:
This is meeting number 19 of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy, and Ethics. Our order of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vi), is our study on allegations of interference in access to information requests.
This morning's scheduled witness, as an individual, is Ms. Jillian Andrews, former policy advisor, Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
This morning I received an updated report from the bailiff, which I'd like to advise the committee about. It's quite short. It is dated June 8--today--and is from Kilrea Bailiff and Process Servers. The agent is Mr. Jay Fox. He reports:
On June 3rd, 2010 I attempted to contact Jillian Andrews to make arrangements to serve the Summons from the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I called Ms. Andrews on three occasions between June 3rd, 2010 and June 7th, 2010. I left three voice mails outlining that I had a summons from the House of Commons to serve on Ms. Andrews. On June 7th the receptionist confirmed that Ms. Andrews was in the office however she was unavailable.
I have yet to receive a return call from Jillian Andrews and am unable to effect service at this time.
Colleagues, as you know, we also received a letter from the Minister of Natural Resources advising the committee that he was to appear or would be appearing here, not only for Mr. Togneri at the last meeting, but also for Ms. Andrews at this meeting. The committee has taken a position on the representation of a witness by another person, and I'm in the committee's hands.
In the absence of any matter, I would suggest that the non-appearance of Ms. Andrews, along with the details of the clerk's initiatives and the report from the bailiff, be added to the draft, facsimile, or suggested possible motion we had circulated for Mr. Togneri. I think you all have a copy of that one. It is the report and motion that was prepared by the standing committees clerks' directorate for us.
We will move on to the second item on our agenda.
Madam Freeman, before we move on to the second item, you indicated that you wanted to say something on this matter--and Mr. Easter.
Madame, thank you. I do appreciate the fact that you have done the appropriate consultations with the law clerk to get the facts straight, in terms of the civil legislation related to the service of summons and that there are criteria under which a summons would be deemed to have been served, which is part of the law, and that there may be some penalties associated with failure to accept. I think that's the thrust of your motion.
I have four people on the list.
Mr. Minister, I just want to deal with something very quickly so that we understand how the rules of the committee work when there are other members who are not permanent members of the committee or signed in as one of, say, in this case, the five members. They have rights. They're entitled to speak, provided there is no other permanent member of the committee who wishes to speak or unless the committee itself gives its consent for you to speak.
I have you on the list, but you will not be speaking in that order as long as there are other permanent members to speak. Okay?
I have to go to Mr. Poilievre first, on a point of order.
:
Sure. I will get you the practices.
If you had a situation where a large number of members who were not members of the committee came into the room and decided they wanted to get on the list and talk out something, you could understand how that might frustrate the business of the committee. As a consequence, the practice has been established that a member who is not a permanent member and not signed in may speak, but only if there is no other permanent member who doesn't want to speak. This doesn't relate to, for instance, questioning of a witness. A member who is signed in could give up their slot, their speaking slot, to a member who is not a permanent member. But when it's just general debate, where a person can put their name on as many times as they want, there has to be a limit.
Mr. Poilievre, I understand your point and I will provide you with the practice and the precedent of other committees in which this has happened. I think one was on the same-sex marriage debate that happened in this room. Pat O'Brien was sitting as an independent; he wasn't on any party's list, and the committee had to vote to allow him to speak.
Thank you for raising the point.
Mr. Easter.
:
Sir, excuse me. The chair has taken a decision--
Mr. Randy Hoback: So does the chair have the--
The Chair: Just a moment.
Mr. Randy Hoback: Does the chair have liberty to--
The Chair: Just a moment. Would you turn his mike off, please?
Mr. Randy Hoback: [Inaudible--Editor]
The Chair: Mr. Hoback, please. When the chair has the floor--hear me out, sir.
Mr. Randy Hoback: [Inaudible--Editor]
The Chair: I have made a decision on this--Mr. Hoback, please.
I gave my justification to the best of my ability, and if the member feels that my decision is incorrect, there is one approach that the member can use, and that would be to challenge the decision of the chair. That's it. It's not debatable, sir. It's not a point of order. You're debating and you're questioning my decision; you can't ask questions of the chair. You can't start asking questions of the chair. The chair is here to try to keep order, so I'm going to move on.
