Information & Ethics Committee on April 21st, 2016

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I would like to turn briefly to another matter.

The new government has a tendency to put off making decisions. We can see this on the democratic reform and health files. When the Treasury Board president announced consultations on an action plan for 2016-18, we can't help but think that the changes might not be made until a year before the next federal election, if they even materialize.

What do think of dragging things out so much in this way?

[Ken Rubin]

That's why I say you need a multi-transparency approach, because the people need to participate. One way you do it is through consultations and not just through accessing records.

In the case of the Access to Information Act, and this committee is partly in the dark too, they have not announced exactly, to 2018, how they're going to handle that. That's detrimental to everybody in the system.

In the case of Bill C-51, the minister has said he will hold consultations, but has not announced it.

I've recently received some access documents with everything blanked out except those three approaches. Part of the problem in this country is we don't take seriously anymore.... We used to produce white papers and do much more discussion. We don't take consultations that seriously. Yes, there's a defence process under way, pushed by certain interests, but how do you engage the public?

I think it's really—and electronically too—important, and we're doing a miserable job. The problem is we're hiding when people are putting these things forward for the next two or three years, just like the budget figures they tried to hide beyond two or three years. You have to put these things forward if people are going to feel comfortable and not cynical about wanting to participate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you very much. That ends that.

We have completed the official rounds of questioning.

Colleagues, I do want to have some time to discuss our schedule and how we're planning to meet our objectives.

I want to allow anybody here who has any unfinished questions.... Mr. Bratina, I know you did, and Mr. Long. Perhaps you could ask maybe one or two questions and keep it as concise as possible and try to wrap up in the next five minutes.

Mr. Bratina.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Boucher and Mr. Aylwin mentioned exemptions, trade secrets. You gave the example of a pharmaceutical company that may have processes that needed to be protected in an agreement with the federal government. If through accident or malfeasance those trade secrets became public, what would the fallout be? Would there be lawsuits? What would happen in the extreme case of a trade secret becoming public?

[Marc-André Boucher]

That is an excellent question. To be honest, even if there were a lawsuit, the act provides immunity that protects the government if the documents are disclosed inadvertently or in error. The only way of making the federal administration accountable would be to clearly demonstrate bad faith. Bad faith is very difficult to demonstrate, nearly impossible, from a legal standpoint. It is an uphill battle.

You are quite right. Immunity should perhaps be reduced or, at the very least, a mechanism should be implemented to compensate aggrieved companies. They have often invested millions and millions of dollars in research to obtain certain information. Very often, companies can invest in research for years without any results. When they are successful, when a medication is produced, it is essential that these companies see a return on their investments.

The issue of immunity is too often ignored. I would suggest an improvement in this regard, an amendment to provide for some kind of process, not only in cases of bad faith, but also in cases of information being disclosed in error.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Bratina, are you satisfied then?

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

That's fine. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Okay, we can move to Mr. Long for a couple of minutes. Quickly, please, sir.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the presenters this morning. It was very informative.

Mr. Rubin, how's your organic farm?

[Ken Rubin]

We've had a late spring.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

I read with interest a lot of articles on you, and your quote. You say you dig for dirt, you raise hell, and you quash secrecy.

[Ken Rubin]

True enough.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Another comment you made was that what you don't know can hurt you.

I listened to your presentation and your comments with a lot of interest, but you seem to have a tone, with respect, that all governments are bad, that all governments want to hide everything. The new government is six months old. Certainly we talk and are committed to proactive disclosure, but would you not agree that you're a little quick to judgment?

[Ken Rubin]

Listen. I was around when Trudeau senior was around, and I was around before then, and I haven't seen most governments change in terms of their transparency level and so on.

I treat people, any information, as an important feature, because when you uncover food guides that are lobbied by the food industry, when you uncover waste in terms of technology partnership programs, when you uncover asbestos which has been used by the Canadian government for years and years, these are things that should not be hidden.

It's not a matter that everybody is doing wrong, but the fact is we have such a high level of secrecy that we don't seem to have accountability. I've given a lot of thought to it, and I've evolved further in trying to put forward kinds of measures that will create a real disclosure atmosphere.

Technical fixes are not going to get us anywhere. And yes, you've been around for six months. Six months is too long without introducing a proper transparency bill.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you very much.

We have some excellent analysts here. Just for the edification of the committee, I have already discerned that the legislation was implemented in 1983. I believe that is when it came into force. There have been two fulsome studies, one in 1987 and one in 2009, if I remember correctly. I am not aware of any amendments to the legislation as a result. There might have been one somewhere along the line.

The wheel is continuing to turn, and hopefully we don't have to reinvent too much stuff.

Mr. Jeneroux, I think you said you had one last quick follow-up.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Yes, it's just a quick one.

Thanks for the history lesson, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Rubin, just so we have a fulsome understanding of how you make these requests and how often, can you give us a sense of how many requests you have made a year, on average, over the last number of years? I am not sure if it goes up and down.

[Ken Rubin]

It is certainly over a thousand a year. It is for public interest groups, for certain issues that I am involved in for trade unions, for co-operatives, for citizens who are having problems. I make a lot of requests.

All I can say is that sometimes people appreciate that, and I don't think it is a matter of penalizing people who try to uncover safety problems, waste, and so on.

I encourage more people to do this. We have only 70,000 or so requests a year, which is pathetic. We should have over a million. Look how many people there are. If we had an effective act, that is what we would be having.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Jeneroux.

Mr. Erskine-Smith promised me he had a yes or no question.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

This is a yes or no question.

The commissioner has recommended, in recommendation 4.2, that all exclusions be repealed and that it be a system of exemptions.

Do you agree? Yes or no?

[Ken Rubin]

Yes, but I'd rather have her not have exemptions.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Okay, thank you.

[Ken Rubin]

No, that is not a fair question, sir.

[Dr. Mark Weiler]

Yes.