to face the facts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Poilievre, do you want to yield to Ms. Block?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I would like to speak, but she has a point of information.

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

I wonder if we could have access to the report that Ms. Freeman is referring to. I haven't seen that report. As a new member, I would appreciate the opportunity to see that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'm not sure if it's restricted simply to some specific report. I think it's the whole body of work. It is a very complex area, and of course the departmental officials are aware and have all of this.

The member raises a good question. Unfortunately we do have a motion before us. The member has the right to move it. If the committee members feel that they don't have the information they need to make an informed decision, I think that's part of the decision. I don't think the committee is in a position to be able to provide any additional information to the members at this time in order to discharge this motion today. I appreciate your predicament.

Mr. Poilievre, please.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Before I begin my main intervention,

Mr. Chair, with respect to Mrs. Block's comments, I know you consider yourself something of an expect on Parliament. I just want to know if you can comment on what I am about to say, perhaps in consultation with the clerk.

If a member refers to a document, is she required to submit it to the committee, or is that a rule that applies exclusively to the House?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

The motion is in order in its present form in that it's making a request of the government to bring forth a piece of legislation on access and makes a passing reference to the work of a former Information Commissioner who has made a lot of input and recommendations to the government in a variety of reports.

The gist or the thrust of the motion is that the member would like this committee to indicate to the government that we would encourage them or would like them to present a bill to the House by a certain date. The motion is very clear, and for any member who feels that they are not in a position to make such a commitment, based on not having certain information or wanting to have further consideration, that has to be taken into account.

If a matter is defeated, it can come back again another time and we learn from the experience. If it's passed and the government can't do it, or doesn't do it, or whatever, we can't insist that the government do anything. Our motions should be received by the minister and by the House such that they consider the advisability and take into account our view that there should be such and such, and by such and such a date. This is not binding on the government.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

And I understand that. I was actually referring to John Bryden's report. I understand reference was made to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

He had a private member's bill in the last Parliament he was here, and it rewrote the entire Access to Information Act. It is on the parliamentary record. It's available to all members.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Thank you for the clarification.

So to my intervention, then, Mr. Chair, I would propose a friendly amendment, which would replace “March 31, 2009” with “by the end of the year”. I think that is more realistic and in keeping with our objectives. Earlier on, we had interventions that pointed to the fact that we are in unprecedented times. We are working to tackle the global economic recession, and therefore Parliament and all parties are really seized with that issue. Understandably, all other subjects have taken a secondary importance, and I know that colleagues would agree with me that it would take some more time to produce a bill of that size. Thus I would simply suggest that we adjust the timeframe to better reflect the amount of time such a body of work would take.

Also, in constructing such a piece of legislation, the government would want to hear input from this committee and other stakeholders. If we impose a timeframe that is too short, I worry that this committee might be cut out of the consultation process. I worry that other interested stakeholders--I speak of groups representing labour, groups representing women or accountability, as well as our constituents--might not have the ability to contribute in a way that we would want to see them contribute.

This simple change would go a long way to making this motion more realistic, and therefore I would first ask Ms. Freeman to accept it as a friendly amendment. Should she so refuse, I would respectfully ask the committee to consider it an amendment to the main motion.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.