On obstructed access

The Globe and Mail's report on the Cons' pattern of refusing to respond to access to information requests - this time dealing with requests related to earlier delays which took up to two and a half years to answer. But there's another part of the story which fits entirely with the Cons' efforts to make Parliament subservient to the executive branch:

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson's office said in an e-mail this week that proposed reforms to the Access to Information Act that were tabled in Parliament in 2006 have yet to be considered by the Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. "This work [of the committee] is essential before the government can proceed further," the e-mail stated.

In fact, opposition members of the committee said they did not learn of the proposals until this fall. The committee had conducted its own study of the law and had come up with 12 "quick fixes," said chairman Paul Szabo, a Liberal MP.

Mr. Nicholson dismissed that report and urged the committee members to study the draft of the government's proposals, Mr. Szabo said. "I had never seen it. The clerk had never seen it," Mr. Szabo said of the document containing proposals from the government. "No members on the committee could ever recall seeing any document like that or being aware of any document like that."

The committee requested a copy of the draft. It was received in November, not long before Parliament rose for the Christmas break.

Now, it seems most likely that Nicholson's reference to the earlier draft is simply another example of the Cons' shotgun approach to excuse-making, and will be discarded within a day in favour of an assertion that the opposition wants to allow the Taliban access to vital regulatory correspondence to use against Canadian troops. But let's take a look at what's wrong with Nicholson's assertion if taken at face value.

To start with, the committee itself includes five Cons among its eleven members, with its report listing vice-chair Russ Hiebert, along with Pierre Poilievre (who as parliamentary secretary to the PM would presumably have a direct channel to any government response to the committee's work), Kelly Block, Bob Dechert and Earl Dreeshen. And based on the fact that the Con members signed on to the committee's report, there doesn't seem to be much room for doubt that they sent the message that the committee's work was valid at the time.

In that case, there would be two alternatives to explain the fact that the committee members signed on to a report of the type which the executive had no intention of responding to. Either the Cons' braintrust failed to let even their own committee members know that a response to the earlier report was a precondition to work in an area which the Cons claim as an important campaign promise - or somebody decided to deliberately withhold the report while planning to claim it as the necessary starting point for discussion, presumably to set up exactly the excuse Nicholson is now claiming.

But it wasn't only the committee members who had an opportunity to point to the 2006 report if they thought it was such a vital part of the committee's work. Just take a look at the list of people who testified before the committee:

The Committee concluded its hearings with the appearance of the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Rob Nicholson, followed by representatives of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA), David Fraser, Priscilla Platt and Gaylene Schellenberg.

And when Nicholson testified before the committee, he merely "encouraged" the committee to study the discussion paper (which again apparently hadn't been made available to the committee members at the time) while spending the bulk of his time presenting his position on the other reports being considered by the committee. And he in fact explicitly stated that he was interested to see the committee's work based on Robert Marleau's report which he now claims to be useless:

(Y)ou have the recommendations of Mr. Marleau, the present commissioner. I would be very pleased to hear your comments and those of your fellow committee members. I would be pleased to hear what you have to say. Again, any time you're prepared to come forward with a report addressing the different recommendations he has made, I would certainly be pleased to hear from you.
...
Again, I would like to have your comments on the recommendations of Monsieur Marleau. You have them before you, and I would be very pleased to have this committee.... With respect to Mr. Reid's comments, you've seen that the government has already tabled legislation under the Federal Accountability Act. You know how difficult that was to get through the previous minority Parliament. I tell you, I was very proud the day we got that through, because it was a huge step forward for transparency and accountability.

Again, I put it to you, Monsieur Nadeau. Let's have a look at these recommendations.

In effect, then, Nicholson's new position is best seen as a form of legislative Calvinball. Having previously said he was eager to see what the committee had to say about Robert Marleau's recommendations, he's now claiming that the committee has to start again from square one by offering its response to a report which apparently gathered dust on a shelf for three years rather than being provided to the committee or anybody else. (Which in turn will presumably be met by a declaration that the committee shouldn't have wasted its time on such an outdated report.)

Of course, it's also worth pointing out that the committee is rather hamstrung in its ability to get down to the work now demanded by Nicholson as long as Stephen Harper keeps Parliament from sitting. Which is a point which Nicholson would want to raise with his boss if he had the slightest interest in actually getting work done to improve Canada's access to information system.

But I wouldn't expect that anytime soon. After all, in the meantime the Cons continue to be able to stonewall access requests due to a weak legislative scheme...and that's an outcome which doesn't trouble Nicholson in the slightest.

Again, the key point to take away from Nicholson's position is that he sees himself as entitled to tell a Parliamentary committee retroactively what reports it can and can't consider in developing recommendations - and to stymie any progress on one of his government's core campaign promises as long as he can point to some piece of Con paperwork that wasn't included. And the proper response from the committee will be to affirm the work it's already done and work toward getting it passed in Parliament - whether or not Nicholson is standing in the way.

Update/Edit: As anonymous notes in comments, the committee's composition has changed since the report was issued; the text above has been rewritten to take that into account.