Mr. Easter was still in debate on the Freeman motion.
:
Yes, but if I could say, Mr. Chair, my suggestion was that maybe if Mr. Hoback wanted to sign out and the minister sign in, he could ask his questions that way. I've seen that done at other committees before, rather than a minister trying to come in and make a ministerial statement as a member sitting on the side.
In any event, Mr. Chair, on the motion, I think it goes in part to Mr. Rickford's outburst a moment ago, when he tried to interject about the motion not being translated and therefore it trampling on the rights of the committee. We do have bilingual interpretation and you could therefore hear it. I heard it in English over the translation system. If he really wants to get to the trampling of the rights of the committee, then he would certainly be arguing that when we as a committee decide on witnesses to come before this committee, we expect them to be here.
This brings me to the motion itself, which basically is outlining very clearly, as you've reported from the bailiff, the following. I believe it was today that you said that from the time of June 3, the bailiff tried to serve Jillian Andrews on three occasions via three calls between June 3 and June 7, and he spoke to the receptionist, who confirmed that Jillian Andrews was in fact in the office.
I just find it hard to believe that a government that spouts law and order would so challenge the legal system by denying a bailiff's ability to serve papers on an individual who has been directed to appear before a parliamentary committee of this country. What an affront to justice by a government that claims to promote justice. It's unbelievable. What would we do if any ordinary citizen acted so as not to be found when they knew a bailiff was attempting to serve them with papers?
I am certainly most supportive of the motion. I think it puts a little more pressure on the individuals who seem to be avoiding an appearance before a parliamentary committee. They are the folks with the knowledge on the issues and are really the only ones we can question as to their activities surrounding the matter of access to information. They are the individuals who were involved. So I certainly welcome this motion and am fully supportive of it.
:
All right. Madam Davidson, let me repeat, because it's something on which I had discussions with House officers, even as early as this morning, to be absolutely sure. There was an incident in another committee where there was some variable activity going on.
In any event, and I think if you look at the transcripts—I stand to be corrected—there were two different lists that would be kept in terms of slots. One list is with respect to witnesses. As you know, we have approved, by the routine motions adopted by the committee, which party speaks, in which order, and how many minutes it gets. In that case, should we be questioning a witness, a member can relinquish their slot for another person who is not a permanent member, so that the equity we have established in the routine motions.... That was the motion adopted by the committee when we were formed in the first instance.
The second item I mentioned was with regard to the debate of motions, as we are doing right now. There is nothing to prescribe which party and for how long; people can speak as many times as they want and for as long as they want, provided there's not repetition and provided they remain relevant.
In that case, Madam Davidson, a member of Parliament who comes, who is not a permanent member, can have their name on the list. They can only speak if no other permanent member wishes to speak or if the committee allows the member to speak and to override that. Those are the two cases.
I'm sorry there's some confusion, but I'm absolutely sure that is the practice and precedent of committees for the last 17 years that I've been here.
You still have the floor, though, Madam Davidson.
:
Okay, because this is so bizarre. It's a classic scenario where you have a bully picking on a kid in the playground. When the kid brings his big brother, the bully doesn't want to play anymore. That's exactly what's going on here. The opposition member wants to pick on the staff. All of a sudden the minister shows up and all of a sudden they don't want to play.
It's just hilarious. It's so hypocritical it's unreal. Even Mr. Easter in the agriculture committee always complains about how he never sees the minister, how the minister is never there to present.
We have a minister here willing to present, and talk, and participate, and help get to the bottom of your accusations—because they are accusations. They're not proven anywhere. They've not been proven by the Ethics Commissioner or anybody else of any validity. So when is this witch hunt going to end? That's my question. We're wasting taxpayers' time and money on this witch hunt. When is it going to end?
You can come forward with your motion. I have questions on whether that motion has validity in the House. I don't know if Ontario law takes precedence in the House of Commons or if the Speaker takes precedence in the House of Commons. I'd like to see that understood before we make a ruling on this motion.
I have not seen the motion in English, so I can't even give it proper analysis. I always show that respect to Mr. Bellavance in the agriculture committee. When he asks to see something in French, we make sure it's presented in French, or we table the motion till the next meeting and then he gets a chance to see it in both English and French, or we ask for his unanimous consent before it's tabled. That's never happened here. You've never asked for unanimous consent on the part of the committee to see whether or not we would allow her to table this motion or not. You've just gone on and ruled, and ruled, and ruled, based on Paul Szabo's laws.
