PACC Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 5, 2002

¹

1530

The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance))

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Grewal

The Chair

Mr. Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

¹

1535

Mr. Bryden

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mr. Harb

The Chair

Mr. Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mr. Grewal

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

¹

1540

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Harb

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Bryden

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

---

NUMBER 038

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 5, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1530)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

    You have the agenda, which I understand has been circulated. The first order of business is the adoption of the fourth report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. We're then going to move to a motion that was presented by Mr. Gurmant Grewal the other day and was accepted as a notice because we didn't have quorum.

    Following that, we're going to move in camera and, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), undertake consideration of draft reports. We'll then see how far we get through draft reports before we adjourn.

    The first order of business, I understand, is the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Our agenda has been circulated in both official languages.

    May I have a motion?

    Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): I so move.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Moving on to the motion by Mr. Grewal, which I understand was circulated in both official languages last Friday, it was followed up by a notice of an amendment by Mr. Bryden, which I understand was also circulated in both official languages last Friday.

    Yes, Ms. Phinney.

    Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Chair, we have a motion and an amendment now in front of us. I don't want to vote no or yes on either right now, because I'm not a lawyer and I don't know all the ramifications and the history behind this issue. I would like to be briefed by officials, like we're briefed on everything else we discuss in here. We have officials and witnesses in, and then we vote after the officials and witnesses have spoken.

    So before we vote on this or even discuss it, I would like to respectfully suggest that we defer the discussion on this motion until we have heard from Department of Justice and Treasury Board officials. We could do that at the meeting, say, right after the break, which would just be the meeting after next.

    The Chair: The first thing is that I will assume Mr. Grewal has moved the motion.

    Am I correct in saying that, Mr. Grewal?

    Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance): Yes.

    The Chair: Let me just read the motion into the record.

    Mr. Grewal's motion reads:

That the Public Accounts Committee recommends an Order of the House be issued for copies of all detailed expense account information for ministers and their exempt political staff, and that the information shall be tabled in the House and permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

    That motion has been amended by Mr. Bryden, who submitted the following:

That the first paragraph be amended by adding after the words “account information” the following thereto:

“for the past calendar year” and deleting the words “the information” and substituting the following therefor:

the disclosable information as determined by the Access to Information Act”

and, add the following paragraph thereto:

For the purposes of this motion, Ministers and their exempt political staff shall be deemed to be officers and employees of a government institution as government institution is defined in the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

    That is the motion that was first introduced by Mr. Grewal and then seconded by Mr. Bryden.

    I now go to debate, beginning with Ms. Phinney.

    Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot, Lib.): No, no.

    The Chair: No, just a minute.

    Mr. John Bryden: It's an amendment. It's not seconded.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: This is an amendment.

    The Chair: Sorry. Yes, the motion was first introduced by Mr. Grewal, and it was amended by Mr. Bryden.

¹  (1535)  

    Mr. John Bryden: Thank you.

    The Chair: Ms. Phinney is now asking for a deferral of the debate.

    The only way you can defer the debate, Ms. Phinney, is to move a motion to table.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I so move.

    The Chair: We now have a motion to table, and we have to vote on the motion, which is not debatable. The motion is to table Mr. Grewal's motion and its amendment, I presume.

    Mr. Mac Harb: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I would like to hear from the clerk on whether or not you do not discuss deferral or tabling of a motion, although I'm prepared to go along with that.

    The Chair: You can't discuss a motion to table.

    Mr. John Bryden: It's not a debatable motion.

    The Chair: You either vote in favour of tabling or you vote against tabling. If you vote....

    Mr. Bryden, this has to be a point of order, because we don't debate the motion.

    Mr. John Bryden: This is a point of order.

    I would like to have had an opportunity—I'm sure Mr. Grewal would have as well—to at least explain the motion and the amendment to the motion before we go on to table. I'm not averse to the fact that elaborate discussion might be deferred to a later time, but I think we need to explain what the heck we're doing here.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Ms. Phinney, do you want to withdraw your motion in order to hear what the movers of the motion and the amendment have to say before you introduce the motion to table?

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Yes, I will do that if they are the only two to speak.

    (Motion withdrawn)

    The Chair: Okay, we'll start with Mr. Grewal, who introduced the motion.

    Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about my motion.

    I think this motion is very important because the information is vital for our democracy and for the accountability of the government, as well as for privacy. This information is sometimes denied to those people who are entitled to it just because of the misinterpretation of the Access to Information Act and other laws by some bureaucrats. I think it's very important that this information be available to parliamentarians and others.

