Evidence of meeting #113 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was office.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Ms. Maynard and Mr. Fortin.
Mr. Green, you have six minutes. Go ahead, please.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Welcome back to committee, Ms. Maynard. I always appreciate the candour, professionalism and rigour with which you approach your work as commissioner.
You'll note that this committee has long wrestled with access to information, the delays and the structural issues that are underscored by what you described as a structural deficit baked into your operations.
In your opening comments, you referred to your work as “a quasi-constitutional right” that must be upheld. Also, you referenced institutions that were negligent in responding to your requests for access to information. I believe you said that there are four actions currently under way. Which institutions are those?
11:30 a.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
There were four applications of mandamus produced. The first one was against the Trans Mountain Corporation, TMC. That application was settled. Then, I had to apply for a mandamus against National Defence three times. One has also been found to be moot, because the request was responded to, but we still have two active applications with the Department of National Defence.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
11:30 a.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Yes.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
There are three actions. One of them is moot, because you actually had to take them to court using your own resources on a budget that already has a structural deficit baked in. There is no punishment for not following your orders.
In your estimation, does it not incentivize departments to not comply, if there are no real repercussions?
11:30 a.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
That's the fear that we have in my office right now. We hope that it's not going to become a norm.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
With regard to the Department of National Defence, given the strong mandate that you have and given all the agencies and institutions that are prevalent, does the fact that this one has required this three times not speak to a culture within the Department of National Defence?
11:30 a.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Whether it's the culture or a lack of resources, the priority at National Defence definitely has not been to provide access to the appropriate resources to respond to these requests.
April 18th, 2024 / 11:30 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I put to you that, in my short time of four or five years here, one frustration I have—coming against the idea of open government, of being open by default and of having parliamentary privileges—is that in practice we're often left with very little information to make informed decisions as decision-makers in the House of Commons. It's something that we wrestle with. I don't think it's a partisan issue, quite frankly. I think there are members of all parties who agree. In that regard, it's part of our mandate and duty to deal with these things.
We had a situation yesterday, which was a once-in-a-century type of situation, because somebody refused to follow the very basic premises of our abilities to send for documents, order for evidence and make witnesses appear. My concern—and we've seen this with other studies that we've had right here at this committee—is that, if people know there's no consequence, then forget about “open by default”: There's going to be, I think, a culture of “cover-up by default”, “secrecy by default”, “obstruction by default”, “negligence by default”.
For that reason, Mr. Chair, I wonder if it might be wise for us to seek unanimous consent for a motion that would draft a letter from this committee to the Department of National Defence, urging them—we can't direct them, as that comes from the House—and recommending to them that they comply in good faith with our Information Commissioner. The fact that we have a cash-strapped commission having to take legal proceedings and that, in the House of Commons in the last session, Parliament had to have the Speaker of the House go after the government to get information, is a problem. In this situation—I think in a non-partisan way—by seeking unanimous consent, the letter comes from you to the Department of National Defence, asking them to comply with the demands from the commissioner, in accordance with the act and with her mandate.
It's not something I want to get into a filibuster over, but I do think the testimony we heard is compelling. One department has a pattern here. I think that should be a request. It's a very reasonable, rational request. It's not a demand.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I think it's a reasonable motion as well. Of course, now that the motion has been moved, we have to seek debate on that motion. I appreciate the fact that you don't want a long debate on it.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I open the floor.
Madam Maynard, can you just hang on for a second?
I see Ms. Khalid on what Mr. Green has proposed, and then Mr. Barrett. Go ahead.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thanks, Chair.
I'm just seeking clarification. Is there something similar going on at the national defence committee?
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
This makes great sense. I appreciate the motion coming forward. We'll support it.
Mr. Green is in the process of reading minds down the table.
We should make it time-bound. I'm not sure if similar requests have been made. I don't personally have a suggestion but that they should comply sometime in the future. I'm sure they made overtures that, at some time in this century, they will, but that's obviously not acceptable, so make it time-bound. It certainly has our support.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I seek some guidance from Ms. Maynard on this. In your opinion, what would be a reasonable timeline if the committee were to agree to what Mr. Green has proposed?
11:35 a.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
What you need to understand is that I already ordered National Defence to respond to a request and they said they would comply with the order. Under the act, you either comply or you go to court. In this case, they said they would comply but they didn't. They missed the date, so that's why I'm in court, to force them to respect an order that has already been issued. The timeline.... It's already too late.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I just reflect that, in terms of our order of operations, my fear is we'll have the same treatment unless we put in a date. I think, if it's two weeks for a response from the time of the passing of the motion, that would at least give them the opportunity to respond to this committee with what their intention is.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative