Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 5th, 2009

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Madam Freeman stated that the intent of her amendment was to do something that should be “normal”--I think she used that word--in terms of normal for the government to proceed in this way.

Mr. Szabo spoke of good faith in government.

As I've said previously, I understand the sentiment of this amendment, but it is quite clear to me that we'd be generous in assuming that the government would proceed in a normal way on this.

What we've seen from the minister, speaking on behalf of the government, is a breaking of a trust--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Del Mastro has a point of order.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With due respect, I might suggest that we're seeing some contempt toward the members who have brought these motions in order to this committee. I don't think there is any question that they've been talked out. I think positions are known, and I don't think there is any question that what's occurring here is a deliberate attempt to stretch out debate on these motions.

I don't think Mr. Wrzesnewskyj has said a single thing that pertains to the amendment, which perhaps the chair might wish to reread. He may or may not have any comments on the amendment, but that is what's before the committee right now.

[An hon. member]

It's just transparently disingenuous, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I hope that didn't get on the record. That's unparliamentary.

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

He was just quoting Borys.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Oh. Let's be careful with our choice of words.

This has come up a couple of times with regard to speaking to a motion or an amendment. Some amendments in their totality are nonsensical without putting it in the context of the motion itself.

When we're speaking here on the amendment of Madam Freeman, it has to be in the context of the motion. So as long as a member is talking about the motion and its amendment and subamendment, if there is one, that really is relevant. Sometimes people stretch it, but let's not stretch it too far.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, I think you've heard the concern of the members. Carry on, and let's be constructive or productive.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Yes. In fact, Chair, I started by quoting Madam Freeman, who stated, when speaking to her amendment, that this is something that should be seen as normal. So I was dealing specifically with the amendment, and then the broader context of the original motion and the statement of whether or not the minister is dealing in good faith.

I'm not willing to be as generous as perhaps Madam Freeman is in regard to whether or not we can expect good faith on behalf of the minister speaking on behalf of the government, because I think he's clearly demonstrated the opposite. His letter of November 4, in dismissing our—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Go ahead, Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, the minister's letter of November 4 has nothing to do with a new Access to Information Act that could be brought by March 30, 2010. That is the motion that's before the committee.

As I've said previously, the member is making a very thinly veiled attempt to stretch out this debate. Frankly, I think it's disrespectful to the members who have brought the motions forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

The minister is encouraging the committee to consider comprehensive reforms to the Access to Information Act. So the subject matter is the act and about fixing it, no matter how that may happen. As long as the member is talking about how we get there, whether it's our making recommendations to the government or the government coming forward with some, it's close enough. Okay?

But again, I'm encouraging members, as I've expressed at least three times now, to look at what the motion and the amendment say, how they work and where they leave us. The debate now should be an articulation of the point of view of a member, which would possibly be reflected in their vote on the amendment and the motion. That's where we're going. The funnel is going down, and we should be going down to the issue of “So what?” We've had a lot of talk....

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, you have the floor, but be mindful of where we're going here.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Absolutely.

You used the example of the funnel and how we end up at a decision when it comes to the actual vote.

Referencing the minister's letter of November 4, I note that in that letter where he once again dismisses the report that has caused this motion to be brought forward in this committee—I'll read it into the record, although it's there, but just to remind fellow committee members that the reason he has dismissed our report is because he'd like to guide us in a different direction—he states that he wants us to “study the issues raised in the government's discussion paper”.

That's in his letter of November 4. In his appearance before the committee on May 4, he said something quite different, when we were working on our report. When I asked him about the Conservative platform, “Stand up for Canada”, where they pledged that so-called cabinet confidences would not be excluded from the commissioner's review, one of the most important recommendations we made in the committee that has been dismissed out of hand, this is what the honourable minister responded:

I'm pleased to hear any recommendations or any analysis that is made.

It's not restricted to the government's discussion paper, it's “any recommendations”.

He went on to say the following: The whole question of cabinet confidentiality, quite frankly, is a long-standing cornerstone of the Westminster system of government, so if this committee would like to examine that issue--and I think they should--I would be pleased to have a look at this issue.

He emphasized it by stating, “I think they should”. He thought that we should be addressing these issues. He stated on the record that he'd be pleased to address those issues. Yet when we came forward with our report and recommendations, he dismissed them out of hand and now he's telling us to go in a very different direction and study the government's discussion paper.

But then he even challenged us. He said, I'm here to tell you that if you would again take up the challenge...I would be pleased to see whatever you have to say.

That's what the minister told us on May 4. We did our work in good faith. We took the minister at his word. He clearly stated that he thought that we “should”, that he would “look” at the issue.

Those are the minister's words. He told the committee to take up the challenge.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Del Mastro, on a point of order.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

As I said, Mr. Chair, I have considerable experience with the chair in this committee in the previous Parliament, and on many occasions the chair cut me off, in fact, or reduced my speaking time for repetition. If Mr. Wrzesnewskyj were a record, his needle would be skipping.

I feel as though I've heard this several times. Unless we're going to start reading the letter backwards to see if there's a hidden meaning in it, I'd suggest that we could probably move to a vote. I think members of the committee would be very interested in moving to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I tend to agree. I think I've heard some of the argument. I understand how, as members, we tend to loop around. We go back, pick it up again, bring it up, and the progress forward is....

I think we're probably getting very close to the “so what” part. So let's go.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I think it's quite clear, Chair, that faith has been broken with this committee, with the Canadian public. Consequently, although I respect this amendment to the motion, the intent of the amendment, the way it's currently worded I wouldn't be able to support it.

Finally, in terms of Mr. Del Mastro's comments, I think it was good for him to hear what the minister had to say back on May 4 when he was not on this committee, to hear the minister's commitment that he clearly made to this committee, and to hear why this committee has decided to put forward a motion of this nature for discussion before the committee at this time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Siksay, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to respond very briefly to your comments when you stepped out of the chair.

Chair, I disagree most strongly that this amendment or this motion would in any way limit our ability as a committee to look at the issues we want to review, any issue related to access to information. I think we can encourage the government to bring forward a new piece of legislation and set a deadline for it, given the length of time that has passed without that kind of legislation.

Even though we do that, I don't think we have to wait until March 2010 to look at other issues that may affect access to information in Canada. If this committee wants to look at administrative issues like proactive disclosure or cost recovery, or if it wants to look at an electronic application system, we could choose to do that. There's nothing in this motion or this amendment that would prevent us from doing that in the meantime.

In fact, Chair, I would say we could even look at specific legislative issues related to access to information, even if we pass this motion. I believe there's enough on the table and enough water under the bridge; there have been enough presentations and enough studies that the government has the information it needs to bring forward a recommendation, bring forward legislation. We don't need to do one more hearing on it to make that possible for the government. It has that information. It has its own opinions. It has its own commitments and its own platform promises, as well, on practically all of these issues.

Chair, there is nothing in Madam Freeman's motion calling on the government to bring forward legislation in a certain timeframe and nothing in our expression of disappointment in the minister's response that would preclude any progress on this issue. I want to make that point very strongly. That's why I'll be supporting both.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Mr. Siksay.

Thank you for reminding all of us that the committee is the master of its own work plan. We certainly can address Mr. Dechert's cost recovery concerns. We can address the possibility of looking at or examining proactive disclosure, etc. That would be very interesting to me, and I hope, maybe, we could refer that to the steering committee for consideration when we look at our planning of work beyond what we've already approved. But that's up to the committee.

The other point I would just raise is that Madam Freeman already had a motion before this committee. It was tabled in the House, she moved concurrence in that, and there was already a debate that the government bring forward a bill. That was not embraced by the House. We'll give it another shot, though. I think that's what this motion is saying. I'll just let people know that we already tried this route.

Madam Simson, go ahead, please.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd just like to address Mr. Del Mastro's comments with respect to your relinquishing the chair and giving us some history, because I for one really appreciated it. It was relevant to this particular issue, this motion, and this amendment.

It was something that Mr. Szabo had to say with respect to minority governments--

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Chair, a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Madam Freeman...or Madam Simson, I apologize; I didn't get much sleep last night.

Mr. Del Mastro has a point of order.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Just to be clear, we're now debating whether testimony or thoughts that were given by another committee member were actually relevant or valuable.

What in the world does this have to do with the amendment? Can somebody...?

I understand what's going on. I'll tell you, frankly, that it is within the chair's right to relinquish the chair and to provide his opinion should he wish to do that. I have never seen it done, but that is what we saw this morning. We appreciated it. I encourage the chair to provide that.

In fact, if the chair would like to do a significant amount of work and provide that to you so that you would have more information, so that you can make your decisions in the future, I think that's fantastic. But as I said, I think the way your party is acting this morning is contemptuous to the members who have brought these motions in good faith, and we should vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

The member had just started her comments. I think I'm going to reserve my judgment on the relevance until she gets a little further into her comments. That was a preamble, I think.

Madam Simson, you did hear the member's intervention on a point he's raised a couple of times already in the committee. Again, I'm just going to encourage everybody to make sure, on their little watch, that their discussion is relevant to the amendment in the context of the motion.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

With all due respect to my colleague across the way, it was relevant. I was discussing the fact that while I really appreciated the spirit of the amendment that was proposed by Madam Freeman about the new Access to Information Act, the chair was able to drive home to me the fact that in a minority government it probably isn't a practical or most effective way of dealing with this.

What I'd like to do is propose a subamendment. Taking into account the fact that the committee does respect the minister--and I do--I would really like to see him appear before this committee not to make a speech but to hear his explanation, and maybe somehow find a way that we can get done the work that we all need to get done for the country.

The subamendment I'm proposing would ask that the minister be invited to reappear before this committee by November 30, 2009.