Is this a point of order?
:
Mr. Hoback, this is the chair.
I want to caution you that when you question the decision of a chair, your venue is to challenge the decision of the chair--
Mr. Randy Hoback: Does the chair want to leave the chair?
The Chair: Just a moment. But to reflect on it and to debate it is improper.
Mr. Randy Hoback: I guess, Chair, I'm--
The Chair: Just a moment. I'm not finished.
It is not proper in a committee to continue to debate a chair's decision. The chair only has one opportunity to consider all the facts and to take a decision. The committee has a way to deal with it if they disagree.
Please be cautioned not to be questioning and challenging the chair without actually issuing a challenge, okay?
:
First, given that I tabled my motion in French, I'd like to remind Mr. Hoback, in case he is unaware, that it is normal and customary to be able to present a motion orally and with simultaneous interpretation when the motion relates to the committee's business. This is normal, and it is consistent with the committee's standing orders. If he is not aware of this that is too bad for him.
Furthermore, Mr. Hoback has accused us of filibustering. I'm very surprised because my colleague, Mr. Easter, tabled a motion requesting that an investigation be undertaken and that we consider the issue of political interference on the part of the government in matters of access to information. The motion also requested that several witnesses appear, including Mr. Soudas. The purpose of the committee's business is to consider the issue of political interference. It is the job of parliamentary committees to consider matters and to work on them.
I think there is political interference and filibustering. I'm referring to measures taken by the on May 25 last when he asked that his political staff no longer appear before committees. This is interference, obstruction, and a disregard for parliamentary standing orders. No one is above the law and a leader, as I have already stated in committee, cannot just change rules, committees' standing orders, and current legislation. No one is above the law, and refusing to receive a summons to appear is disregarding the law.
By sending a letter to the effect that his employee, Dimitri Soudas, will not appear, Mr. Harper is sending a signal. Everyone is fully aware—it has been in the newspapers—that we are attempting to reach Mr. Soudas. Not only is this an affront to democracy, but it is an attempt to be above the law. It is absolutely despicable and incomprehensible. We're seeing this more and more on the part of the current Conservative government. When it's not convenient, they shut Parliament down and try to change the rules.
We are beginning the committee's work to consider political interference and access to information and Mr. Soudas must appear. We have to hear Mr. Soudas and other witnesses, and not the ministers who want to appear instead of the witnesses who have been summoned.
I think that my motion has to be presented. Mr. Dimitri Soudas refuses to receive his summons to appear but by law we can rule on this. As stated in my motion, he is deemed to have been summoned because this has been made public.
That's all, Mr. Chairman.
It seems that we have two institutions here that serve as a particularly good example for some of the problems we might have on this side. We have the House of Commons, by way of example, and we have the House of Lancaster.
In the House of Commons, we have our processes and procedures and things that we follow and respect, and we use things that go on in the House of Commons or inquiries that flow from the activities of the House of Commons that guide us in our deliberations and our discussions and work at committee.
I'm going to elaborate more on the House of Commons process, but I'll start out with this other English tradition we have, or place, called the House of Lancaster, where apparently under a Liberal government and a Liberal minister it was acceptable to negotiate visa applications in a strip joint. In defence of this action, the minister was compelled to come to the committee and testify. We've seen other confusing examples in the previous government where the ministers declined to come, and it gets pretty confusing from there.
Unfortunately, an event arose in the processes of the House of the Commons that should have served as a useful guide for all of us in these matters, and that was with respect to the Gomery report. In that report, Justice Gomery, as he was then, was dealing with very serious matters. The Liberal Party of Canada had reached into the taxpayers' pocket and stole hundreds of millions of dollars, and there's still $40 million unaccounted for. They're still looking for that. The problem is, as Justice Gomery said in his report, and I want to state it clearly here because I think it is important that everyone is reminded of what is stated in the accountable government report:
Ministers need to understand clearly that they are accountable, responsible and answerable for all the actions of their exempt staff.
And I emphasize “exempt” here.
We have another document here, Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State, which states at page 37:
Ministers and Ministers of State are personally responsible for the conduct and operation of their offices.
I think those two statements are pretty clear—one in the form of policy, and one in the form of an official report that was requested by the House of Commons, as opposed to any other sort of House we've had to deal with in terms of issues at this or other committees like it. So for those reasons—and there are others, but principally those two reasons—I don't support this motion at all.
Thank you.
Let me start out by saying I certainly support Ms. Freeman's motion. I think it's a responsible motion, and I think it will enable us as a committee to do the work we've been tasked with doing.
I fail to understand why our colleagues across the way cannot grasp the idea or implication of not allowing—or the Prime Minister and the cabinet not allowing—exempt staff from appearing before this committee. This is a parliamentary committee, with the rights and privileges of calling witnesses and expecting those witnesses to appear. The fact that the minister is here in place of a witness is cause for concern, in that it would lead one to believe that the minister knows exactly what in this case Ms. Andrews in fact did, in the idea of allegations of systematic political interference, which is of course what this committee is looking at.
My experience has been that when someone takes a particular action, they speak for their own actions. Otherwise, it would lead one to believe that something is being hidden here. That's my question about all of this. We're here as members of a committee today looking to find answers. The individual from whom we're looking to get those answers has not appeared before our committee. That is cause for concern, I would think, for any committee member, any parliamentarian, who sees his or her right to question a witness being questioned.
I have a great deal of difficulty with that. I think it's not right. Obviously what the Prime Minister has done here, what cabinet has done here, what this government has done here, is to really interfere in a process, a process that we have every right to carry out.
Today, we don't know where Ms. Andrews is. We don't know why she isn't here, other than that a directive has been given that the minister will speak in her place. With all due respect to the minister, maybe he does know exactly what went down. Maybe he did instruct her to take some action, but we don't know that. The minister is here, but the minister wasn't asked to appear here as a witness. The minister may appear at some other time, but we have a responsibility as a committee to call whatever witnesses we deem appropriate to get to the bottom of this so-called systematic political interference. Ms. Andrews is the witness we wanted here today. She isn't here. We don't know why, other than an instruction has been given for her not to be here.
When Mr. Togneri was here, he made it very clear that Ms. Andrews was involved with respect to the 139-page document that had been deemed appropriate to be released to the media at the media's request. When Mr. Togneri un-released that document, and subsequently what was released to the media was a 30-page document, who made that call? Was it Ms. Andrews? We need Ms. Andrews here. We don't need the minister here to speak for Ms. Andrews. We need Ms. Andrews here to answer to her own actions, which is exactly why this committee is calling witnesses.
I think for Ms. Andrews not to show probably speaks more to the fact that the Prime Minister clearly has indicated that for some reason he doesn't want her to appear any more than he wants, or the cabinet wants, other exempt staff to appear before this committee. But we have every right to question exempt staff. The fact is, it is foolhardy to accept any argument that a minister can speak for his or her staff. It would lead one to believe, and we may have no choice but to believe, that in fact it was a directive of the minister, which is great cause for concern. It is political interference any way you look at it.
We're here today waiting to hear from Ms. Andrews. She is not here. We want to hear from Ms. Andrews. We want to hear from Mr. Soudas. We need and we have a right as a parliamentary committee to hear from those individuals.
It's not about beating up on anyone. It's about asking appropriate questions to get the answers to which we're entitled as parliamentarians when we're doing our job as a parliamentary committee.
I support this motion 100%. I think it will help us do our work, and I would like to think that all committee members would see it in that light.
:
Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.
As I was saying I am willing to answer for the actions of my policy advisor, Ms. Jillian Andrews. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, our government took a decision on the matter of political staff appearing before parliamentary committees. That decision therefore applies equally to Mr. Soudas and to Ms. Andrews. Our decision was conveyed to the Speaker of the House of Commons on the 25th of May last by the .
To summarize: given that parliamentary committees have not respected procedure, the ministers will here on in advise members of their staff to refrain from appearing before the committees; ministers will appear in their stead to answer for their actions.
I therefore ordered Ms. Andrews to not appear before the committee. I myself, as the minister responsible and according to the principle of ministerial accountability, I am here to appear in her place. This is a model that dates back to the Westminster model. It's nothing new.
