Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 11th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

In the rules in the Standing Orders and all the rules that guide members, notwithstanding the fact that it happens often at committees, there is really no such thing as a friendly amendment. In fact, let's just deal with it as an amendment to replace the words “March 31,” with the words “the end of”. That is an amendment to Madam Freeman's motion.

Mr. Siksay, did you have anything further to add?

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

Mr. Chair, I just want to say that I support the original motion and the timeline there. I find it very hard to believe that there isn't a desk somewhere on the government side of things where there's a file that says Access to Information Act and that all it needs is the dust blown off it and for it to be hustled into the House.

I'm sure we all agree that there are other priorities of government right now with regard to the economic crisis and the budget, which are very important, but they're not stopping the government from introducing other legislation--and other very important legislation.

This is legislation that Canadians have waited years for. I think there's unanimity among all of those who are interested in concerns about access to information that this legislation needs to be reviewed. There is some very specific private members' legislation already on the table, and I'm sure that Mr. Bryden's bill or Pat Martin's bill from the last Parliament, if the government needs something quickly, would be available to do the job.

So I think the motion as it stands lights the necessary fire under the government, and if the government is at all interested in doing it, they can meet that deadline.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We have two more persons who would like to speak. If we can limit things to new points, that will be helpful.

Mr. Woodworth and then Mr. Dechert.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I suppose that what I want to say is in response to what I heard earlier. I hope that makes it new.

First of all, with a great deal of timidity, I want to suggest that although the chair's parliamentary experience is far greater than mine, I don't regard this reference to the work of the Information Commissioner and the motion to be simply a passing reference. I think the recommendation specifically directs the government to use that information in this new bill.

It would concern me, as a committee member, to be voting on that, notwithstanding the fact that there are members here who have been involved in this committee before. If they have information that's not available to other members, it just seems to me that it would be an odd thing for a committee to not be able to postpone a vote until all committee members were aware of specifically what the motion was in fact attempting to achieve.

Second, I heard reference from Ms. Freeman earlier to an act or a bill that was already prepared. I thought she was talking about something that was part of the work of the Information Commissioner, Mr. John Reid, and I think I have since heard that this is a bill by a Mr. Bryden or by someone else. Maybe there are two bills, I don't know. It just shows me, at least, that anyone who perhaps hasn't been involved in this committee for a long time, such as me, is apt to be a little uncertain about the scope of this motion.

Last, I have heard the chair say that this is a complex area, and I do accept his expertise in coming to that conclusion. I have heard Ms. Freeman say that there have been many studies and many previous delays in this, which suggests to me that the issue may not be quite so clear-cut as has been portrayed.

I am concerned, as a member today for this committee, that in fact there may not be the unanimity that Mr. Siksay has referred to, and that in fact what may be happening here is an effort to move things in one direction against the perhaps countervailing opinion, which has resulted in delays in studies in the past. I just don't think that's the way Parliament should operate. I think there should be an opportunity for consultation and for hearing all sides rather than trying to rush through or steamroll through one side of any particular debate.

Thank you for indulging me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Dechert, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just briefly, I don't want to reiterate what Mr. Woodworth said, as he's made most of the points that I intended to make, but as a new member of the committee and a new member of Parliament, I think it's only reasonable that we have time to consider this at greater length and have access to the report and the suggested legislation.

Again, given the very serious economic situation facing our nation and the fact that every party leader has said it has to be the priority of all parliamentarians, that's what Canadians are watching and that's what they want us to do.

I think Mr. Poilievre's amendment is very reasonable. We're not leaving it open-ended; we're just asking for an addition of an extra few months so that we can focus on other priorities and then move to this, because it is important.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Finally, Madame Freeman, briefly.

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

I would like to remind my distinguished colleagues that I am a new member of the committee. I wanted to point that out because, when I was appointed to the committee, I read up on the act to learn about its background, and I also read up on the work that has been done over the years. This is not privileged or secret information; it is public information.

As a parliamentarian, it was my duty to find out what work had been done. The act needs to be revamped, and the work has already been done several times. Bills have been introduced, and all of the problems have been dealt with. All of our colleagues have worked on this. The work has been done, and the reports are available. It is up to you to read them. They make for excellent bedtime reading; they are very interesting. The work has already been done, and we cannot keep starting over.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Even the simplest things....

Mr. Poilievre.

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

I think I can help resolve this disagreement by offering to Ms. Freeman that if there were perhaps a middle ground....

I do not understand. She picked March 31; I suggested the end of the year. Maybe we could compromise and pick a date somewhere in the middle?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Interesting. I would have thought a compromise might be October.

In any event, I have a feeling there is some interest in reflecting the urgency that the member has in presenting her motion. She feels strongly about it. It's her right to do this. She's asking this committee whether they share her concern about the needs to address this legislation, and on a timely basis in her view.

This is the problem with motions. They come from individual members. If you don't do your homework really well, do a little consultation with your colleagues, and you don't provide the information, chances are you may not earn the votes you need to get it through. But that's up to the committee. We learn from these things. And no matter how this gets disposed of today, there is no prohibition from the matter coming up again.

I think we should move forward. We have other witnesses.

First of all, I would like to put the amendment of Mr. Poilievre that we replace the words “March 31,” by the words ”the end of”. So it would read, “introduce in the House by the end of 2009”, etc. I'd like to put the vote on Mr. Poilievre's amendment, if that's acceptable.

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

I think Mr. Wrzesnewskyj has a question.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Following the various discussions I thought there was the potential for an agreement, and perhaps saving a bit of time, for the end of May.

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

The chair requested October.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Well, the chair was making a comment, not a motion.

We do have a motion on the floor, and the motion--

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

Why don't we vote on this one? And we'll come back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We'll move forward.

There doesn't seem to be time for a reasonable consideration of any further amendments, so we'll vote on the motion of Mr. Poilievre that it be amended to “the end of” 2009.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'll now put the question on the motion--

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

Chair, on the main motion, would there be...?

Earlier, Mrs. Freeman said that she would consider another date if this one were to be rejected.

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

We could spend the whole day on this.

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

That is not necessary, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We have translators, and members have to understand that we have to have one speaker at a time and be recognized from the floor.

Unless I hear another amendment, I'm going to move forward with the vote on the main motion.

Mr. Poilievre has an amendment.

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

I have two concerns about the motion. First of all, the date is not realistic.

Nor is it realistic to suggest that the views of the former Information Commissioner are the final position on the issue. I mean, we had contradictory testimony from Auditor General Sheila Fraser on the subject of access to information.

As such, if you're going to call on the government to introduce legislation to update the Access to Information Act because one former commissioner wanted changes made, then you have to keep in mind the views of another officer of Parliament, in this case probably the most prominent one, the Auditor General. She had a serious disagreement with Mr. Reid about the question of draft audits and whether they should be susceptible to access.

So to make this proposal more realistic for the government and to increase the possibility of support, we would add, after “Information Commissioner Mr. John Reid”, the phrase, “while taking into consideration the cautions on the subject made by Auditor General Sheila Fraser”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I think the motion is in order.

I want to encourage members not to be too struck by the language, as if there's somehow exclusivity. It is a recommendation that has specific reference to the Reid work, but it says “drawing” on the work. It doesn't say “drawing exclusively” or “only limited to”, etc.

I suspect we could come up with lists of a large number of knowledgeable people who have had opinions. The government would definitely be taking into account all credible sources of input to this. My concern is that we could be here for a very long time if we start to get into other parties. Once you start making a list, somebody must be left off of it. So we either have a comprehensive list or no list.

[An hon. member]

It lists the Information Commissioner.