    In my opinion, this motion will be good for the sake of democracy and for representing Canadians in this House, in order to get accurate information, as well as for utilizing the information in the best interests of Canadians.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Grewal.

    Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I moved the amendment because I wouldn't have been able to support the original motion. It goes beyond the scope of the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act. In other words, the motion as originally drafted would bring in information that is already defined as confidential or personal information as outlined in those two acts.

    I didn't think it would be proper of this committee to go beyond what Parliament already decided upon when it passed those two acts in the first place. However, what's at issue here is an interpretation that comes from the justice department that pertains exclusively to whether or not ministers and exempt employees are to be deemed officers and employees of a government institution. This is an interpretation from the justice department that has no antecedents that I know of. It has nothing to do with case law.

    I've spoken to the former Information Commissioner, and he assures me that for the previous seventeen or so years, it was always assumed that officers and employees of a government institution did indeed include a Minister of the Crown and his or her immediate staff. Consequently, the issue as I see it revolves around an interpretation of the justice department, not Treasury Board. Treasury Board carries out the interpretations of the justice department.

    I really do think, Mr. Chair, that it would be most intriguing and interesting to try to get an explanation from the justice department as to why they feel this urgent need to present an interpretation that is otherwise unsupported, has no previous antecedents, and is based, they say, on a Supreme Court decision of four years ago. I think questions have to be asked by this committee before we go ahead with the amended motion, Mr. Chairman, and I really look forward to hearing those answers.

    The Chair: Ms. Phinney.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I respectfully move that we defer this discussion on this motion until we've heard at least from the justice department and Treasury Board.

    The Chair: Ms. Phinney has moved to table the motion until such time as we can arrange a hearing with the justice department and Treasury Board.

    (Motion agreed to)

¹  (1540)  

    The Chair: Mr. Grewal's motion is tabled. By virtue of the comments made by Ms. Phinney, the clerk will arrange a hearing with Department of Justice and Treasury Board officials on this matter, and it will automatically be added to the agenda as approved just immediately prior to this debate.

    Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden: It's just a quick point, Mr. Chairman.

    Are these hearings restricted only to officials from those two departments? It might be that the steering committee might consider the testimony of other officials if they're deemed to be relevant to the discussion. I just want to keep it open.

    The Chair: The witnesses will certainly include Department of Justice and Treasury Board officials. If any member would like to suggest others who we feel would have something pertinent to say, we'll talk to them and may invite them also.

    Mr. Harb.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Of course, Mr. Chair, that would have to be in the context of the report we just adopted, the very important work of the committee, including mainly chapter 1, but also chapters 2, 3, 7, 10, and 13. We have to put it in a context and determine when we would want to do that. I guess the steering committee will decide in terms of timing and all that.

    The Chair: That's right. As you know, Mr. Harb, we normally leave it up to the clerk to try to arrange these things on her own, because she has to consult with officials about their schedules, their commitments, and so on. I would certainly see that it would be happening by the time we finish this agenda. It's basically included as part of this agenda, therefore we have eight issues to deal with. It will be one of the eight.

    Are we all agreed on that matter? Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I have another point of order, but not on this point. Let's deal with this.

    The Chair: Okay, we have now tabled the issue of the motion and its amendment, and you say you have something before we go in camera.

    Mr. John Bryden: Yes, before you go on, Mr. Chairman, I just want to indicate that I have tabled before this committee documents that are relevant to the amended motion, so that all members of the committee will have time to examine the documents. The next time we meet, we'll then be in a position to properly ask questions.

    The documents I've tabled, Mr. Chair, include a Treasury Board report entitled “Implementation Report - Access to Information and Privacy No. 78”. In addition, I have tabled Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance), a Supreme Court decision from 1997. And I have also tabled the relevant page of the Privacy Act that deals with the particular clause affected by the justice department's interpretation that ministers and exempt staff are not officers and employees of a government institution.

    I would ask my fellow members that they examine those document between now and the next time we discuss this issue. I think they'll find them most helpful.

    The Chair: I would just like to point out, Mr. Bryden, that only a small amount of the documentation that you've given to the clerk is in both official languages. Will you work with the clerk to ensure that, in the next two or three days, the information is in both official languages and can therefore be circulated to all members of the committee?

    Mr. John Bryden: Absolutely.

    The Chair: Is there anything else on this issue? No?

    We're now going to suspend for a few minutes as we move in camera.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]