I think it's sad that Mr. Togneri appeared before this committee for three hours and was subjected to intimidation and humiliation. One can only wonder why political staff would be motivated to appear before a committee in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I am here and willing to answer questions.
:
All right. Order, please.
I understand. For future reference, your point of order is in order to the extent that you are challenging the relevance of what the minister is saying to the motion now before us. That's all you have to say. This is where the House usually gives fairly broad latitude to the discussion. I spend a lot of time in the House, watching the Speaker and how he deals with these things. Certainly, the minister has a political staffer who has been called before this committee and is the subject of this motion. I think he's making an argument that I believe will ultimately be debated in the House of Commons when the Speaker is charged with dealing with the ministerial statement. This will be triggered by a report from a committee.
In this committee there's no question that Ms. Andrews is the subject of this motion. The reason is that something happened in the House—the government House leader announced a policy that henceforth ministers will appear on behalf of political staff for various reasons and for purposes of accountability. We are not going to resolve this here. These are the same arguments that went on when Mr. Lee brought his motion before the House with regard to access to the Afghan detainee documents—the rights and privileges of parliamentarians to call for persons, papers, or records.
This is the challenge yet again. It is much the same as we've already been through, but we cannot decide this as a committee. It is going to be up to the House to determine whether or not the rights and privileges of committees, which are delegated from the House, are in conflict with the government's policy statement of a couple of weeks ago. That is for the House to resolve.
I have to rule that Mr. Paradis' reference to that is relevant, and I'm going to decline your point of order.
Carry on, Minister.
:
I'll just read you the first paragraph of what Mr. Hill had to say, the leader of the government in the House of Commons:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the government to address the issue of ministers' staff members being called before committees to testify.
The key point is the next statement:
We recognize that committees do have the authority to call for persons and papers; however, just because they can does not mean that they ought to in every case.
I think, Mr. Chair, that really what the leader of the government in the House of Commons is saying there is that he knows full well that committees have the right and the authority to call for persons and papers. That's what we've done here. We've called for persons--persons who are knowledgeable in the issue.
The minister, in his remarks, went to on to say that pressure is being put on staffers. And I've heard some of the discussions, through the media, from government members trying to cover what I would call their irresponsible position here, that they're young, they're inexperienced. Some of them are indeed young, and some of them are indeed inexperienced. Many of them are paid—and I could go through the list—in the over-$100,000 range. People who are in that bracket of income and in a senior position in a minister's office developing policy obviously shouldn't be there just as a patronage plum. They should be there to do their job for the citizens of Canada, not just for the patronage desires of the minister of the crown.
There's only one way of getting at these individuals to see what they're really doing. This was a government that came in here talking about accountability and responsibility, and we have never—we have never—in our lifetime seen a government that's so secretive, so hidden, so managing the messaging as this one is.
So my point, Mr. Chair, is that I believe that the leader of the government in the House of Commons, in his own remarks, knows full well that committees have the right and the authority to call persons—
I will assume that you've made a point of order with the question of whether or not we're following the proper procedure given what's happened in the House.
I thought of the same thing. I took the opportunity to have what was, I would suggest, an informal consultation with the law clerk and with the Speaker, and I asked the question. There was a ministerial statement in the House by the government House leader. There were responses from the other House leaders of the other three parties. There was nothing else.
Ministerial statements do not request the Speaker to make a ruling. They are simply there as information about, in this case, what is taken as the policy of the government in that it hasn't been voted on in the House.
In fact, there is no motion or no obligation that we could find that actually would trigger a decision in the House. I was advised that the only thing they could see that would trigger something in the House would be an incident in a committee where a political staffer was called, a minister appeared in their stead, and the committee reported back to the House. Then the House would be seized with the question that you ask.
So in fact the House won't do anything until there is a committee report from some committee.
Okay?
Now--
Mr. Randy Hoback: I just want to ask a question.
The Chair: Sure.
:
The Speaker can't be notified unless there is a report from the committee. I can assure you, though, that the Speaker is monitoring the proceedings in our two committees, the government operations committee and this committee, very closely.
