Evidence of meeting #37 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was year.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Mary Dawson  Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Suzanne Legault  Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Denise Benoit  Director, Corporate Management, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Lyne Robinson-Dalpé  Director, Advisory and Compliance, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Karen Shepherd  Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Daniel Therrien  Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

4:20 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

A lot of law firms are involved in those types of complaints.

In terms of the system overall, you have to understand that about half of the total number of requests in the system go to Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Those really deal mostly with people who are outside of the country wanting to have information about their status with Citizenship and Immigration. They usually tend to be represented by people here. That's about 30,000 requests in the system. That gives a sense of where the bulk of the requests across the system are.

Aside from that, there are about 25 institutions out of 250 that receive over 90% of all the requests—the main departments like Transport Canada, PCO, Treasury Board, Health Canada, Industry Canada. That's where the bulk of the requests go.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON

Is there any individual organization that's responsible for say 10% of the complaints that you review?

4:20 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

You can sense my reluctance here, because obviously complaints are made anonymously, and so are requests. Motivations behind requests and complaints are also protected under the law, so I am somewhat reluctant to answer, but yes, there are people—

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON

But you do look at that, don't you?

4:20 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

There are complainants who have a greater volume of complaints, but it could be because they're journalists, it could be because they're lawyers, or it could be because they have a specific interest in this specific area, and their requests would go to different types of institutions. Some complaints are issue driven. With Lac-Mégantic, for instance, we had a big surge, with various people requesting. It varies from year to year.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON

I sat on this committee a few years ago, and when we were talking about the information requests, we were told at that time—in 2009—that a particular individual, a particular media organization, was responsible at that time for more than 30% of access to information requests. I just wondered if there was a correlation between the access to information requests and the complaints filed, which your office deals with.

4:20 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

I would be very surprised if it was 30% of the requests.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON

It was at that time, but it may have changed.

4:20 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

I really don't think that's possible. Perhaps the person was talking about the complaints, and that would have been the time of the CBC complaints. There was a very huge surge the year after CBC became subject to the act, and the complaints went up significantly that year. I think that's what those comments might refer to.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON

Was that because the CBC was subject to access to information for the first time around that time?

4:25 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

4:25 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Thank you, Mr. Dechert.

Our first hour is up. Once again, I'd like to thank the witnesses for joining us today and giving us such valuable input.

The committee will break for five minutes to give our next two witnesses a chance to take their seats.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

We now resume the meeting.

In our second hour, we will hear from two distinguished witnesses, Ms. Shepherd, Commissioner of Lobbying; and Mr. Therrien, Privacy Commissioner. They will each have 10 minutes for their presentations on their main estimates for 2015-16. Afterwards, members will have the opportunity to ask questions until 5:30 p.m.

Ms. Shepherd, thank you for being here. You have 10 minutes. Please go ahead.

4:30 p.m.

Karen Shepherd Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I am pleased to be here today to discuss main estimates and outline my priorities for the fiscal year. I am joined by René Leblanc, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Financial Officer.

My mandate is threefold: to maintain a registry of lobbyists; to develop and implement educational programs to foster awareness of the act; and to ensure compliance with the Lobbying Act and the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.

As I have previously said before this committee, I run a lean but effective organization due to the progress made in streamlining operations. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of my staff who continue to perform despite scarce resources, last year I was able to deliver several new tools for lobbyists; improve compliance in the areas of monthly communication reports; and launch our segregated secure network to enhance data security.

In 2013-14, my budget was cut by 5%. I am currently able to deliver on my mandate; however, there are not sufficient funds to implement major system upgrades and policy and program changes, which might be required if the act were to be amended. The amount in the 2015-16 main estimates for my office is about $4.5 million, which is essentially the same amount as last year. My salary envelope represents about 63% of my budget. The remaining 37% is for operating costs. I have a complement of 28 employees.

The registry of lobbyists is the primary tool for lobbyists to disclose their lobbying activities. A budget of about $1 million, including salaries for seven full-time employees, has been allocated to manage the registry this year.

