Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and
Constitutional Affairs
Issue 30 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 18, 1998
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, in accordance with Section 54 of the Access to Information Act, Chapter A-1, R.S.C. 1985, met this day at 11:00 a.m. to approve the appointment of the Honourable John Reid, P.C., as Information Commissioner.
Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: While Mr. Reid is coming to the table I would just like to point out that this is Senator Gigantès' last day as a member of this committee, unless of course we meet tomorrow. Senator Gigantès was appointed to this committee in June 1989. He has been a true and faithful member of the committee and one of the members that I could always count on to attend. Senator Gigantès has been a help, a boon, and his knowledge has been a wonderful resource for the committee. He has been a gadfly and a faithful committee member, and I have greatly appreciated the help he has given me while I have been chair. Thank you very much, Senator Gigantès.
Senator Gigantès: I have had the privilege of serving distinguished senators on both sides. This is the nicest committee in my view and the most interesting; one where the arguments are about the true value of a piece of legislation rather than a partisan view of it. I regret that Senator Beaudoin is not here; he and I would tease one another often, and I much enjoyed it. I have had the privilege of serving with great chairs, including a lady I love a lot, our current chair. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you. We have before us the Honourable John Reid, P.C. Perhaps I should warn you before we begin, Mr. Reid, that I generally allow this committee a lot of leeway for questions, however we do have a bit of a time constraint this morning. I would ask the committee members to keep it as short as possible today, and to make their questions concise rather than argumentative.
Mr. Reid has a B.A. and an M.A. from the University of Manitoba, a Ph.D. in History from the University of Toronto, and is the current Chairman of John Reid Consulting. He has an illustrious history as Senior Political Advisor; Member, Provisional Election Commission; President, Canadian Nuclear Association; Executive Director of the Forum for Young Canadians; and as a member of Parliament, as many of the senators around this table know.
Mr. Reid has been suggested as Information Commissioner, and we are here today to see what we think of you, sir. Would you care to sell us on the idea? The floor is yours.
The Honourable John M. Reid, P.C.: I think, Madam Chairman, I would like to give a brief outline of my involvement in this particular act. When I came to Parliament in 1965, I had a choice of running for Parliament or going on to do a Ph.D. thesis. I decided to go into politics first. I never did do the thesis so I never did get the Ph.D., but I did learn a great deal about the Access to Information Act.
There was a minority Parliament when I became Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council in 1972. This caused enormous difficulty, because what had happened in the previous years was that information could come out of the government, not to ordinary citizens, but to members of Parliament. There were three techniques in the House of Commons: You could ask a written question, you could ask for the production of papers, or you could ask a starred question.
The system was in total chaos when I came in, and I was assigned to clear it up as much as I could. I wrote the original benchmarks for the system, most of which, by the way, are in force today and were included in terms of the Access to Information Act. For example, the 30-day turnaround was one of my suggestions.
Jed Baldwin and I became interested together in this; Jed Baldwin is probably the father of the Access to Information Act. We were able to convince Mitchell Sharp, who was then President of the Privy Council, that we should go on a tour of Scandinavia. The Scandinavians invented the ombudsman concept and were the ones with the reputation for having the most free-flowing information. Afterwards, we wrote a report, went back to various committees, particularly statutory instruments, and sat on a special committee that was created to look into this.
When the Clark government came into power, Walter Baker proposed some legislation. It did not pass, because of the brevity of that administration, however it was picked up by the incoming government. Francis Fox was the minister who guided it through the House of Commons, and I sat on all the committees that dealt with it because by that time Mr. Baldwin had retired from politics. I have had a strong interest in this legislation for a very long time.
My name was suggested by the Conservative leader in the other House. I was quite amazed, but delighted with the opportunity. One does not often have the opportunity to go back and run what one actually started. It is unusual, and it is something that I would appreciate being able to do.
