Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 16th, 2011

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Those would be the three models you'd recommend of all ten plus the territories, the three best to look at?

[Suzanne Legault]

Well, they have different models. Some models have order-making powers, some of them don't.

In Canada there hasn't been, to my knowledge, a really good study of the various pros and cons of the various models. You have the Quebec commission, which is a completely different model. To my knowledge, in Canada it hasn't really been looked at in recent years. There have been a lot of amendments to, I think, Alberta's legislation, and B.C. has had amendments to their legislation. There have been a lot of changes since this was last looked at.

Internationally, as well, we have new pieces of legislation. The U.K. and Australia have new pieces of legislation.

So I think there is some very good benchmarking to look at it.

As to whether I can give you a short answer on this beyond what I'm saying now, I can't. Frankly, although I would love to have studied this in depth, I really don't have the time right now with the level of complaints we have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I have exactly the same problem: I really don't have the time right now.

Madame DeBellefeuille, four minutes.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much as well, Ms. Legault.

What I understood from your opening comments is that you were explaining your limitations in terms of the investigations you carry out in order to access additional information covered by a certificate. You even said that, in terms of modernizing the legislation, this is one thing we may want to look at more closely. I would really like to get an idea of what is involved and understand the process.

When Mr. Brison made an initial request regarding the costs of 18 law-and order bills, he was told that he could not have any of that information because it was a Cabinet confidence. As citizens or as parliamentarians, how do we know whether the request regarding these costs really is subject to Cabinet confidentiality and that a certificate has been issued to that end? That is my first question.

My second question is as follows: do you not think that multiple refusals under the guise of Cabinet confidentiality could be a way of circumventing the Access to Information Act?

[Suzanne Legault]

As regards your first question, that is really a matter involving the parliamentary process. There are certain things you can do. That is what you are involved in here today, and that is what the Speaker of the House did when he made certain rulings. It really is up to parliamentarians, based on parliamentary procedure, to decide and take the necessary steps to ascertain how they can access the information they believe they are entitled to receive in order to do their job. It's really about the parliamentary process.

As I was saying, what I am focusing on today is what we do under the current Act in relation to Cabinet confidences. That gives you a potential avenue in terms of justification and basic data that has to be provided, according to the caselaw, to determine whether the documents are indeed Cabinet confidences.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Pardon me for interrupting you. Initially, the government refused to pass on the information, saying that it was a Cabinet confidence. If, as a member of Parliament, I want to be certain that what the government is telling me is true, I have to lodge a complaint and ask you to verify whether the costing for this or that bill is indeed protected under a certificate. The only way I can do that is to make a complaint so that you can check to see whether it's true.

At the beginning, the government systematically refused, citing that specific reason. After that, the Government House Leader did provide some budget information regarding certain bills, but with no explanation as to the reason for refusing in the other cases. If, as a parliamentarian, I want the answer, I have to make a complaint so that you can investigate and determine whether every request is indeed subject to rules of confidentiality. Is that indeed the way it works?

[Suzanne Legault]

They are parallel and distinct processes. They can be carried out independently of each other. There is the parliamentary process, with all the procedures and codes that govern what you do. I really am no expert in that area.

Furthermore, as a citizen residing in Canada, you have the right to make an access to information request. If you're not satisfied with the answer you receive, you can make a complaint to the Office of the Commissioner. That has happened in the past. In some specific cases I am aware of, the member of Parliament went through both processes. They operate in parallel and are governed by different procedures. An investigation by the Office of the Commissioner is not the same thing as a parliamentary debate among politicians. They are two completely different avenues.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Are you not concerned to see that this increase in response time is a means of circumventing the Access to Information Act?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Hopefully, we'll get to that answer.

[Suzanne Legault]

I can't really speculate as to political motives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Martin, welcome today. Four minutes for you.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madame Legault, the public has a right to know what their government is doing. It's a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy. Yet this government seems obsessed with secrecy. In your own testimony you suggested that enforcement of the ATI Act would be a lot cheaper if the government would in fact err on the side of the spirit of the act, which is to reveal information and to share information, rather than secrecy.

It's the culture of secrecy that allowed corruption to flourish under the Liberal years, and yet this government seems obsessed with secrecy. It's almost a paranoid obsession to never reveal anything unless somebody, as if pulling teeth, manages to eke it out of them.

Can you expand on your comment? I'm reading from your comments where you say that it would cost a lot less if the government actually followed the spirit of the legislation, which would result in disclosure rather than secrecy. Is it your testimony that the government is not complying with the spirit and the letter of the Access to Information Act?

[Suzanne Legault]

I think from what we see I can't make a generalized statement that the government is not complying with the spirit of the Access to Information Act. What I can say is if we look at the government statistics year over year in terms of the number of requests where all information was disclosed, that's been in steady decline as well. It was about--

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Although you've now referred one matter to the RCMP--

[Suzanne Legault]

It was about 40% in the year 2000, and we're now down to 16% in terms of the requests where all information was disclosed.

So this is not just the Conservative government. This is a longstanding matter. What I'm concerned about is that this trend is not being reversed.

In terms of the institutions that don't function well, last year's report card and this year's report card point to 15 institutions where we really have to have a serious look at how they apply the law.