Following the budget reduction in 2013-14, the registry was placed in maintenance mode. However, given the importance of the system, this position is not sustainable in the long term. One of my priorities this year is to develop solutions to ensure the registry continues to be stable in the long run.

In terms of ensuring compliance with the act and the code, I allocated $1.1 million in 2015-16 to enforcement activities, including the salaries for eight full-time employees. In addition to conducting reviews and investigations, my office undertakes a broad range of monitoring and compliance verification activities. This year my priority will be to continue to refine these compliance initiatives.

The last component of my mandate is to inform and educate stakeholders. The Lobbying Act is a fairly complex piece of legislation. Outreach is thus essential to ensuring compliance. I allocated $700,000 to outreach activities, including salaries for seven full-time employees. While developing educational tools and delivering outreach activities will continue, my priority this year will be to support the implementation of a new lobbyists' code of conduct.

The purpose of the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct is to ensure that lobbying is conducted according to the highest ethical standards. While the act has been amended several times over the years, the code has not been amended since it came into effect in 1997.

In 2013, I held a consultation to determine whether revisions to the code were warranted. The consultation indicated that, while the code was working well, there were areas of the code that could be strengthened. As required by the act, I consulted stakeholders on a revised code in the fall of 2014. The act also requires that I submit the code to a committee of the House of Commons, which I recently did.

I look forward to hearing the views from members of this committee, as I see this as an important and final stage in the consultation outlined in the act. Following consideration of your views, I will develop the necessary tools and guidance documents for lobbyists. Finally, I will publish the code in the Canada Gazette. At that time, I will indicate the date when the new code will come into effect. Until that date, the 1997 code remains in force.

I would like to highlight three key changes to the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct, which I submitted to you.

First, the scope of the code has been changed to be consistent with that of the act. The main objective of the act is to ensure transparency of communication between lobbyists and federal public office holders. As a result, I have removed all rules in the code that dealt with the interactions between lobbyists and their clients.

Second, I added a new principle concerning respect for Canada's democratic institutions to reflect the role lobbyists play in the public policy process.

Finally, changes were made to clarify the area of conflict of interest. I simplified the rule dealing with conflict of interest to reflect the 2009 Federal Court of Appeal decision, which included the concept of apparent conflicts of interest. I also added new rules, which provide additional clarity to lobbyists in the areas of preferential access, political activities, and the provision of gifts.

Some relationships between lobbyists and public office holders could create a sense of obligation, for example, when the lobbyist has financial or business dealings with the public office holder or when they are close personal friends. In such cases where a relationship would be perceived as giving preferential access, lobbyists should not lobby that public office holder. Some political activities could also create a sense of obligation. While we live in a democratic country where both political activities and lobbying are legitimate, lobbyists must ensure that no real or apparent conflict of interest is created when these two activities intersect. The code will explicitly prohibit lobbyists from lobbying members of Parliament and ministers when they have carried out political activities that could reasonably be seen to create a sense of obligation. These activities include organizing a fundraising campaign or event, writing speeches, preparing candidates for debates, and serving on the executive of an electoral district association.

The rule extends to a prohibition on lobbying public office holders who work in ministers' or MPs' offices. When certain political activities are carried out by a lobbyist it is reasonable to think that political staffers who serve at the pleasure of a member or minister may also feel a sense of obligation. By contrast, activities such as donating as per the Canada Elections Act, putting a sign on a lawn, being a member of an electoral district association, or attending fundraising events do not create a sense of obligation that would result in the appearance of a conflict of interest.

The final rule concerning conflict of interest prohibits lobbyists from offering a gift to a public office holder except when such a gift would be a normal expression of courtesy or protocol.

I would like to end by stating that I am very proud of my staff and all of their work and support in achieving my mandate. Thanks to their dedication and professionalism, I am able to look forward to all that we will once again accomplish this coming year. In particular, with their help, I look forward to implementing a new lobbyists' code of conduct.

Mr. Chair, this concludes my remarks. I welcome any questions you or the members may have.

4:40 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Thank you for your presentation, commissioner.

