Evidence of meeting #19 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Yes. I think that's what Mr. Easter is referring to.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
The one the minister just spent all that time talking about? Okay.
Mr. Easter, carry on.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I'll just read you the first paragraph of what Mr. Hill had to say, the leader of the government in the House of Commons:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the government to address the issue of ministers' staff members being called before committees to testify.
The key point is the next statement:
We recognize that committees do have the authority to call for persons and papers; however, just because they can does not mean that they ought to in every case.
I think, Mr. Chair, that really what the leader of the government in the House of Commons is saying there is that he knows full well that committees have the right and the authority to call for persons and papers. That's what we've done here. We've called for persons--persons who are knowledgeable in the issue.
The minister, in his remarks, went to on to say that pressure is being put on staffers. And I've heard some of the discussions, through the media, from government members trying to cover what I would call their irresponsible position here, that they're young, they're inexperienced. Some of them are indeed young, and some of them are indeed inexperienced. Many of them are paid—and I could go through the list—in the over-$100,000 range. People who are in that bracket of income and in a senior position in a minister's office developing policy obviously shouldn't be there just as a patronage plum. They should be there to do their job for the citizens of Canada, not just for the patronage desires of the minister of the crown.
There's only one way of getting at these individuals to see what they're really doing. This was a government that came in here talking about accountability and responsibility, and we have never—we have never—in our lifetime seen a government that's so secretive, so hidden, so managing the messaging as this one is.
So my point, Mr. Chair, is that I believe that the leader of the government in the House of Commons, in his own remarks, knows full well that committees have the right and the authority to call persons—
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay. Thank you.
You probably ducked over the line a couple of times there, Mr. Easter, and I really think we should wind it up.
I'd like to remind all of us that we have the acting Information Commissioner, who is a nominee of the government to be our full-time Information Commissioner, and I can tell the committee I dearly want to address that matter at this meeting and report it to the House as soon as possible, please.
Mr. Easter, please, you still have the floor.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes.
Just to conclude, then, Mr. Chair, the only way the committee is going to get at this issue and get the full knowledge of the facts from the people who know is to exercise what this committee has asked to be done: for the bailiff to be able to serve the papers. In the absence of that, the motion that's on the floor goes to the issue, that it is deemed to have been being issued. Maybe then we will hear from Madam Andrews and Mr. Soudas.
And it's the only way we're going to get to the issue of how deep the Prime Minister's Office and the issues management committee are really involved in this cover-up.
Thank you very much.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Thank you, Chair.
Chair, you made some comments earlier, when Mr. Paradis was speaking, about how this was brought up in the House, how Mr. Hill made a statement in the House, and how the Speaker is going to rule on that statement.
I understand that if that's the case, then this committee is getting out ahead of itself, in front of the Speaker. I think we need to wait till the Speaker actually rules on whether staff are required to testify or not.
Since he has not ruled on this, why are we dealing with this at this point in time? I would suggest that this all be tabled until we have that ruling.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
All right.
I will assume that you've made a point of order with the question of whether or not we're following the proper procedure given what's happened in the House.
I thought of the same thing. I took the opportunity to have what was, I would suggest, an informal consultation with the law clerk and with the Speaker, and I asked the question. There was a ministerial statement in the House by the government House leader. There were responses from the other House leaders of the other three parties. There was nothing else.
Ministerial statements do not request the Speaker to make a ruling. They are simply there as information about, in this case, what is taken as the policy of the government in that it hasn't been voted on in the House.
In fact, there is no motion or no obligation that we could find that actually would trigger a decision in the House. I was advised that the only thing they could see that would trigger something in the House would be an incident in a committee where a political staffer was called, a minister appeared in their stead, and the committee reported back to the House. Then the House would be seized with the question that you ask.
So in fact the House won't do anything until there is a committee report from some committee.
Okay?
Now--
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
If that is the case--they've made the argument here that the staffers are not appearing--I question the relevance of going the subpoena route. Why wouldn't we have gone back to the Speaker, saying that these witnesses are not going to appear? The Speaker is in charge of this realm. Why would we not go back to the Speaker, saying that these people will not appear? Is it not his responsibility, then, to rule on that?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No, simply because, as I think I explained in earlier meetings, Mr. Hoback, to the clerk's requests--formal requests, written and oral--to appear, not only did they refuse to appear, they wouldn't even respond to the requests. No answer: zero.
The committee had authorized the chair to issue a summons if necessary. That Monday--I guess it was a week ago Monday--I took the decision, since the clerk was unable to get any response whatsoever from either Ms. Andrews or Mr. Soudas, to sign the summons at one o'clock that Monday. I received an e-mail from the clerk at 2:15 p.m. saying that the summons would be served “this afternoon”, being that Monday. So it was snap, snap.
That's how it happened, sir.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
The Speaker has not been notified, then, of the problem.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
The Speaker can't be notified unless there is a report from the committee. I can assure you, though, that the Speaker is monitoring the proceedings in our two committees, the government operations committee and this committee, very closely.
So the Speaker is not seized with it simply because there is no report from a committee. He may have something to say about how we did what we've done, because they are carefully looking at the transcripts and rulings, etc. That's why, I can tell you, I've spent a lot of time making sure I'm in the ballpark.
Are you done, sir?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you.
There being no further speakers, I want the question to be called now.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
The next item of business, number two, pursuant to Standing Order 110 and Standing Order 111, is the certificate of nomination of Suzanne Legault to the position of Information Commissioner, referred to the committee on Thursday, June 3, 2010.
Our witness today is the nominee, the acting Information Commissioner from the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, Suzanne Legault.
