Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 5th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please.

Welcome to meeting 36 of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Our order of the day, under Access to Information Act reform, is a continuation of our consideration of the response of the Minister of Justice to our report on quick fixes to the Access to Information Act.

In discussion of the matter, we have a specific motion, presented at the meeting, by Mr. Pat Martin, who was sitting in on the day. It is still on the table.

Colleagues, as you know, we can only have one motion on the floor at a time, so we're going to deal with that one first.

Under committee business, we also have two other motions. One, somewhat related, is Mr. Poilievre's motion. We also have a motion from Mr. Del Mastro. Both have been given the necessary notice. They will be dealt with once we conclude our work on the government response and anything that would come up directly in relation--I want to stress, again, directly in relation--to the reference of dealing with the response from the minister.

I think all colleagues have a copy of the letter from the minister that was received yesterday. The date on the letter was November 4. We have that one nailed down.

Interestingly enough, I notice that this one has a stamped date. That's probably why the other one didn't have a date on it— it's not actually typed on the letter; it's a stamp. That probably is the reason why we didn't see that.

October 9 is the date it actually appeared on our web and was tabled in the House.

I would like to ask members if there are any observations, comments, or questions about the minister's latest letter.

Madame Freeman.

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

Mr. Chair, I have seen the letter that arrived at my office at 5:00 p.m. yesterday.

Regarding that letter, I do not understand what Mr. Nicholson is saying at all. He is asking us to go back to work, to reconsider things. A report has already been published. We have already done all the consultations. In fact, we have been holding consultations for years. The committee has worked on the question. All the information is available. I think it is now time to proceed.

Once again, this response from Mr. Nicholson is a non-response. He is saying things that have no point, given that the report has already been made and the recommendations submitted. It is not just a matter of the government's desire to prepare a bill. We cannot continue working on it. We have done the work.

I propose that we invite Mr. Nicholson to meet with the committee members and parliamentarians. I think that is the minimum. He can't keep sending us responses like this that get us nowhere. I move that the committee ask Mr. Nicholson to appear before us so we can have a clear talk with him about the reasons why he is not bringing forward a new access to information bill, when everything has been done and all the recommendations have been submitted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Merci.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, please.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I concur with everything that Madame Freeman has just stated. It's extremely disappointing, because this letter basically is a restatement of what we've already received from the minister.

I think this committee has clearly demonstrated that this is an area that we treat very seriously. We want to see reform. We spent ten committee meetings on this issue. For six of those meetings we called witnesses from across the country, people who are expert in the field, to provide us with advice. All committee members took part in very fulsome questioning of those witnesses. These were people with tremendous professional experience in this field of access to information.

Basically, in bureaucratic wording, he's told us, “Go back to your playpen. We're not going to do this.”

I hope that's not what he's intending with this letter, but I think this letter clearly demonstrates that the onus is now upon us to bring the minister back before this committee to explain the dismissiveness with which the government and he have treated this consensual report that has substantive recommendations on an issue that's of critical import for the Canadian public.

We're a democracy. Access to information is one of the fundamental principles of democratic societies. It's transparency of government, knowing what those who govern are actually up to.

From witness after witness we've heard that not only is it not working; it also appears that a culture of secrecy has evolved. The data seem to indicate that it's never been as bad as it is right now.

We see the top levels of government, the PCO, involved in putting up a bureaucratic wall to prevent access. They're trying to camouflage it by saying they've opened up access to all these other entities, crown corporations.

Well, it's not access if there is a wall that prevents you from actually getting in there.

A dismissive letter of this sort does not do justice to the committee's work. It shows poorly on the government, and it certainly does not serve the interests of the Canadian public.

So in looking at this letter, I'm convinced that we are obligated to call the minister before this committee to explain himself, to explain why he has made this decision to basically toss our good work aside, to dismiss us out of hand, and to state that there will be no access to information when it comes to this government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mrs. Simson, please.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I don't want to repeat what my colleague had to say, but I do want to reiterate that I believe this committee did an extensive study of what was required. From my perspective, we worked extremely well together. We produced a report with conclusions that we basically all concurred with. I was extremely proud to be a part of it.

What I am really having trouble with is the fact that it was in fact dismissive. My perception, in hearing testimony from the minister, was that he had already made up his mind. Having seen how he behaved and his responses...while this is disappointing, wasn't surprising.

I think he owes this committee an explanation. I would like to see him brought forth to this committee, because there is nothing in this except ragging the puck--go back and study, go back and study.

We've heard testimony from the interim commissioner that the quick fixes, or what was in the report, is urgently required, that right now the Access to Information Act is imploding because it's bogged down. Well, the Federal Accountability Act did provide more access to more crown corporations. Without fixing the act, it is now collapsing.

So I'd like to concur with Madam Freedom...or Freeman--

[An hon. member]

La même chose.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

--and Mr. Wrzesnewskyj that we're entitled to more of an explanation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Dechert, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think I can clarify a few things for my colleagues, who seem to be misunderstanding the minister's letter.

It seems very clear to me that the minister is suggesting that we need to do a more fulsome study. He referred in his letter to his appearances before the committee in 2007, 2008, and 2009. At these appearances, he pointed out that the government had tabled a discussion paper and a series of legislative proposals prepared by former Information Commissioner John Reid. He has suggested that we study this material and undertake a full review of the act, rather than a short-form update of it. It's clear that this is his view, and it makes sense to me. Why would you amend the act twice when you can amend it once and do a proper job?

