Evidence of meeting #48 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agencies.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Chair, I hate to disrupt the witnesses, but there is an urgent matter, and that is the motion that I tabled before the committee. I'd like us to deal with the motion, which reads:
That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics call Mr. Kasra Nejatian, former Director of Multicultural Affairs to the Minister of Immigration, Hon. Jason Kenney, and that Mr. Nejatian be instructed to appear on Wednesday, March 9, 2011; and that the purpose of the meeting be to examine the issuance by the office of the Minister of Immigration of the letter dated March 3, 2011 on the matter of the circulation of the presentation entitled “Breaking Through--Building the Conservative Brand in Cultural Communities”.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I know you have this motion, but we have witnesses, so would you consent to putting it off until the end of the meeting?
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
No. I think this is an urgent matter, Mr. Chair, because what's happening here is this seems to be a strong-arming tactic by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you, Mr. Easter.
We do have a witness. He's coming via teleconference from Canberra, Australia, and it is 7:30 a.m. in Australia. What I would like to do--and I'm your servant, not your master--is hear the opening statement from the witness, and then come back to you.
That is what I'll do.
I'm going to call upon Professor McMillan. I want first of all to welcome you to the meeting. I want to thank you for coming.
I'm going to ask you now for your opening comments.
3:35 p.m.
John McMillan Australian Information Commissioner, Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good morning to the members of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. It's a pleasure to speak to you about Australian experience.
Australia has been in the fortunate position over the years of being able to learn a great deal from Canada in the area of freedom of information and privacy protection. Indeed, Canada was ahead of Australia in combining both areas into a single framework. And I hope we have some experience that may be of interest and assistance to you, as well.
Australia is currently going through the most substantial open government reform process to have occurred for nearly three decades. Since the Freedom of Information Act was first enacted in Australia in 1982 and the Privacy Act in 1988, there's been steady development in those areas of information rights and information management. But there was a common feeling in Australia that the process had stalled and that there was need for substantial improvement.
Currently we have, as I say, a substantial reform program that has both a legislative reform element and a policy reform element. The legislative reform element consists primarily of a law at the national level to amend the Freedom of Information Act and a law to establish a new office, which I head, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. I'll come back to that in a moment.
The policy reform element arises from a number of reports that have been commissioned by the national government in recent years to look at all aspects of information management, with a particular focus on electronic records management and on creating a culture of open government through more innovative use of technology. It's often coined the Gov 2.0 initiative because of the heavy reliance on the use of the Web 2.0 tools. And my office has a role to play in that area. Indeed, the members of the committee may be aware that one of the first activities of my office was the publication of an issues paper called “Towards an Australian Government Information Policy”, which drew together all the themes of the policy reform process that had occurred in recent years.
But the office I head, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, is a key element in the national reform process. A distinguishing feature of the office is that it brings together three areas: freedom of information, privacy protection, and information policy. There are three commissioners to head the office. They include me--the Information Commissioner--as well as a Freedom of Information Commissioner, and a Privacy Commissioner, which is an established position that's been merged into the office.
The office has a significant range of powers to undertake, from complaint investigation to tribunal merit reviews of individual agency decisions on document access. It also has an extensive role in monitoring agency practice in FOI and privacy, undertaking legislative reviews, advising the government, publishing guidelines, conducting training, and the like.
Indeed, the office itself is an innovation in government oversight. The practice in Australia, and I know to some extent in Canada, is to distribute all those oversight functions--complaint handling, merit review, training, promotion of open government--among different oversight bodies. But here they have been all collected together in a single office.
The office commenced operation on November 1 last year. Our early experience is that the open government and information policy reform process have strongly taken root in Australia.
The chief objective of the government was to initiate a process of cultural change within government. My clear impression is that cultural change is occurring. There has been a strong commitment among government agencies, particularly in the middle levels, to introduce the new reforms. Agencies have been committed, in a way we have not seen in the past, to ensuring the smooth processing of FOI requests. Indeed, hardly a day passes now when there are not articles in national newspapers that are rooted in FOI requests. They're not necessarily of the scandal, shock, or horror variety, but just routine reporting that relies heavily on freedom of information requests.