Madam Chairman, because of the time constraint, we should probably have questions at this stage.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I welcome you mentioning Jed Baldwin, Mr. Reid. It was very kind of you, because people have forgotten that he worked hard for many years to bring in the Access to Information Act. It was his highest priority for many, many years. I am glad that you mentioned him.
I read with interest, as I always do, the Information Commissioner's report. An Officer of Parliament, by virtue of his or her independence from the government, can perhaps be a little more straightforward in reporting than a lot of other departments can, and particularly deputy ministers.
What I want, as much possible, is to be assured that some of the apprehensions that were expressed in Mr. Grace's last report are shared by you, and hopefully that solutions to them can be found. He does say, however, that Information Commissioners should worry when they are too much liked in influential circles -- the influence is on that side, not on this side.
He does say that a culture of secrecy still flourishes in too many high places, even after 15 years of life under the Access of Information Act, and too many public officials cling to the notion that they should determine when information should be dispensed to the unwashed public.
Do you feel that strongly about the resistance of public officials to be up front and straightforward when it comes to providing information? Conversely, do you share our concern that there is just too much whetting out of useless information or information that would come under secrecy that, once given, does not really provide the information one looks for?
Mr. Reid: I believe that there is a natural human desire to keep secrets. We all want to get information to hold over someone else, and I believe that that is probably a normal human thing.
Having said that, change must take place in the culture of the public service; brownie points should be given for making information available. Much work has to be down by parliamentarians, by the cabinet, to give the right signals to the public service that it is a good thing to make information available.
We are going through a process of change, because the Information Commissioner's annual report also states that, as new people come into the system, there is palpable easing of the concept of secrecy.
In terms of taking the lead, the Privy Council and Treasury Board are the ones that set the tone, in terms of morality and values, for the way in which the public service functions -- particularly Treasury Board, with respect to the management of the public service.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Mr. Grace shared the opinion that having the ethics counsellor report directly to the Prime Minister is wrong. Do you share the view that the ethics counsellor should report to Parliament? Do you share the view that the guidelines that are set for ministers should not be the Prime Minister's prerogative but should be open so that the public can access the conduct of a minister by known guidelines, rather than by the decision of one or two people?
Mr. Reid: My recollection is that the guidelines were public when I was minister. A change was made by the Prime Minister -- I do not know which one -- whereby the guidelines came under the control of the Prime Minister. My recollection is that the argument was that he was ultimately responsible. My own view is that, politically, he has probably done himself harm by that view. Practically, I would like to see all of that material on the surface, on the table.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Mr. Grace and others hoped that we could have an improved, stronger, more effective Access to Information Act than we do now, and there does not seem to be much political will on the government side to do that. Will you press for one, or do you not see the need for one? Are you satisfied with the law as it is now, or should there be improvements to it? If so, what should those improvements be?
Mr. Reid: When I was in the other place, my understanding of the law was that it took about 20 years to identify the problem, about another five or six years to discover a solution, and yet another five years to legislate it. Once the legislation came into effect, it took 10 to 12 years to figure out what you had actually done, so I think there needs to be a revised act. I know there was a 10-year report by the Information Commissioner that made a series of recommendations.
Mr. Grace, in his report, has outlined a whole series of possibilities. The Information Commissioner, however, is an Officer of Parliament. This is a very unique position.
One of my objectives would be to have revised legislation by the end of this Parliament. I would like to work with the House of Commons and the Senate in order to produce a report that would give specific guidelines to the government.
As you know, under the revised guidelines, the government must respond, in a substantive way, to a committee report within 40 days. If a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate could work on this, with support provided by the Information Commissioner's office, it would be possible to produce a substantive and useful report within the next six to eight months. That would be a useful spur to the government, the House of Commons and the Senate to proceed with new legislation, taking into account the changes that have taken place and the problems that have developed in the administration of the existing act.
Senator Corbin: I will avoid the general principles and go to a specific use related in the annual report. This concerns the official languages and third languages in Canada. There is a case involving translation from Inuit to English. It concerns parts of documents available in French, not translated into English -- which is not the usual case, as the reverse is usually the problem.
What will be your attitude with respect to cases of this nature? We already have a Commissioner of Official Languages, whose duty it is to ascertain that all aspects of the Official Languages Act, in terms of the federal government, are respected.
Now we see that the Information Commissioner is also involved in that field. In case you may be wondering what I am referring to, the items are on pages 53, 54, 55. Case number two, page 43, seems to attach no importance to the fact that the request was made in English. Surely the department should have complied, it seems to me, with the Official Languages Act. If the request is made in English, the information should be provided in English. One should not have to indicate in which language the information should be written; the language of the request is obvious. Without going into any further detail, I would like to get a feeling of how you will be handling these problems. What will be the nature of your relationship, in matters such as these, with the Commissioner of Official Languages? There is no indication here that your predecessor, if I may use that term, has contacted the Commissioner of Official Languages. To me, that is a matter of some fundamental importance.
As well, there should be some type of official recognition of aboriginal peoples' languages. You may have some leaning towards that as well, coming from the region you grew up in. Could you give me the benefit of your views.
The Chairman: Mr. Reid, I would just point out that this is on page 44 of the English version.
Mr. Reid: I think I would like to deal with this in general principles, because I fear moving in before I have totally analyzed what has to be done. The purpose of the exercise is to satisfy the questioner, that is, the person who has put the request in. If that person is satisfied that the material coming to him is in both official languages, then that ends it. If the person is not satisfied and would like it translated into another language, then that must be seriously considered; otherwise, it is not useful information.
I recognize the dilemma, because the federal government is increasingly working in both English and French. Documents written totally in French or totally in English end up in dossiers and are not translated. This is due to the competency of the federal civil service in both languages.
When those documents are requested and no translation is available, it seems to me that the first question is whether or not the person making the request is satisfied. If not, is the information translated in any other form that is legitimate and sensible. If not, and if the information is vital, then I believe it should be translated.
Senator Corbin: The Commissioner of Official Languages concluded that because of the heavy cost the documents would not have to be translated, and indeed there is the suggestion that the person who made the request should pay for translation costs. That is a departure by the federal government from the basic principles of communicating with Canadians in both official languages.
This worries me, Madam Chairman. If that departure from the norm should continue, there will be a rapid erosion of the federal government's responsibilities with respect to the application of the Official Languages Act. Can you comment on that.
Mr. Reid: I do not think anyone wants that. Certainly, I do not want that to occur. The case in point was a Fisheries and Oceans video of the Inuit doing their ceremonial kill of the whale. Someone requested an English and Inuit transcript of the dialogue on the video.
A compromise was reached whereby some of the translation was not provided. However, the bulk of the material was provided and, according to the statement, the person who made the request was satisfied. What is of paramount importance is whether or not the person making the request is satisfied. In my view, the government has the obligation to produce the material in both official languages where it is warranted and needed, but to the satisfaction of the person who makes the request.
Senator Kinsella: Mr. Reid, I have three areas of exploration or discussion I would like to open with you. One is philosophical, one speaks to the machinery of government, and the other speaks to legislative analysis.
What is your philosophy as to the nature of the right to information? Do you believe it is a human right? In your view, what is the value of this right in our Canadian society?
Mr. Reid: My philosophical position is that the government is the government of the people; thus, the information belongs to the Canadian people and therefore should be available to them.
Senator Kinsella: In terms of the machinery of government, on page 13 of his report, the outgoing commissioner speaks of the PCO's activity you alluded to a few moments ago. What is your view as to the responsibilities at the decentralized level across the Government of Canada of complying with the Access to Information law? Do you believe, in our system of ministerial accountability, that the minister of a given department is responsible and accountable, and therefore in terms of the machinery of government it should be that department that is responding directly and that it not be fettered through PCO or any other central act?
Mr. Reid: I am a great believer in the responsibility of ministers, that they are responsible for what happens in their departments. It is their obligation to make sure that the legislation is fully implemented in their department.