So the Speaker is not seized with it simply because there is no report from a committee. He may have something to say about how we did what we've done, because they are carefully looking at the transcripts and rulings, etc. That's why, I can tell you, I've spent a lot of time making sure I'm in the ballpark.
Are you done, sir?
Mr. Randy Hoback: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you.
There being no further speakers, I want the question to be called now.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
The Chair: The next item of business, number two, pursuant to Standing Order 110 and Standing Order 111, is the certificate of nomination of Suzanne Legault to the position of Information Commissioner, referred to the committee on Thursday, June 3, 2010.
Our witness today is the nominee, the acting Information Commissioner from the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, Suzanne Legault.
Madame Legault, please.
[English]
If I may, for the benefit of members, we have two items here with the Information Commissioner, and we want to deal with the nomination first. In normal circumstances, that might take a fair bit of time, especially if we're not familiar with the person, but we've been blessed to be able to have the Acting Information Commissioner before us on a number of occasions and she's well known to the committee. So I think there is an understanding and agreement that the discussion on the nomination will be concise, if I may say.
We would also like to have a second item on the responsibilities of the current acting commissioner with regard to the annual report, which was just tabled. Since we have had the estimates review in a session with the minister, as well as the report cards in another session, as well as another session on proactive disclosure, we have probably covered a fair bit of what's in the annual report. We believe we should also be able to address new items or new areas for consideration with regard to the annual report, all before one o'clock.
So, with that, Madame Legault, do you have an opening statement for this committee?
:
Yes, I do, a very brief one, Mr. Chairman, if you would allow me.
I'm delighted to be here today, Mr. Chairman, to answer your questions on my nomination as Information Commissioner and to discuss the annual report on my office's activities for this past fiscal year. I'm really honoured to be conferred this tremendous privilege of being nominated for the position of Access to Information Commissioner of Canada. I'm really excited about the great responsibilities and the challenges that come with the position of agents of Parliament in serving both Parliament and Canadians.
Almost a year ago, when I accepted this job on an interim basis, I made a commitment to maximize the effectiveness and the timeliness of our investigative function to fully meet the current needs and expectations of Canadians.
[Translation]
Over the last year, through sustained and ongoing efforts, we've made great strides towards the achievement of this goal. As you will see from the annual report, this year has been in many respects an unprecedented one. I will be happy to discuss these achievements in more detail.
But before, if I may Mr. Chair, I would like to briefly talk about my career path leading up to this nomination. I believe members of the committee have been provided with my curriculum vitae. I won't go into any great detail, but I would like to say this.
[English]
I am a lawyer by training, and I have spent the last 20 years working in a variety of environments, including the private sector, the public service, and academia. Through my diverse work experiences, I have honed my skills in mediation, negotiation, and litigation. My experience as a public servant has taught me much about policy development on complex matters and the privileged relationship we hold with Parliament and its committees.
This experience also made me a steward of sound management practices. Over the last three years the office has fundamentally changed, and I can honestly say today that it has come a very long way. It is stronger, more accountable, and more effective. I was directly involved in establishing and improving the organization's capacity in areas such as corporate services, information management, and parliamentary affairs. My office's efforts at improving our financial management practices and governance were recognized last year by the Auditor General of Canada. I've also reinforced our internal audit functions to ensure we gain maximum efficiencies and make adjustments to our operations in a timely fashion.
Above all of these work experiences, Mr. Chairman, however, I believe that the greatest strength I can bring to the position of Information Commissioner is my ability to deal with highly complex matters and to find creative solutions.
[Translation]
I would also like to add that since joining the Office of the Information Commissioner in 2007, I have gained an in-depth knowledge of the Access to Information Act as well as the institution. Since starting my interim term as Information Commissioner, I have been directly involved in our investigations. I have made full use of the powers at my disposal and the tools I have to maximize compliance with legislative requirements. My office has collaborated with all stakeholders during investigations in order to find the best resolution to complaints.
However, over the past year, I took a firm hand when required. I have also adopted a more proactive and integrated approach to assess compliance with our act, as articulated in the three-year plan, of which you have a copy.
[English]
As a result, Mr. Chairman, this past year we have closed more complaints than we have in the past two decades and we have made the largest dent in our existing caseload. We have also reduced by nearly one-third the average time it is taking us to conclude investigations in our more recent complaints.
