Information & Ethics Committee on March 10th, 2016

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Yes, I would like to move that motion and take a bit of time to motivate it.

The way that this came up is there was an access to information request made by a Canadian Press reporter that was recently denied by the government. Some documents were released, but substantial portions of them were left out and not disclosed. The government chose to exercise a discretionary exemption to leave out some of the advice and deliberations from that document.

I think it would be useful for the committee to have a sense of the kind of advice that's being offered to the President of the Treasury Board and to government on how to go forward. I think it would be useful to us because it would help inform the study that we're doing on the Access to Information Act, to get a sense of the kinds of recommendations that are being made to government, and the basis on which those recommendations are being made. I think that would be important for our committee to consider.

I could imagine a government that wasn't committed to openness and transparency maybe not wanting to see such a motion go through, and they might argue, for instance, that.... Frankly, I find it hard to see why this information wouldn't be useful to the committee.

You might argue that the scope of this particular motion is too broad. I would of course be willing to entertain friendly amendments to appropriately narrow that scope if the feeling of the committee is that this scope is too broad. Perhaps we want to try to narrow it down to those particular documents that were the subject of the access request and ensure that members of the committee, and more than members of the committee, members of the public are able to have access to the advice and deliberations on how government might proceed with reforms to the Access to Information Act, and are heard.

I think it was a mistake on the part of the government to deny this particular request and not make that advice and those deliberations open to the public. I think particularly with respect to this piece of legislation it's incumbent on government. I hear a sincere desire from the government to open up a new culture of openness and transparency. What better way to start than by making the discussions around reform to this act as open and as transparent as possible?

It's in the spirit of making the committee's work more useful to government, assisting government, and getting off on the right foot in terms of a culture of openness and transparency, that I move this motion. I hope we can pass it today so that this information might inform our discussion as soon as possible.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you very much, Mr. Blaikie.

Colleagues, we have a motion now on the floor. The motion is in front of you in both official languages.

For greater clarity on the motion, as I understand it, Mr. Blaikie, you are asking the committee to compel briefing materials and memos from the Treasury Board as one part of it.

The second thing that you're asking is then for the President of the Treasury Board to come here to speak to those memos, briefing materials, and in the more broader context the role of Treasury Board in the administration of the Access to Information Act study that we're doing. Do I understand the intention of your motion clearly?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Yes, that's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Lightbound.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I would recommend to the committee that we take this motion under consideration. I thank Mr. Blaikie for bringing it up. Let's take it under consideration so that we can bring some amendments.

For now I would suggest we adjourn the debate on the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I don't know if we can adjourn debate on the motion. We can adjourn the committee, which would stop the debate on everything. We could ask the mover of the motion—

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Then that's what I move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Are you asking to adjourn the committee? I don't think there's a mechanism to adjourn the debate.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

What was the second option?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

You could move to adjourn the committee and then the committee is over if it passes. That is a non-debatable motion, and if you move to adjourn then the committee would adjourn. When we resume the committee then we would resume here.

Mr. Massé.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I'd like to propose a motion to defer this motion to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I don't know if that's—

I don't want to adjourn the meeting, because we have to decide what we're going to do with our next meeting. This is getting a little awkward.

Mr. Blaikie, what I would suggest, as somebody who is now adjudicating for the first time in this committee—and it will happen a lot—is that you've heard a friendly suggestion that we table discussion on this motion so the parties around the table, even though you've given 48 hours' notice.... it sounds to me they would like to have further discussions among themselves so they can come back with some possible amendments.

If you are adamant about this motion right now we can either adjourn the committee, or we can simply vote on this motion and deal with the motion as it is in front of us. That would not preclude anybody from moving the motion again in the future.

Mr. Jeneroux.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Just so we're all clear, we received this on Tuesday. It's now been the appropriate 48 hours to have something before us. We're prepared to vote on the motion, and we're prepared to proceed with it. I'm not sure how much longer the Liberals need at this point.

I would suggest we move forward and vote. If there's a friendly amendment of sorts then that's reasonable, but to simply defer again seems a little...we've had 48 hours up to this point to do this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you.

Mr. Erskine-Smith.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

We learned for the first time today that information was requested from the Treasury Board, and pursuant to the Access to Information Act it was refused.

This committee is studying the Access to Information Act and reforms to the Access to Information Act. To suggest that materials were perhaps properly refused under the current regime, and that ought to be disclosed, presupposes the very question that we're trying to answer in this committee.

With all due respect I learned this for the first time. I think that it would be prudent to defer—we're talking about when we sit next Tuesday—and bring this motion back. My own opinion is that it would be more prudent to bring Mr. Brison here before us to answer questions as to where the government would like to go with this.

It does appear to me to be too broad on its face, but with all due respect it's pretty reasonable to push this to the next meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I can't do that unilaterally. I either need the mover of the motion to withdraw, or to deal with the motion.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I would say the 48-hour notice provision is fair. I think these documents would help to give some context to our time with the minister, so I'm certainly not opposing having the minister here because it's part of the motion. I think having those documents in advance would probably help us ask some better questions of the minister and make more effective use of his time.

I'm not inclined to defer this motion. I think that we could vote on it today, with the understanding that if there are amendments that other members of the committee would like me to consider as friendly amendments, I'm certainly happy to consider them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Jeneroux.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Further to Mr. Erskine-Smith's point, regardless of when you found out the details it doesn't mean that the President of the Treasury Board is going to appear before us tomorrow. It's still at the next meeting. We have a constituency week going ahead here, and we have the following week for meetings, as well.

It's a bit less than a two-week period to be prepared on their end for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Massé.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

The goal of inviting the President of the Treasury Board to come and share his perception and his game plan is very noble. However, we feel it is a bit too early for that. Obviously, we would like to do that a bit later.

I would therefore like to propose to the Chair to move a motion to put this motion to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I appreciate that.

Mr. Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I just wanted to clarify that the request is for the President of the Treasury Board to come following receipt of that information. So it may well actually be after the next sitting week, depending on when we get those documents. The idea is to get those documents and to have a chance to read those documents before we speak with the President of the Treasury Board so we might be able to ask him better questions that are more relevant to the options he's considering rather than spending our time with him asking about things that may well not be things that the government is seriously considering. Just in terms of timeline, I would say that this doesn't prescribe any particular timeline.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

It does not.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

The point is well taken, however, that at the very least it would be two weeks. It may well take longer depending on the response from Treasury Board, which, of course, I would hope would be prompt, but my experience is that it isn't.