Senator Kinsella: What role do you see PCO playing in the implementation of the act? When the request is made for information held in a line department, should they be involved?
Mr. Reid: No, they should not be involved. The request goes directly to the line department involved and each line department is obliged, by law, to provide an annual report.
PCO itself is the target of many requests, and deals with those in its own right. I note in the report of the Information Commissioner that once the clerk of the Privy Council discovered there was a problem, PCO improved its procedure in responding to these requests.
Senator Kinsella: Is it your view, then, that the central agencies ought not to be involved in the determination by a line department that has received a request for certain information?
Mr. Reid: That would be my judgment, yes, but I do see them as being involved in dealing with the overall corporate culture of the civil service.
Senator Kinsella: If there were too much central control, in your view would that not lead to a greater possibility of a conspiracy of silence across the entire machinery of government if an agency, such as PCO or PMO -- God help us -- were doing this?
Mr. Reid: Well, the act basically places the responsibility on the heads of the deputy ministers and the ministers; and I believe that is where it ought to be.
Senator Kinsella: At page 40 of his report, the outgoing commissioner refers to draft legislation that is before the Senate, Bill C-19. He appeared before the Senate Social Affairs, Science and Technology committee which had examined the predecessor bill, Bill C-66, and made some strong recommendations. The committee did not have the benefit of that advice in its study of Bill C-19 even though, in clause 70 of that bill, there is reference to the Access to Information Act. In a general way, what role would you see yourself playing in the legislative analysis process?
Mr. Reid: Generally, I see myself working much more closely with parliamentary committees than has been the case. I believe the real power of the Information Commissioner comes from his status as an Officer of Parliament and his easy access to committees and members of Parliament and the Senate.
We must face up to the problem that legislation has to be reviewed by someone at the beginning of the process to assess how it impacts on to the Access to Information Act.
I do not know what the situation is respecting staff resources, but I do know that there are 31 employees. I note from the Information Commissioner's report that he does not have enough money to send inspectors to other parts of Canada. As a result, he never really knows whether or not, when a search for documents has gone through the process, whether all the documents have been acquired from the decentralized parts of the Government of Canada. He has no ability at this stage to send out inspection teams to do audits. That concerns me because of the question that was asked earlier about the form of decentralized government and the ability to ensure that all documents are provided. It goes to the heart of your question.
Senator Kinsella: In your opinion, would a mechanism such as that found in the Bill of Rights, 1960 which requires that a certificate by the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General be provided stating that a piece of legislation is consistent with the Bill of Rights, and with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, be an appropriate model? Then a bill would have attached to it a certificate from the Commissioner of Information saying that the bill does not offend the Access to Information Act.
Mr. Reid: I would have no objection to that. You would also require one for the Privacy Act.
Senator Grafstein: I would like to welcome Mr. Reid to our committee. I have known Mr. Reid for many decades, and I can say that, from the first time I met him to the present he is his own man and nobody else's man. He was always known as a man of independent thought and, in that sense, I believe he is ideally suited for this position even though I might intensely disagree with him from time to time.
Let me start, not with a disagreement but a different gloss on what you said. You have indicated that your job is, essentially to facilitate the public's right to know. If someone requests information and they do not get it, you then exercise your discretion to determine whether or not that information should be obtained and you then try to facilitate the retrieval of that information. Primarily, you are a facilitator in that sense.
However you do have some discretion. You have the discretion to decide which cases to take on or to fight. As your predecessor has indicated, he has discretion to decide where to deploy his lean and mean resources. However, I have some trouble with that answer. For example, I believe the public's right to know has some limitations in particular circumstances.
The United States has a very contentious provision of executive privilege, but I think the Ministers of the Crown do have some privileges that require protection in this given circumstance. Your predecessor in title, in Mr. Grace, made reference to the disclosure of polls, and I am not sure I agree with him. The Supreme Court recently indicated that even a restriction on the access to polls should not be limited. That may sound good, but let me give you a very narrow illustration. Let us assume for the moment that we are confronted, as we could be in this country, and as we are in this country, with a challenge to the very essence of the country.