[Pat Martin]

But I can just point out, five years into this government's regime, that they in fact rode into Ottawa on the high horse of accountability. They were the ones who were going to implement John Reid's open government act. It was the one that was committed to freedom of information.

I heard people say freedom of information is the oxygen democracy breathes, and all kinds of flowery and romantic promises and commitments, and yet their record is no better. In fact, arguably, it's a lot worse.

What I'm getting at is that I think your comment was very revealing, in that if they would only err on the side of open government instead of secrecy they would save us all a lot of money and the general public would be better served. You can't overstate the importance of the public's right to know what their government is doing with their money. It's a fundamental freedom.

[Suzanne Legault]

My comment was not that this government must do that, but that all governments must do that, constantly. That way we would see a reversal in that trend.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Cost is only one of the barriers, and I have one example. The Treaty One First Nations, in my community of Winnipeg, were trying to find out about the status of the Kapyong military barracks. They paid their $5 up front and then there was a $780 surcharge for research. That's only one example where stalling, delaying, overcharging, etc., are barriers thrown in the way of those who would like to exercise their right to know.

What is the highest amount that you can remember a person being charged for a freedom of information request?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

In under ten seconds.

[Suzanne Legault]

Certainly over $10,000, in terms of closed cases.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Martin.

Thank you, Ms. Legault, for your help today.

We've reached the 12:30 period, and we will suspend for one hour. We'll be back here at 1:30.

I thank all the members for their help this morning in keeping us on schedule. For members, there is lunch in the Commonwealth Room.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I will give a couple of seconds for the room to settle down before we go ahead and start our afternoon session.

We are, of course, still on the same tight timeline we were on this morning.

Minister Nicholson and Minister Toews, it's good to see you both here today. If you have any opening remarks, please share them. Try to be as brief as you can. During your opening remarks please try to introduce the staff you've brought with you, if you can. If not, we'll certainly get to a round of questioning after that, where I'm sure we might get to that.

Documentation is being handed out.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Chairman, just as a preliminary, I presume I will ask your permission to table or distribute the documentation that is being distributed at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Well, thank you. I'm happy to see it.

Which one of my two favourite ministers wants to go first?

Thank you, Minister Toews.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

I'll start. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I'm pleased to speak to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs about the costs for cracking down on violent crime. Today I will speak to issues concerning the Department of Public Safety and its portfolio agencies. My colleague, the Honourable Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, will speak to issues pertaining to the Department of Justice.

The potential witnesses here around the table are listed in the witness list. I don't need to introduce each individual, I presume, given that they've already been noted on the docket.

As you are aware, on February 17, 2011, our government tabled a projected cost estimate in response to a motion brought forward by the member for Kings—Hants on December 7, 2010. This estimate was tabled in Parliament. It set out the projected cost of several government bills that address crime, law enforcement, and corrections. It was our belief that this satisfied the information request in the December 7 motion.

The costing tabled on February 17 represented projected costs. It goes without saying that projections are complex and time-consuming exercises. Today, in front of you, is a binder that provides additional information that elaborates on and helps clarify what was presented to the House on February 17. I believe that the information in front of you fully supports and answers the committee's request. It also clearly states whether there are any limitations on the ability of the government to answer any elements of the request, as framed by the motion. In addition, these documents explicitly note and explain any apparent differences between this package and the February 17 tabling. I urge all committee members to review the information laid before you, as it provides clear and accurate details of the legislative costs associated with this government's crime bills.

We all know that crime has a terrible cost for victims, and indeed for all Canadians. This includes costs related to property damage and loss, costs related to lost productivity, as individuals rebuild their lives, and most importantly, costs related to the medical care and support required in response to the physical and mental harm so often done to the victims of crime. These are costs our government believes victims should not have to bear, which is why we have taken such extensive steps to crack down on crime, to prevent it before it happens, to punish it once it has occurred, and to do all we can to ensure that it does not reoccur.

Our government is working hard to keep Canadians safe and to finally put the rights of victims front and centre in our criminal justice system. There may be much we disagree about here today, but I would like to think that we are of one mind on this: a government has no greater responsibility than to ensure the safety and security of its citizens.

Since we were first elected in 2006, this government has told Canadians that we would make changes to the Criminal Code that would make sure that violent and repeat offenders would be subject to tougher sentences. We promised to crack down on violent, gun-related crime. We committed to putting more police onto our streets and to working to secure our borders. We have passed legislation targeting gang violence and organized crime by addressing issues such as gang murders, drive-by shootings, and additional protection for police officers.

Our government is a government of action and commitment. That's why we are in fact doing what we said we would do. We know that action has a cost, a cost that we are willing to pay. We are willing to pay it, because the cost to society is so much greater, and not simply as measured in dollars and cents.

In the current session we have introduced ten pieces of legislation that await passage into law, including bills to end the use of accelerated parole review and measures to combat the heinous practice of human smuggling, a crime that threatens our communities as well as Canada's generous immigration system.

Victims and law-abiding Canadians alike have told us that these measures are critically important, and I take this opportunity to again urge opposition members, and those on this committee in particular, to consider not only the figures on the pages in front of you but the overall cost of crime to our society. After all, protecting Canadians by providing a safe and secure society is worth the price.

Thank you.

Following the presentation by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, I would be happy to respond to any questions that members of the committee may have.