Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2010

[Bob Hamilton]

Yes, in general there are lots of consultations with other departments. I'm not sure we have numbers on what goes where. Certainly, anything that had to do with cabinet confidence we would be discussing with PCO, but I'm not aware whether we have any particular numbers.

No, we don't have any statistics, at least readily available. We can check to see whether we have any.

But your point is absolutely correct. I find that at Environment Canada, because of the type of work we do—and Shelley referenced it—as a regulatory agency, with many of the files that come our way we either have to go to DFO or NRCan or the provinces, and in some cases to PCO, for cabinet confidences.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

We'd appreciate, when you're putting the package together, that the numbers on national security at least or on cabinet confidences come to us as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Ms. Emmerson, are you clear on that request?

[A voice]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, it would be over the last couple of years or three.

[Pierre Bernier]

Is this on cabinet confidence, consultations?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, it's cabinet confidence and national security. National security becomes, at least from my perspective, a cover-all sometimes, a default position for not allowing stuff to be released. We have to be careful on that one.

As well, in the recommendations of the Information Commissioner, the last one was that Environment Canada comply with the act by notifying the Office of the Information Commissioner of all the extensions it takes for more than 30 days.

Is that being done, and how extensive is the requirement for extensions for longer than 30 days?

[Bob Hamilton]

Yes, we have made some administrative improvements to try to deal with this. I'll let Pierre explain exactly what these are.

[Pierre Bernier]

This was strictly an administrative oversight. During this period, the documents in our computer system for monitoring cases were encoded incorrectly. A code enables us to determine of which requests the Commissioner's Office should be notified. This error was realized following the commissioner's recommendations and has since been rectified.

As for the percentage of requests that are subject to consultation, I have a percentage regarding requests that took more than 30 days to process. Currently, 72% of requests taking over 30 days are subject to consultation. This doesn't answer your question exactly, but it gives you some idea of the percentage, which is high.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I think Mr. Siksay was on this a little earlier. What are the discussions on access to information across the breadth of government? Is each department trying to reinvent the wheel on its own? Sometimes it sounds as though that's what's happening.

Somebody mentioned best practices earlier. If one department has an A, they must be doing something right, and certainly some departments do not have a lot of requests. But what is happening across the breadth of government to make this work? What are you learning from each other?

[Bob Hamilton]

Again, I'll let Shelley describe that, because she actually sits on these. But I think the way you've put it is right. What we're trying to avoid is everyone reinventing the wheel for ourselves and doing it in 20 or 30 different places.

The idea is that whatever part of the chain we're looking at, whether it's the system that's used to recover the information or how we train our employees—I think we talked about the training program—it's something we've learned from each other and that we're trying to institute. Yes, it needs to be done on an institution by institution basis, but we can learn from others and share those experiences.

Treasury Board also puts out a little guideline of best practices. Through these discussions and others, there comes to be a bit of a template of what seems to be working out well from an efficiency perspective but also in meeting our obligations. These group discussions can help populate the guidelines.

Very much with the goal of what you're trying to say, we all have a shared challenge. We all face slightly different issues in terms of the types of requests that come in, the numbers that come in, the systems that we have in place, but it's a lot easier to pick out something that somebody else is doing well and copy it.

Does that cover it, or would you add anything?

[Shelley Emmerson]

Certainly the ATIP community meetings that Treasury Board holds every couple of months are a good forum. And Treasury Board does put forth its best practices, which we try to follow.

I'm participating in a steering committee that Treasury Board has struck dealing with community development. I'm sure Treasury Board could better elaborate the issue they're dealing with, as far as this committee is concerned, but we are actively working amongst departments to look at best practices and determine ways in which we can deal with the challenges with regard to staffing and community development.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I wonder whether there is any way the department could table their action plan showing how they're moving forward, how they're dealing with this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Hamilton.

[Bob Hamilton]

We have an action plan, so we will table it with the committee.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know if I will use all of my five minutes, but I'd like to ask a few questions.

We know that there are some exceptions under the Access to Information Act. For instance, if I'm not mistaken, all documents on trade secrets, some cabinet documents and some documents on scientific research are examples of these exceptions. However, it is my understanding that many Environment Canada employees, especially scientists, would like there to be more transparency when it comes to information access.

We won't discuss the communication office directives, we'll set that aside. Let's focus instead on scientific studies. What criteria do you follow when a citizen, an MP or an organization requests a document or a scientific study on climate change, for instance? Which criteria prevent you from providing this information and render the document an exception under the Access to Information Act? I would like to know what determines whether or not a document, or a scientific study on climate change, can be provided under the Access to Information Act.

[Bob Hamilton]

I will ask Mr. Bernier to answer your question, but I think that the act is very clear when it comes to this. Criteria are set out, and we comply with them.

[Pierre Bernier]

First, I would like to specify that the act does not set out any document exemptions, but rather exceptions that apply to information. That's why reviewing the documents takes us so long, as Ms. Emmerson pointed out. Our review is always done line-by-line. We can't decide whether a document as whole constitutes an exception. We can decide that some parts of a document are covered by the exceptions. You mentioned certain examples, specific technological procedures, for instance, which are the property of some companies or industries.

As far as criteria go, the act provides for exceptions, and the Treasury Board has issued directives that help us acquire a more thorough understanding of those exceptions. Our department uses those directives when making decisions. We have already said that we will provide you with the criteria. There are several of them, depending on the exception in question.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I find it strange that we have not yet talked about the Privy Council Office and its role in what is known as censorship. As my colleague, Robert Bouchard, said, we basically get blank pages in response to our access to information requests. That is why I say censorship. What percentage of documents has been reviewed....

Some of your employees do the research. Ms. Emmerson does the filtering and determines what can be disclosed and what cannot. But there is another filter called Treasury Board. Is it common for documents to come back and for you to be told that, despite the department's recommendations, all of the requested information cannot be disclosed because, for whatever reason, the Privy Council Office said that it could not be disclosed?

[Pierre Bernier]

First of all, I would like to point out that the process works the other way around. We send the documents to other departments or to the Privy Council Office for consultation. Then they make recommendations on the exceptions they want adopted, and we always have the final say on departmental documents, as do all departments.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

So you are saying that it is not in fact the other way around. Department employees do not decide on whether or not to disclose the information; it is actually the people at the top. You send unaltered documents to Treasury Board, and more than likely, you will get those documents back from Treasury Board in the same censored state we receive them in, and then....

[Pierre Bernier]

We send the unaltered documents, but we have done our own analysis prior to that.

Furthermore, when you say Treasury Board, I think what you mean is the Privy Council Office.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Yes, I meant the Privy Council Office. I apologize.

[Pierre Bernier]

For example, if we determine that certain parts of a document fall under the category of Cabinet confidence, we send the document to PCO for review. They then determine whether or not they want, or recommend, rather, that an exception be applied. We then get the document back for final analysis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Merci, Monsieur Bigras.

That concludes the questions.

It is getting close to five o'clock, which is when we're going to start the second phase of the meeting.

Before we suspend this part of the meeting, I'm going to invite you, Mr. Hamilton or Ms. Emmerson or Monsieur Bernier, to make any closing comments or remarks you want to make to the committee.