The government, in the best interest of the country, seeks to deploy its resources to determine as deeply and as thoroughly as it can, through polls, current public attitudes, opinion or cross currents within the province of Quebec, for example. The same could be applied, by the way, to the province of British Columbia, but the current problem is in Quebec, which we all accept. However, it is not a level playing field because our antagonist, the separatist government in Quebec, seeks to deploy its assets and its polls to counter, as a tool, any activities, policies or issues by the federal government. Is it fair, in the national interest, that the public should have, at an instantaneous moment, access to information from one of the protagonists who is seeking to protect the essence of the country, when not having access to the information available to a provincial player who is seeking to undermine the essence of the country? Where would you draw the line if you should draw the line?
Mr. Reid: The act has two sides to it. It contains the general principle that information should be available, and it contains a series of sections that state that there is a whole range of information that does not have to be disclosed for a series of particular reasons. For example, there is reference to the Official Secrets Act.
The act has a number of exclusions which, as I understand it, in the past had been able to protect polls, such as unity polls, from being released. There is protection in the act for what one might term the "confidences" of cabinet and the protection of the government. There has always been that kind of balance in the act. The act itself is not absolute; it is conditional.
I believe the role of the Information Commissioner is to ensure the conditions in the act are fully met. If they are, the commissioner then must have the political courage to say that certain information falls within a certain category and, therefore, shall not be released. In other instances he must have the political courage to say that information does not meet the exclusions of the act and therefore can be released.
The commissioner is always dealing with the act passed by Parliament. In any new act you must decide whether or not those conditions are drawn the way in which you wish to them to be drawn because there have been changes in the way they have been interpreted by the courts and the commissioner. You will want to look at whether or not those lines are still appropriate.
Senator Grafstein: Contrary to your response to Senator Kinsella, who is not here, it is not a right to know, it is a restricted right to know based on the exigencies of the act and public policy.
Mr. Reid: That is correct, but we were talking about philosophy at that point.
Senator Grafstein: I am too, because you are going to be called upon, if approved, to make these delicate decisions, and I just wanted to explore, as my colleague Senator Kinsella did, where your mindset is on this.
Mr. Reid: My mindset is precise, and that is, I realize that I will be the custodian of an act of Parliament and it will be my duty to make sure that act is fairly and fully implemented, and that includes both sides of the equation.
Senator Grafstein: I would like to explore another topic and my questions arise out of Mr. Reid's response to a question by Senator Lynch-Staunton and others.
Let me just give you a little prelude to my view.In the United States, we have witnessed the spectacle of the rule of law gone amuck. It is used as a tool to be intrusive. In fact, a special council in the United States is trying to revoke solicitor-client privilege, is trying to interfere with the relationship between daughter and mother, husband and wife, in a way that to my mind makes a spectacle of the rule of law. That is just a personal view.
When we get into the question of ethics and the Prime Minister's responsibilities, there is, in my view, a deep danger. While I respect the notion of the public's right to know, I also have some reservations about the distortion of the information in the media. Small pieces of distorted information can destroy take a large public figure. Hence, I guess amongst other things, the Prime Minister has decided that the question of ethics within his cabinet should be a purview of not only himself but an independent person within his purview. You have some problem with that, and Senator Lynch-Staunton has some problem with that, but is there not a fair case to be made that public figures can be destroyed by so-called "ethical" information or conflicts of interest that could be taken out of context if not carefully protected before they find their way into the public media? Should we not be sensitive to the right of privacy as opposed to the untrammelled right to examine any public figure and his public conduct?
Mr. Reid: I think, Madam Chairman, that goes to the heart of the whole question of the freedom of the access to information legislation and the privacy legislation. The government has a great amount of information on each and every one of us which is protected to some extent by the privacy legislation.
Senator Grafstein: It is not protected enough.