If my nomination is confirmed, my leadership and my vision will be governed by excellence—that is, excellence in service to Canadians, excellence in service to Parliament, excellence in the stewardship of the OIC, and excellence as an employer.
In practical terms, this means that first and foremost my focus will remain on investigations for the time being. We have made great strides this year in reducing our inventory of cases. However, we continue to deal with an important caseload, and until such time as we reach a manageable caseload, dealing with investigations will be my number one priority. I will systematically work toward improving the access to information as a whole at all levels, in terms of requests, in terms of dealing with systemic problems, and in terms of strengthening our legal standards.
[Translation]
I do not think it is helpful to say that everything related to the federal access to information regime is broken. As my experience has taught me, it is much more productive to address specific issues with the right people, based on strong evidence. I am optimistic that, with this approach, the access to information regime will become stronger and more effective.
As an ombudsperson, I see my role as a catalyst between the various stakeholders in order to bring about advancement in the access to information regime in Canada. I have said in the past that the Access to Information Act is lagging behind most Canadian and foreign jurisdictions. My goal is to bring about greater convergence between legal standards in Canada and those in more progressive laws internationally.
As information is now flowing across levels of government and across national and international boundaries, Canadians should not have to face varying standards and receive different responses depending on where the request is made.
[English]
Mr. Chair, on December 12, 2006, when former Commissioner Marleau appeared before this committee to discuss his own nomination, he said the following, which I was reading when I was preparing for this appearance. He said:
When Parliament grants an agent of Parliament a trust on behalf of all Canadians, the very least that Parliament deserves to receive in return is leadership that it can trust.
Mr. Chair, I am most honoured by this nomination, and I think it is timely that my first annual report was just tabled last week. This committee is then, in my view, in a very good position to assess whether I have demonstrated to its satisfaction that I can lead the OIC through its complex mandate in a trustworthy manner.
With this, Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer your questions.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, Commissioner.
Basically, I'd just like to congratulate you on your nomination. I do think it's a very good one. I think it's somewhat unique that you have been interim commissioner, and that a number of us have met with you and you've been before this committee and that we do have your report here. I think, as you state in your remarks, you have tried to do the best job you can in that capacity and to represent all Canadians in making access to information work.
I guess as you can see from the previous rather raucous discussion here, there are lots of areas surrounding access to information that you perhaps don't have control over.
I don't have any questions. I've looked at the report, and we can see that some departments are improving and some are falling back a little. But with respect to your work, I think you've been doing an excellent job. So I congratulate you on that.
Mr. Chair, at the appropriate time, I'd certainly be willing to move a motion so that you can report to the House this committee's support for this appointment.
:
Well, as I have said from the beginning, I have conducted myself as if I were permanently holding the position. So in terms of all of the investigative work we've done, that's definitely how I've conducted myself.
The difference between an interim position and a long-term position is that the latter provides tremendous stability for the office and my employees, and I think that's going to make a huge difference for the atmosphere in our office, which I think is nothing but positive.
We started a strategic planning exercise last month, and I did it for myself or the next commissioner, because I wanted to have the pulse of the organization, which has grown and basically doubled in size. I plan to engage in and continue this strategic planning exercise with various stakeholders, because now that I have a seven-year mandate, there is an incredible realm of possibilities, which is different from fixing short-term problems. That is the main difference for me.
I will start engaging with stakeholders in the next few months to plan the vision for the organization, and to get buy-in for that vision as well.
:
The invitation of the committee that instructed me was to bring him for one hour for each report. He agreed.
There were two letters: one for access and one for.... That's why.
Notwithstanding, the issue is that the minister has indicated that he's going to be available on June 17, but now instead of its being for two hours, it's one hour. The committee had asked for one hour for each of the reports, but the minister is now available for only one hour for both reports.
The only way I could think of changing that would be maybe to call Mr. Darren Eke, director of issues management and legislative advisor to the minister, to appear for the second hour. He's a political staffer, which means that the minister will appear.
No, I'm being facetious.
Under the circumstances, colleagues, I think we've made best efforts. The minister is still going to appear, and we'll have to make the best of the time available. I'm sure we have other work to do to fill out the rest of that meeting.
Mr. Easter, please.