And now, without further ado, I will turn the floor over to Mr. Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who will have up to 10 minutes for his presentation.

May 25th, 2015 / 4:40 p.m.

Daniel Therrien Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, honourable members.

I am pleased to address our office's main estimates, and with me today are Daniel Nadeau, our chief financial officer; and Patricia Kosseim, our general counsel.

In my time, I will outline our fiscal outlook, describe how we are managing rising demands, and announce our new privacy priorities, which will influence our work in the future.

To begin now, in the coming years, our resources are forecasted to remain at their existing levels. When looking at our 2015-16 report on plans and priorities, there appears to be a drop from the last two fiscal years to this one. This difference is due mainly to the expenses incurred in previous years with the mandatory move of our headquarters in February 2014. Looking forward, for the next three fiscal years, our resources are set to remain relatively stable, at just more than $24 million annually.

That said, we face rising demands. Over the last few years, we have generally seen increasing levels of complaints, while our investigations are becoming more complex. On top of reviewing privacy impact assessments, we are also increasingly requested for consultations to provide advice earlier as new federal initiatives making use of personal information take shape.

Meanwhile, data breach reports from departments were already increasing before a new Treasury Board directive came into force a year ago, making material breach reports to us mandatory. And at the end of the last fiscal year, breach reports in the public sector hit a record high for the fifth consecutive year.

Facing rising demands, we have taken steps to continue meeting our obligations within our existing resources. For example, we are settling more complaints by early resolution, through which parties are satisfied without the need for a full investigation. We are also managing situations where many complaints come from various people about the same issue by opening one all-encompassing investigation. And, we have also implemented measures for situations where one individual submits many complaints, to better balance the needs of all complainants, ensuring all Canadians have access to our services.

All told, Mr. Chair and honourable members, we are using most, if not all, of the tools available under our acts to manage rising demands. But, today, we are left with precious little room to manoeuvre to meet our obligations. We are nearly one year in after taking on new responsibilities under Canada's anti-spam law.

We also anticipate the passing of Bill S-4, which will make breach reports from private sector organizations to our office mandatory. Bill C-51will also create new work for our office as we are called upon to investigate whether its implementation respects the Privacy Act.

So, while I am not ready to say our office needs new resources today, I think it will be quite difficult to meet our existing and new responsibilities with our current level of resources. After we have some experience fulfilling our new roles and a better sense of the impact on our resources, I may need to appear before you to make the case for an adjustment.

Turning to strategic priorities, when I appeared before you to discuss my nomination for the position of Privacy Commissioner of Canada, I said that during my mandate my goal would be to increase the control Canadians have over their personal information.

One of my first initiatives after assuming my role was to launch a priority-setting exercise that would guide the discretionary work my office does towards realizing this vision in the most efficient and effective way possible. As part of this exercise, our office engaged representatives from business, government, civil society, and academia. We also held focus groups to gauge the views of the public. Today, I am pleased to share our results.

To begin, one of our four privacy priorities will be the economics of personal information. Our discussions highlighted the need for user clarity about the personal information they provide in exchange for online services, how that data is used, and the question of meaningful consent. As a result, some of our key work under this priority will be closely examining the issue of consent in today's digital world, increasingly marked by the emergence of big data and the Internet of things.

The overall goal of this priority will be to enhance the privacy protection and trust of individuals so that they may confidently participate in an innovative digital economy.

The “body as information” will be another privacy priority. Whether it is biometric information tied to a trusted traveller card or that generated by medical devices, genetic testing, or wearable fitness trackers, this data may be used in many ways that could compromise people's privacy. This issue concerned the experts we engaged, and it is one about which we will learn more and raise awareness among both developers and users about the potential privacy risks of these new technologies.

The goal of this priority will be to promote respect for the privacy and integrity of the human body as the vessel of our most intimate personal information.

Of course, one of the hallmarks of today's information technology is sharing information with the world in a click, and as the saying goes, “the Net never forgets”, which means youth growing up today may no longer get to outlive their past mistakes. These are among the reasons why reputation and privacy will be one of our priorities, and one under which we will work to help enhance digital literacy among vulnerable populations, while also examining the right to be forgotten.