Mr. Reid: The access to information is limited by the privacy legislation and by the limitations within the access to information legislation. When I was in cabinet, the ethics standards of the Prime Minister happened to be open, now they are closed. The argument is that the Prime Minister takes the blame in any event, and I think that it is a legitimate argument. I think the action of Prime Minister is quite legitimate.
I would feel more comfortable, however, if it were on the table. However, I do not dispute his right to do it and he has taken a certain amount of flak because he has chosen to do it that way. That is his choice. He is responsible for the performance of his ministers. He has decided, having witnessed other models, to experiment with another one, and I think that is appropriate.
Senator Gigantès: Mr. Reid, there is a question of the necessity to lie. I was brought up to think that, if necessary, you would lie under oath to protect the identity of a lady who might have been kind to you. It was unethical to tell the truth under such circumstances. In the United States we see the opposite prevailing. What is your view of that? Suppose I were the Prime Minister and I was having an affair and someone asked me about it and I said, under oath, "Never. Of course not. Why should that lady have anything to do with me?" If there was information on record and you were asked to release it, what would you do?
Mr. Reid: I think that would really have to do with the Privacy Commission, and, under such circumstances, I would be delighted to defer.
Senator Joyal: I would like to join the others to underline the contribution of Mr. Jed Baldwin. I had the privilege to sit with him in Parliament and in the other place. He was a very fine gentleman, totally dedicated to the objective of the legislation at the time. I can testify to the fact that he did it with absolutely no partisan bias. He was truly dedicated to having that legislation implemented, in line with the principles of democracy. I certainly want to pay tribute to him this morning.
I also had the privilege of sitting with Mr. Reid, and I can testify to his independence of mind. At the time it was not necessarily totally appreciated by the authority of the day. When I say that, believe me, I am being very diplomatic. I can certainly sponsor him and I would not want to appear to put his candidature into question, because I think he has the intellectual capacity to meet the challenge that this important position carries.
I have two simple questions. The first one deals with the act. If you could introduce only one amendment to the act, to be implemented by Parliament, which one would you propose?
My second question relates to this particular position. You would be an officer of Parliament like the Auditor General or the Commissioner of Official Languages. I have always held the view that an officer of Parliament must have the opportunity to debate his reports in Parliament. You will remember that I supported the setting up of a permanent joint committee on official languages that could hear, as its principal witness, the commissioner plus the representatives of the various departments who are the object of investigation and seek remedy.
My experience of that report is that it makes a wonderful day's reading in the press but it is soon overshadowed by the headlines the next day. Would you support the concept of appearing before Parliament on a regular basis to debate your conclusions and to ensure that remedial steps have been taken by the administration? I am thinking of those cases Senator Corbin has raised, for instance, and those cases that are urgently in need of remedy. Would you be prepared to do that even though it might cause some difficulty in the political process? On the whole, we are seeking the right of the public to be informed of decisions and the implications of those decisions on their own personal lives.
Mr. Reid: Madam Chairman, I would like to see the development of a joint committee with the other place. Currently, the reports seem to be automatically referred to the various justice committees which tend to be busiest committees within the whole Parliamentary process.
When I spent about five years working with the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I found it to be a very congenial working group, but I also found it to be very effective. I believe it would be worthwhile if some kind of mechanism were created to take on the reports of the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner. We are the two wings of the same airplane and it is useful for the legislator to be able to look at both sides of the equation at the same time. In my view, that kind of a process would be very helpful to me, and probably to the Privacy Commissioner as well.
The reports would then be concentrated in one place, in a very powerful committee with the ability to ensure that your comments were noted. In that way, the government would have to take much more serious notice than they might if the matter simply originated in one house or the other. I would be very enthusiastic about that kind of a development.
I would like to take six months before answering your first question. While I have read the act I have not absorbed everything in it. I have not really considered it from the point of view of the Information Commissioner. I have no experience in this area, but I would enjoy participating in a joint committee set up to recommend revisions and improvements to the legislation.
