Thank you very much.
I'm appearing before this committee again on the topics of access to information and privacy in my capacity as Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
We have been very busy on a number of fronts, particularly with reforms to our justice system. We all have a stake in making sure the system works effectively and our citizens are safe.
We've made it a priority, of course, to tackle the whole question of crime. As you know, I've introduced a number of bills since March, bills that help protect children from online predators; tackle property crime and trafficking in property obtained by crime; impose tougher penalties for drug crimes, particularly in relation to gangs and organized criminal groups; and provide tougher sentences for fraud to help combat white-collar crime.
We are providing more tools for police and prosecutors to prevent and investigate terrorist activities. We're ending the use of house arrest for property and other serious crimes by serious and violent offenders. We are repealing the faint-hope clause that allows murderers to obtain early parole and gives them the opportunity to repeatedly increase their victimization of the families they have so badly affected. We're strengthening the legislation that handles violent and repeat young offenders.
In addition to this important and necessary group, our government has addressed other issues that affect Canadians, such as the Access to Information Act reform. Again, as the chairman pointed out circumstantially, our government has introduced laws that affect access to information. That, of course, is through the Federal Accountability Act, which makes a number of important and necessary improvements to the whole question of access to information.
Among other things, that particular piece of legislation greatly expands the number of entities covered by the act and strengthens it by providing for institutions to assist requesters without regard to their identity.
When the Federal Accountability Act was introduced in 2006, the government also tabled a discussion paper, which the chairman referred to. The paper raised a number of issues for your consideration in relation to the reform proposals of the former Information Commissioner, Mr. John Reid. The paper encouraged this committee to consider these issues and consult widely with interested stakeholders and affected government institutions.
When I appeared before you in 2008 and again in 2009, I urged the committee to take up a full-fledged study of the issues raised in the discussion paper. We believed that further study would provide an opportunity for this committee to shape further access reforms by calling on key witnesses and stakeholders in order to fully understand all views. The important work conducted by this committee on a broader basis would also provide a deeper appreciation of the impacts of possible access reforms.
As I said in a letter forwarded to you on April 29 of this year, I was pleased to note that the discussion paper has been recirculated to all members of this committee and you have conducted research on the contents of the paper.
This government takes seriously the issues of access to information and privacy. I'm here again to discuss the committee's work thus far and the work that, in my opinion, is still needed before further access to information or privacy reforms are made.
As you know, a year ago this committee tabled its report entitled, “The Access to Information Act: First Steps Towards Renewal”. The government reviewed the report with interest and noted that this committee endorsed 12 of Monsieur Marleau's recommendations. As required, the government tabled its response last fall, in October 2009.
It's worth noting that in his introduction to a March 4, 2009, submission to the committee, Monsieur Marleau wrote that “it is recognized that the Act is sound in terms of its concept and balance”. Mr. Marleau then went on to say that his recommendations addressed only the most pressing matters. This last point suggested to some that his recommendations could be quickly and easily implemented, which the government takes some issue with.
As stated in its response to the committee's report, it is the government's opinion that the nature of Mr. Marleau's proposals would require and should require extensive consultation with stakeholders.
For example, one recommendation would involve increasing the powers and mandate of the Information Commissioner to include reviewing legislative proposals and making decisions regarding requests for time extensions beyond 60 days. These proposed reforms would create a shift in the nature of the Information Commissioner's office from an ombudsman model towards a quasi-judicial model, which would not be consistent with other agents of Parliament. The government's view remains that implementing the proposals recommended in the committee's report would be neither quick nor easy.
Furthermore, several of Mr. Marleau's proposals could have cost implications, which in the current climate cannot be ignored. Although the economy is improving through sound fiscal management as set out in the economic action plan under the guidance of my colleague Minister Flaherty, we are in a period of fiscal restraint. So we must always be careful.
Turning now to privacy issues, about a year ago, this committee tabled its report “The Privacy Act: First Steps Towards Renewal”. As you know, this report provides the committee's recommendations regarding the Privacy Commissioner's 12 proposals for reform. The commissioner herself describes these as “quick fixes”. This committee's report supported five proposals and offered qualified support for one other. The committee also indicated that four of the 12 recommendations required further study.
Finally, you stated that the committee did not consider it a top priority to enshrine in the Privacy Act a requirement for government institutions to assess privacy impacts of new programs or systems. This is a cautious approach to the Privacy Act. The issues involved in privacy are complex and, more importantly, they require the balancing of the interests that are crucial for our democratic society.
For example, the Government of Canada must strike the right balance between national security and Canada's international obligations while respecting the privacy of Canadians. Indeed, the government alluded to this complexity in its response to the committee's report on the commissioner's tenth proposal, which recommended the strengthening of the provisions of the Privacy Act governing the disclosure of personal information by the Canadian government to foreign states.
As you know, a number of the Privacy Commissioner's recommendations proposed to enshrine current policy in law. In its response dated October 29, 2009, the government pointed out that policies have certain advantages over law. For example, the Treasury Board Secretariat issued a new directive on privacy protection and a renewed directive on social insurance numbers that clarifies accountabilities with respect to the management of personal information.
Since the government's response, and as I stated in my letter to this committee on April 29, the President of the Treasury Board has issued three new directives on privacy. They are: the directive on privacy requests and correction of personal information; the directive on privacy practices; and the directive on privacy impact assessment.
These directives provide detailed guidance and best practices for the day-to-day administration of the Privacy Act. They also represent an important development that ensures the privacy of Canadians continues to be adequately protected.
To conclude, it's the government's hope that this committee will continue to consider access and privacy reforms, bearing in mind the complexities they raise, and consult extensively with all relevant stakeholders in order to achieve the best possible results for Canadians.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. If there are any questions, I would be pleased to take them, and I am pleased to be joined by a true expert in this area for any of the technical aspects of both pieces of legislation, Mr. Denis Kratchanov.
