Information & Ethics Committee on May 5th, 2016

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Yes, indeed.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[An hon. member]

Come on back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Timing is everything.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

I don't know how the rest of my colleagues would feel if you wanted to come back, but....

We haven't talked, actually, about one of the key recommendations that many of the provincial experts have made to this committee, and that is whether access to information and privacy ought to be handled by one commissioner.

We also heard, and this goes to some of Mr. Erskine-Smith's comments, about allocation of resources. These offices spend a lot of money on internal services. We've also heard the concern from Professor Drapeau about the misallocation of resources.

Would you be open to combining those two offices should this committee recommend that? We've heard some strong recommendations in that direction.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

There's an important tension, in some ways, between privacy and access to information. I view that positively. I do think, and this is my instinct, not having had the benefit of all the testimony and your report, that having distinct offices does have its advantages. I'm interested in looking at other models. There will be times when the Privacy Commissioner will quarrel with what the Information Commissioner wants in a particular area.

I'm interested in the best possible model. These are officers of Parliament. There are stakeholders with whom to have these discussions. The resource question, which was raised earlier, is an important one as well. We take all those questions seriously. What is the best approach? This will be valuable.

Did you see some of the benefits of having separate offices?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

We're collecting our evidence. We haven't been through the process of making a final determination, but it was one that each of the provincial commissioners we heard from as witnesses.... There's been much evidence from many witnesses on the strength of the Newfoundland and Labrador model, which, as with the other commissioners, is a single commissioner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kelly.

We can come back to that. I think we'll have more time. We'll try to keep it to five minutes, as we do for the second round.

Just as a reminder, in this particular environment we're all parliamentarians at the table. Usually it's the witnesses who are answering questions and the committee members who are asking them.

Mr. Brison, you have a 17-year history of being around the table asking questions.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I know, I know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I'm sure that's a habit for you.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

But I want to listen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Yes, but....

Mr. Bratina, five minutes, please.

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

On the notion of timelines, and 1983, and where Mr. Lightbound was at the time, in 1965 I began my broadcasting career in Stratford. They handed me a tape recorder and said, “Go and interview John Diefenbaker.” There was an election at the time. I asked him a question, and his answer was, “I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.” We'll see if I've learned anything in 50 years.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

Peter Moon was there from The Globe and Mail. He said, “Sir, what are your views on education?”, and he got a 10-minute answer. I learned: you ask simple questions.

Recommendation 6.1 states: “The Information Commissioner recommends that institutions be required to proactively publish information that is clearly of public interest.” You're engaging with institutions right now, and the public, to determine what information is of public interest. Should the information that is proactively published be made accessible only to Canadians—we talked about this earlier—or foreign civilians and institutions as well?

The question I have is with regard to this notion of public interest. In my long broadcasting career I was all through the Watergate stuff and what was of public interest. Would you reflect on that, on what is the public interest?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Bratina. Every time you speak with that baritone voice I think you must have been a great broadcaster, and also a politician municipally.

The Nixon White House isn't exactly the model we're seeking.

One of the things about proactive disclosure is that it actually cuts the administrative costs in some ways and the processes of access to information. Your chair mentioned that to me the other day, and it is true that the degree to which we actually put the information out there so people don't have to go through a request process....

Some of this has just happened technologically. When I was first elected in 1997, and when I had a speech to write, I used to do so many requests to the Library of Parliament to get information for a speech. Today, when I'm writing a speech at my house in Chéverie, Hants County, Nova Scotia, I go on Google and google the stuff, and I'm using the same Internet search engine that some kid in grade 8 writing a paper is using. There's been a democratization of information without any change in laws. We're the ones—and I'm talking about government collectively—who have to catch up.

This is just putting the information out there and determining what information.... What I like about what technology has done in terms of democratizing information, and what we are seeking to augment in terms of modernizing access to information, is that if you give the public and the parliamentarians as much information as possible, and as close as it can be to the information from which we're making decisions, I think there can be a convergence in terms of what the best ideas are, because we're guided by the same information. The degree to which we eliminate that delta between the information the decision-makers have, say, in a cabinet room and the information the parliamentarians or Canadians have can create the opportunity for better decisions to co-emerge with more broad support.

I'm quite excited about this.

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

I just have a moment. In the report “Striking the Right Balance for Transparency”, the Information Commissioner recommends various offences and penalties for cases where the act is being violated. Where would you be on the notion of penalties?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

There are penalties now, in fact. Anyone who obstructs the Information Commissioner in the performance of the commissioner's duties or functions under the act is guilty of an offence and liable upon summary conviction to a fine of $1,000. There are others. If you destroy or alter records, or falsify or make false records, there are fines for that to a maximum of $10,000. There are penalties currently. I'd be interested in how they compare with other jurisdictions. I haven't done all of that research yet.

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

Thank you.

I'll leave it at that, and I'll pick that up later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you.

That was about five minutes anyway, Mr. Bratina, so I appreciate that very much.

We'll move on to Mr. Long, please.

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

Thank you, Minister Brison. I appreciate your being here today.

I just want to applaud you for your passion and conviction and for being a strong advocate for access to information. I think it's refreshing for all of us to see somebody as open, transparent, and forthright with answers as you have been for us. I want to thank you for that.

I think it was very nice to hear Commissioner Legault come out and say that she applauds the government for our spirit of co-operation in our early days. I think that's a very positive thing.

I just want to focus on a few of her recommendations. One of the things she suggests is the mandatory five-year review. That's going to allow basically every government, every mandate, to have a review. I just want to get your thoughts on that and why you feel that's important, and follow up on how you think the reviews should be and will be conducted.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Certainly. We appreciate that Commissioner Legault said some positive things. From time to time she won't agree with us, and we appreciate hearing from her when she doesn't agree with us as well.

In terms of the five-year review, we just don't want to get back to the same place we're in now. I take your point, that there have been some changes, but there haven't been significant updates since 1983. Given the degree to which there has been a revolution in digital and information technology since then, this is an area that needs....

If anything, we think we've been through a period of incredible change. The rapidity of change will only increase. As we move forward in ensuring a five-year review, it doesn't mean that this committee can't review and suggest amendments between those mandatory five-year reviews; it just puts a stake in the ground.

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

Thank you.

I didn't realize that you've been actually up here for—what?—18, 19 years?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

It's 19 years on June 2.

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

My, oh my. I told my friends and my wife, if I were here for more than eight years, to get the hook and pull me out, so congratulations.