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.