Our goal with this priority will be to help create an environment where individuals may use the Internet to explore their interests and develop as persons without fear that their digital trace will lead to unfair treatment.

Fourth and finally, government surveillance will also be among our priorities. As mentioned, we will be directing investigative resources to ensure the Privacy Act is duly respected by the information sharing made possible by Bill C-51. We will also give advice to departments, through privacy impact assessments or otherwise, to prevent privacy breaches. We will also work with private organizations and government to establish appropriate standards for transparency in accountability reports.

Ultimately, our goal with this priority will be to contribute to the adoption and implementation of laws and other measures that demonstrably protect both national security and privacy.

In order to make progress on these priorities, we will focus our activities around five cross-cutting strategies: first, exploring innovative and technological ways to protect privacy; second, enhancing accountability and promoting good privacy governance; third, taking into consideration the fact that privacy knows no borders; fourth, enhancing our public education role; and fifth, paying special attention to vulnerable groups.

In closing, our new privacy priorities will help hone our focus to make best use of our limited resources, and further our ability to inform parliamentarians and to protect and promote Canadians' privacy rights. Having identified what we believe are the 21st century's most pressing privacy concerns, our office will now chart a course to address them, in partnership with individuals, organizations, legislators, and fellow oversight bodies.

With that, I look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Commissioner, thank you for your presentation.

The committee members no doubt have many questions for you. I will give them the floor, starting with Ms. Borg.

Ms. Borg, you have seven minutes.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Good afternoon. I would like to begin by thanking you for appearing today. We always have a lot of questions, but we have to prioritize. I will start with you, Ms. Shepherd.

To ensure that the government is working on improving the lives of all Canadians, access to government organizations must be equal and there must be transparency. Your mandate mainly consists in making sure those two requirements—access and transparency—are being met.

Senator Mike Duffy's trial has been dominating the news lately. During the trial, Mr. Duffy's schedule was made public. We saw that a number of meeting with various lobbyists were not registered.

Do you think there are deficiencies in the way the law currently operates? In particular, do you feel that the 20% rule is difficult to apply?

4:50 p.m.

Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying

Karen Shepherd

I mentioned something while the bill was being reviewed. It depends on the how it is applied according to the 20% rule. Some lobbyists would probably not be covered by the legislation. That may be one of the reasons. If an organization did not have to register initially, it would not have to produce a monthly report, either.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Thank you.

During Mr. Duffy's trial, we also learned that he was often the one who initiated meetings, so they did not have to be registered. Is that something we should address?

4:50 p.m.

Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying

Karen Shepherd

Lobbyists currently have to produce a report if they are organizing the meeting. If the meeting yields a financial benefit, whether for the public office holder or the lobbyist, that person has to produce a monthly report.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Mr. Duffy organized several meetings with Enbridge. The company apparently informed the Office of the Prime Minister that it had contact with the senator on a number of occasions and was somewhat uncomfortable with that. Was your office informed of those contacts?

4:50 p.m.

Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying

Karen Shepherd

Yes, my office was informed of those meetings. I always take allegations seriously. I can confirm to the committee that I am looking into the lobbying activities to determine whether there is a problem.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Thank you.

I will switch departments and ask you a few questions, Mr. Therrien.

During this session of Parliament, the committee considered several bills directly related to protecting the privacy of Canadians, including Bills C-44 and C-51. Unfortunately, you were not invited to testify. I think that those bills may negatively affect your ability to ensure that the privacy of Canadians is respected. What do you think?

4:50 p.m.

Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Daniel Therrien

I was not invited to appear before the committees of the House, but I did appear before a Senate committee to speak to Bill C-51, and I made presentations to the appropriate committees of both Houses. All I can do is make the strongest possible case to parliamentarians. It is better if I am invited, as we can then discuss the proposed recommendations.

That said, my views on all bills, including Bill C-51, have been communicated to parliamentarians. A public debate was held on those matters. I am satisfied with that debate.