Madame Legault, please.
12:20 p.m.
Suzanne Legault Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
One moment please.
If I may, for the benefit of members, we have two items here with the Information Commissioner, and we want to deal with the nomination first. In normal circumstances, that might take a fair bit of time, especially if we're not familiar with the person, but we've been blessed to be able to have the Acting Information Commissioner before us on a number of occasions and she's well known to the committee. So I think there is an understanding and agreement that the discussion on the nomination will be concise, if I may say.
We would also like to have a second item on the responsibilities of the current acting commissioner with regard to the annual report, which was just tabled. Since we have had the estimates review in a session with the minister, as well as the report cards in another session, as well as another session on proactive disclosure, we have probably covered a fair bit of what's in the annual report. We believe we should also be able to address new items or new areas for consideration with regard to the annual report, all before one o'clock.
So, with that, Madame Legault, do you have an opening statement for this committee?
12:25 p.m.
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Yes, I do, a very brief one, Mr. Chairman, if you would allow me.
I'm delighted to be here today, Mr. Chairman, to answer your questions on my nomination as Information Commissioner and to discuss the annual report on my office's activities for this past fiscal year. I'm really honoured to be conferred this tremendous privilege of being nominated for the position of Access to Information Commissioner of Canada. I'm really excited about the great responsibilities and the challenges that come with the position of agents of Parliament in serving both Parliament and Canadians.
Almost a year ago, when I accepted this job on an interim basis, I made a commitment to maximize the effectiveness and the timeliness of our investigative function to fully meet the current needs and expectations of Canadians.
Over the last year, through sustained and ongoing efforts, we've made great strides towards the achievement of this goal. As you will see from the annual report, this year has been in many respects an unprecedented one. I will be happy to discuss these achievements in more detail.
But before, if I may Mr. Chair, I would like to briefly talk about my career path leading up to this nomination. I believe members of the committee have been provided with my curriculum vitae. I won't go into any great detail, but I would like to say this.
I am a lawyer by training, and I have spent the last 20 years working in a variety of environments, including the private sector, the public service, and academia. Through my diverse work experiences, I have honed my skills in mediation, negotiation, and litigation. My experience as a public servant has taught me much about policy development on complex matters and the privileged relationship we hold with Parliament and its committees.
This experience also made me a steward of sound management practices. Over the last three years the office has fundamentally changed, and I can honestly say today that it has come a very long way. It is stronger, more accountable, and more effective. I was directly involved in establishing and improving the organization's capacity in areas such as corporate services, information management, and parliamentary affairs. My office's efforts at improving our financial management practices and governance were recognized last year by the Auditor General of Canada. I've also reinforced our internal audit functions to ensure we gain maximum efficiencies and make adjustments to our operations in a timely fashion.
Above all of these work experiences, Mr. Chairman, however, I believe that the greatest strength I can bring to the position of Information Commissioner is my ability to deal with highly complex matters and to find creative solutions.
I would also like to add that since joining the Office of the Information Commissioner in 2007, I have gained an in-depth knowledge of the Access to Information Act as well as the institution. Since starting my interim term as Information Commissioner, I have been directly involved in our investigations. I have made full use of the powers at my disposal and the tools I have to maximize compliance with legislative requirements. My office has collaborated with all stakeholders during investigations in order to find the best resolution to complaints.
However, over the past year, I took a firm hand when required. I have also adopted a more proactive and integrated approach to assess compliance with our act, as articulated in the three-year plan, of which you have a copy.
As a result, Mr. Chairman, this past year we have closed more complaints than we have in the past two decades and we have made the largest dent in our existing caseload. We have also reduced by nearly one-third the average time it is taking us to conclude investigations in our more recent complaints.
If my nomination is confirmed, my leadership and my vision will be governed by excellence—that is, excellence in service to Canadians, excellence in service to Parliament, excellence in the stewardship of the OIC, and excellence as an employer.
In practical terms, this means that first and foremost my focus will remain on investigations for the time being. We have made great strides this year in reducing our inventory of cases. However, we continue to deal with an important caseload, and until such time as we reach a manageable caseload, dealing with investigations will be my number one priority. I will systematically work toward improving the access to information as a whole at all levels, in terms of requests, in terms of dealing with systemic problems, and in terms of strengthening our legal standards.
I do not think it is helpful to say that everything related to the federal access to information regime is broken. As my experience has taught me, it is much more productive to address specific issues with the right people, based on strong evidence. I am optimistic that, with this approach, the access to information regime will become stronger and more effective.
As an ombudsperson, I see my role as a catalyst between the various stakeholders in order to bring about advancement in the access to information regime in Canada. I have said in the past that the Access to Information Act is lagging behind most Canadian and foreign jurisdictions. My goal is to bring about greater convergence between legal standards in Canada and those in more progressive laws internationally.
As information is now flowing across levels of government and across national and international boundaries, Canadians should not have to face varying standards and receive different responses depending on where the request is made.
Mr. Chair, on December 12, 2006, when former Commissioner Marleau appeared before this committee to discuss his own nomination, he said the following, which I was reading when I was preparing for this appearance. He said:
When Parliament grants an agent of Parliament a trust on behalf of all Canadians, the very least that Parliament deserves to receive in return is leadership that it can trust.
Mr. Chair, I am most honoured by this nomination, and I think it is timely that my first annual report was just tabled last week. This committee is then, in my view, in a very good position to assess whether I have demonstrated to its satisfaction that I can lead the OIC through its complex mandate in a trustworthy manner.
With this, Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer your questions.