There's nothing to be served by having the minister come back here again. He stated very clearly that it would be worthwhile to have a full study of Commissioner Reid's report and discussion paper, to examine witnesses in connection with that report, and then to make recommendations on a thorough updating of the act. This seems to be the reasonable thing to do. I think the minister was clear on that. There's no obfuscation or any doubt about what he's suggesting. He made it clear several times when he appeared before the committee.

I'm sure the members opposite would love another opportunity to examine the minister and make speeches to him, but I don't think the taxpayers of Canada will gain anything by that. I think we should continue to study this important matter. We should take a look at Commissioner Reid's report in its entirety, and we should undertake a study to see how the Access to Information Act could be amended from top to bottom, not just in a few summary areas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Siksay.

I also note that Madam Freeman and Mr. Wrzesnewskyj want to be on the list again.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this letter from the minister. However, Chair, we do have a motion that was moved during the course of the committee's business last Thursday. My understanding of procedure is that this motion should be taking precedence over the other business of the committee.

Now, I know we've put it off because we had the acting commissioner come to the committee meeting on Tuesday. But I hope this discussion doesn't go on for a long time, because we should be considering that motion, in my opinion. Whereas this general discussion on the minister's response is, I think, valuable, I hope we don't spend a lot of time on it.

I'm not going to do anything formally about my suggestion, but I hope this doesn't carry on for a long time, so that we can instead get to the discussion of the motions that have been given notice and are properly part of the business of this committee.

That being said, Chair, I'm not impressed by the minister's letter. This committee, over many years, not just in this Parliament and the previous Parliament, but going back a number of Parliaments, and in fact during other governments, has made very strong and clear recommendations about the need for legislative change; and very strong, clear and definitive recommendations about what that legislative change should be.

I think we can't do anything more than that at this point, and I think the government has had the best input from this standing committee over many years and could easily proceed to presenting new draft legislation around access to information.

I think this is just ragging the puck on the part of the government and a backing away from the commitments they made around access to information in their platform document in 2006, and a backing away from their appreciation of the importance of access to information, which they certainly articulated well when they were in opposition. I am extremely disappointed by the minister's response.

I'm also disappointed by Mr. Dechert's characterization of the opposition as only wanting the minister here so we can make speeches to him. That's certainly not the way I have behaved when the minister has been present at committee; it's not the way I intend to behave when the minister's here. I feel it's dismissive of my participation on the committee and I hope he'd reconsider his position, because it's certainly not my intention to “make speeches” to the minister, as he put it.

But I do think the minister should be asked to come. I think he's given this committee short shrift in the past and has limited his appearances and the time he's had available to this committee, despite the importance of access to information. As Mr. Pat Martin, who was here last week on behalf of the NDP, says, access to information is in fact the “oxygen” of democracy. I think we need to make sure that flow is resumed and continues to illuminate the work of government—and we're not getting that.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Mr. Siksay.

If I may, I'd like to address the point raised by Mr. Siksay on the precedence of motions.

You can appreciate that if the committee is in the middle of doing something and someone makes a motion to do something else before that work is done, it would be counterproductive to be in a position where you must decide on that motion before you finish the work.

The Martin motion is very specific to the discussion on the minister's response, and that motion is going to be dealt with as soon as the members have given their final inputs on the role. Then that item of order of business—which is to consider the minister's response to the quick-fix report—will be completed, unless there are any other motions coming from members on that order of reference. Okay?

Mr. Martin's motion is a consequence of our meetings, our consideration, that we're continuing right now. So we will be doing that. It's not as if it's something that's done after we have finished this; no, it is the conclusion of this discussion. It is the only motion on the floor that specifically relates to the order of the day, which is to consider the minister's response.

If other motions on unrelated matters come up, they are dealt with after all of the other scheduled business. They are entitled to be heard, but not to pre-empt other approved and scheduled business of the committee.

I think you wanted to rebut that a little bit.

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

I'd like to challenge that by making a motion that we move directly to consideration of Mr. Martin's motion.

I'm doing that because I believe the consideration of the government response is exactly what Mr. Martin's motion is about. If members want to respond to either the minister's letter or the government response to the report, they can do that as part of the discussion of Mr. Martin's motion, which is exactly on that topic.

I think we should not further delay the consideration of that motion. It has been debatable and in order for several meetings now, and I think we should move exactly to that.

I would propose that motion right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I think everybody understands it.

Would you like to take a vote now?

Is everybody fine with that?

Okay.

All those in favour of moving to Mr. Martin's motion now?

(Motion agreed to)

Okay.

Mr. Martin's motion has to do with the minister's response and how we respond to it. The speakers list that I had is now clean, so we'll start again.

If I may, Mr. Martin's motion reads as follows:

That the Committee report to the House its profound disappointment with the response of the Minister of Justice to its 11th report entitled “The Access to Information Act: First steps towards renewal”.

We'll start with Mr. Del Mastro, from the speaking list.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You'll forgive me, Mr. Chairman, if I had assumed that we were dealing with that.

I think the positions of the committee are well known on this. I move, in the interest of time, that we move directly to a vote on this matter. I think all members, opposition members and government members, have been clear on the motion. I think we can move forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

You would like to move that the question be put?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Yes, that the question be put.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Would members like to debate the motion?

Would you like to call the question now?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I was on the list.

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

What does he want, exactly?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

The motion itself is debatable.

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

If I understand correctly, this is Mr. Martin's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Pardon.

I just learned something new--

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

If we're considering a motion, I can only propose an amendment to the motion. I can't propose a motion on a motion.

It's simply a request that, I think, if we're all ready--