The other marked change is the cultural change at the senior levels within agencies. One of the first things I did was indicate to agencies that I was happy to address the senior management of all of the major departments on this open government reform process. I've been invited to meet the senior management of nearly all agencies now.
That kind of senior-level engagement about freedom of information and open government reform has simply never occurred before in Australia. Freedom of information was hitherto regarded more as a peripheral irritant by the leaders of many agencies. They now regard it as a responsibility of senior management to drive the cultural reform process within agencies.
The connection between freedom of information and all other aspects of information management has also been well established. For example, my office is now engaged in a whole range of projects concerned with electronic records management and destruction, freeing up copyright controls on government information so it's more available to others, cross-portfolio integration of data sets, promotion of greater publication by agencies, and the like. So freedom of information now has a firm connection to the policy reform process that's an integral feature of ensuring a proper well-based system of open government.
There's considerable talk in that space about the idea of creating a national information policy. There's considerable interest, in particular, in ten draft principles for a national information policy on reuse of government information. That was promoted by my office in the issues paper I mentioned earlier.
Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to make those initial remarks. I look forward to further discussion.
I understand that there is an issue before the committee. I perhaps should say that I unfortunately have to leave by 8:30, which is in just over 40 minutes. I have to open a conference in Canberra at nine this morning, but I'll look forward to further discussion.
Thank you.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Mr. McMillan.
You're right that there is an issue before the committee. I've no idea how long it will take, but hopefully we'll be back to you. We all realize in the committee that you only have an hour allotted and available for this session, so we certainly want to thank you very much for getting up so early this morning to present to this committee.
I urge cooperation, members. Let's try to deal with this as quickly as possible.
Mr. Easter, please very succinctly put your motion. You've already read your motion, so you don't have to read it again.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Do we not have to change our agenda to have discussion on this motion? It seems that we have an agenda that allows for committee business at the end of the meeting. If Mr. Easter wants to do it now, I suggest he needs to seek to change the agenda. That must require a motion and probably unanimous consent.
We have an agreed-upon agenda, so I'd like you to rule on that. I believe we should continue with questions for our witness.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Mr. Siksay, that's probably the normal way we do it, but the clerk has informed me that he does have the right to bring it at this point in time.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I'm more than willing to do it at 4:30 if that's more satisfactory, Mr. Chair. Then we can question this witness.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
It probably isn't, Mr. Easter, because we have another witness coming at 4:30.
Mr. Abbott.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Chair, if I may interject, as a courtesy to our friend in Australia it is only right and proper that we have our time with him. The other witnesses--and their testimony will be very, very, valuable--are based here in Ottawa, and should we run into a problem it would be relatively easy to reschedule. As a courtesy to our friend in Australia, we should go ahead with Mr. Easter's suggestion.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Okay.
I've heard the submissions. Do I have consent to go to the questioning of Mr. McMillan and go back to the Easter motion at 4:30?
3:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
We'll now start with the first round.
The first round is to you, Dr. Bennett. You have up to seven minutes.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Thank you very much.
As you know, David Eaves has testified and I think quite enjoyed his experience with the Australian 2.0 project.
You've said that open government or access to information was previously viewed to be a minor irritant and is now a responsibility. That's quite a seismic shift. I would love you to tell us a little bit more about how that happens. How do you effect that kind of culture change, and what kinds of directives, what happened that you got on with it?
3:50 p.m.
Australian Information Commissioner, Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Thank you very much.
I think for the cultural change to be fully effective, probably four elements are required. First is a strong government commitment to and sponsorship of open government reform. That has occurred at both the national and the state or provincial levels within Australia.
Over the past 12 months, the national government has been strongly committed to driving a cultural shift. For example, the minister in charge of this area wrote to the heads of all government agencies, saying that the government expected them to lead this change. I think it's significant to have that dialogue between a senior government minister and the heads of all agencies. Government commitment and strong messages are important. As part of that, I might say the government, in July last year, through the minister for finance, issued a declaration of open government that was unqualified in the commitment to change.