The challenge I would set myself is to try to make sure that we have a new act in place by the end of this Parliament. I think there is enough time to accomplish that. However it can only be done with your support and your drive, because it has to be steered through the legislative process.
The Chairman: I should tell you, Mr. Reid, that the commissioner's report is not automatically referred to this committee. There is no reason why it cannot be referred, but it must be specifically referred. It is not an automatic process.
Senator Grafstein: I think Mr. Reid will be reminded that we, in the Senate, do not have the same rule that requires the government to respond to a report within a given period of time.
Mr. Reid: That is why I suggested a joint committee. If it is a joint committee and it is tabled in the House of Commons, I believe the standing order of the house takes precedence and the government must respond.
[Translation]
Senator Bolduc: You would like to see new legislation enacted. What is wrong with the current act? What major shortcomings justify amending it?
[English]
Mr. Reid: A number of changes have gone through. There was a series of proposals by the existing Information Commissioner. There are a number of private member's bills. The government itself is talking of a revision. My own experience after 20 years in the other place is that, after 10 years, legislation begins to be obsolete, the judges make interpretations, the administrators make interpretations and Parliament has to take a look at it to make sure the law accomplishes its intent. It is my view that, after 15 years, the time has come for Parliament to look at it and make recommendations.
If I am approved, after I have some experience in administering the law I will have suggestions to make. I would like at least three to six months to be able to do that before appearing before you again with some ideas and suggestions.
[Translation]
Senator Bolduc: Do you see yourself as a kind of semi-judicial body?
[English]
If there is a debate between the government and yourself you would be ready to go to the Federal Court to settle the problem. I am not talking about the content, I am talking about due process.
Mr. Reid: In terms of due process, yes. That pattern has been established. My reading of the background material is that the first commissioner, Inger Hansen, went to the Federal Court to establish that she had the right to go there. Now the present Information Commissioner seems to go when there is a principle at stake, and I think that is an ideal way of proceeding because it reduces the cost to everyone.
The position of Information Commissioner is that of an ombudsman. He does not have authority to impose decisions, but he has the right of moral suasion. One of the matters you might want to consider at a later time is whether or not the ombudsman should have the power to makes decisions. That has certainly been brooded about, and I think it is something you may want to consider. At this stage, I have no opinion on it, but it is an indication of the way in which the perception of the office has developed over time.
Senator Corbin: Mr. Reid, my question relates to the accessibility of members of Parliament, and that includes senators, to information, not only useful but necessary for their performance as members of Parliament, without having to pay for the process. As you know, we now have to file forms like everyone else. We incur costs which we are expected to pay. Is that not contradictory to the very nature of what a member of Parliament is all about, that is, representing people, speaking for people? Sometimes retrieval of the information is urgent, and the whole process can become bogged down and the member is prevented from performing his duties as he is expected to do.What are your views on that? You may want to examine that question if your appointment is confirmed.
Mr. Reid: Madam Chairman, I am surprised because, coming from the other place where we used to be able to request information, I did not know that standing order had been changed.
Senator Corbin: I am not talking about Parliamentary rules.
Mr. Reid: My understanding would be, and I am subject to correction here, is that you have significant powers, as good as they are in the act, to get information.
Senator Corbin: I am sorry to disappoint you.
Senator Bolduc: Some agencies of the government go so far as not publishing an annual report. For example, since 1994, CIDA has not published an annual report of its activities. That agency spends about $2.5 billion a year. In my opinion, that is scandalous.
The Chairman: I can see, Mr. Reid, that you have your work cut out for you. I think at this point we are through with the questioning. Does anyone have a motion?
Senator Moore: Madam Chairman, I would move that the committee report to the Senate with a recommendation that the Senate approve the appointment of the Honourable John Reid, P.C. as Information Commissioner.
The Chairman: All in favour? Agreed. The agreement is unanimous. I will so report this afternoon.
Congratulations, Mr. Reid.
Mr. Reid: Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.