Evidence of meeting #118 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
On how many occasions have you found yourself, acting on behalf of your office, in court with the federal government? How many times?
1:30 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
I think right now we have 11 cases that are active.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
You have 11 that are active. Do you know how many you've had since taking your post as commissioner?
1:30 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
No, but I can come back to you with the information.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Is it your belief that Canadians have a quasi-constitutional right to access information and that the government has a legal obligation to provide that information?
1:30 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
The Supreme Court recognized that the right of access is a quasi-constitutional right, and yes, government information belongs to Canadians, so unless there are limitations, exemptions or exclusions, that information should be provided to Canadians.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
We have a situation here where your office has multiple complaints. We know there were lawful orders of committee and lawful orders of the House of Commons, and that the Trudeau government refused those lawful orders.
Can we infer from this that the government broke the quasi-constitutional right that Canadians have, since even their elected representatives are being refused information that they have lawful authority to order?
1:30 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
I've seen cases where the information should have been provided and other cases where the information was properly redacted. It really, again, depends on the case.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Is it your experience, Commissioner, that access to information is a priority of the Trudeau government?
1:30 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
At this point, I don't see it as a priority. We are asking for legislative changes. We are asking for changes within the system. There hasn't been a lot of improvement.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
I will just say in closing, Commissioner, that I appreciate the work you do. Canadians share in your frustration, having had their elected representatives order the government, on more than one occasion, to produce this information and the government illegally refusing a lawful order of Parliament. We share your frustration and the work you do to get answers.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Barrett.
For the next six-minute intervention, I'm not sure who we're going to.
May 16th, 2024 / 1:30 p.m.
Liberal
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I didn't make a point of order, but I have to chime in. I'm joining the others who are disappointed in this meeting being called with little notice and totally at the discretion of the chair. This was during a very rare constituency week, when all of our schedules were completely full and jam-packed. We should be spending the last week before the summer break engaging with our constituents.
All of this was to start a study that we could have easily started in Ottawa. The committee agreed to study this, even though it was already studied at the Canada-China committee, which in fact just wrapped up.
Why today? Why during a constituency week? I share those frustrations. Sure, I've seen meetings called during non-sitting weeks before. Standing Order 106(4) meetings happen all the time. They're emergency meetings for current topics that just can't wait. This study today is based on something that happened in 2020. It was just studied by another committee, and we're committing to studying it as well.
My personal opinion is that what's more pressing might be the recent news story about Conservatives spending over $400,000 in taxpayer money during their political conventions. Maybe that's the emergency that we should be talking about today. Maybe we should be seeking unanimous consent today—
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Hang on, Mr. Fisher. We have a point of order from Mr. Brock. I did stop your time.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
The purpose of this committee, and all committees that I have the privilege of sitting on, is not an open licence to just rant and express your frustration.
Does he have a question? Does he actually want to utilize the time with—
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