The second important change is to have an effective oversight body. The lesson of the past 30 years is that freedom of information reform had qualified success because there was no personal body with responsibility for ensuring that freedom of information reforms were effective. There was no FOI commissioner. By contrast, the privacy act that was enacted a few years later had, from the start, a privacy commissioner who led a strong program in ensuring privacy protection. The difference between the two was marked—privacy protection took root in a way that freedom of information never did. Indeed, it became a growing problem for open government that privacy protection was so strong and was frequently used by government agencies as an excuse for non-disclosure. The creation of a new body—the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner—was important. It means that there is a body with greater prominence, and with a commitment, a program, and resources committed to open government reform.
The third essential ingredient for the cultural change is a sign-on at the senior levels within individual agencies. One of the first things I did was to ask the secretary of our Prime Minister's department whether I could briefly address the secretaries board—which is the board of the heads of the major government departments—to ask for the opportunity to meet individually with their agencies. That was taken up, and nearly all of the major government agencies have invited me in.
I've generally stressed to them that there's no point in my appearing unless the secretary of the department, the head of the department, is there along with the other senior officers. My clear experience is that if the head of the agency is there, the other senior executives know it's important and they all turn up. I've noticed that if the head of the agency is not there within the hour or two before my appearance, a third or more of the other senior executives decide that it's not a high-priority issue. Just having that meeting with the senior executives has been important in being able to talk frankly and robustly about the challenges, the advantages, and the problems with freedom of information reform.
The fourth element for successful reform, which we're keeping an eye on, is the need for effective electronic records management in agencies. FOI was created in an era of hard-copy documents. As we know, technological change is having an unrelenting effect on government and society, and government itself has to latch on to technological change in all aspects of the information cycle. It's happening, but that's the big challenge now facing us and the government.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Your office has both privacy protection of personal information and freedom of information. In your view, in setting up your position, was it considered better to have those two separate, or to have them all in one office?
3:55 p.m.
Australian Information Commissioner, Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
My view is it's better to have it all in one office. Privacy and FOI have grown separately for over 20 years. A tension has developed between them, understandably. One is more concerned with openness, the other is more concerned with protection and at times confidentiality. Bringing them together creates a better framework within which the tensions can be addressed. But importantly too, it means that my office starts with the benefit of the considerable experience of the Privacy Commissioner and that office over the last 20 years.
One of the first things I realized was the considerable talent that was in the privacy office, and creating this merged office has been very important. It sent a strong message to government agencies too that all these different aspects of information management are connected and need a central focus and strong leadership within the agency.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you, Dr. Bennett.
Thank you, Mr. McMillan.
We are going to now go to Madame Freeman.
Madame Freeman, for seven minutes.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
Good afternoon, Mr. McMillan. Thank you for your presentation. I have a few questions for you regarding the implementation of a transparent government in Australia.
Here, in order to withhold information, people often bring up issues related to copyright, to national security and to the management of personal information when information is disclosed.
In Australia, how do you deal with the constraints often brought up by witnesses at this committee?
3:55 p.m.
Australian Information Commissioner, Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Those legal constraints are strong and important in Australia. As you say, the obstacles to a climate in which there is much greater disclosure and re-used circulation of government information include the privacy act, the copyright principles, national security, and other secrecy provisions.
All of those legal constraints still exist, but I suppose what is occurring is two things. One, we now have a climate in which we're addressing more directly the obstacles those can pose to more transparent government. For example, there is active discussion between my office and the Attorney General's department--which has policy responsibility for copyright protection--on the need to move more to a creative commons kind of licensing framework so that government agencies, when they publish information online, publish it without any copyright restrictions on the re-use of that information by others.
A simple example is government has to understand that when it publishes all its social demographic data, commercial organizations like Google will be well poised, if there are no copyright restrictions, to download that and then upload it onto iPhones and Google Maps and the like in a way that enables much better integration of government information into commercial programs.
The other big change, I suppose, is that it's as much an attitude as well as the legal constraints that hold back transparent government. It's the tendency of government to grasp a privacy justification for not disclosing, or a tendency to grasp a national security justification or a copyright justification for not disclosing. Often the case is overstated.
Because there is this commitment to open government--