Information & Ethics Committee on May 5th, 2016

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I appreciate you turning the temperature down on the boiling pot there, Mr. Minister.

We'll now turn it over to Mr. Erskine-Smith.

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

First, thank you, Minister, for attending today.

In the backgrounder I have before me entitled “Government proposals to revitalize access to information”, it says:

In 2014-15, federal institutions spent over $67 million in direct costs to administer the Access to Information Act.

That was for staff and business systems for processing requests. It doesn't include costs associated with business areas, and searching for and reviewing documents.

Do we assess the costs of folks reviewing and searching for documents? As an evidence-based decision-making government, are we trying to capture that time and the cost to government of that time?

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

A $60-some million figure is what I'm familiar with. By the way, the amount of fees we collect is pretty tiny compared with that. We have about $300,000.

Jennifer may have some insight in terms of some of the other costs.

You've made a good point. You can't manage what you don't measure. The degree to which we actually understand some of the less obvious costs really is important as we're making decisions.

Jennifer.

[Jennifer Dawson]

I would say that, to date, we have not tracked those costs outside of the direct processing cost. We have close to 70,000 requests annually, so we haven't tracked the indirect costs associated with that as part of the tracking process associated with moving all of that material through.

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

Would we be able to be provided with a full breakdown of that $67 million?

[Jennifer Dawson]

Do you mean the direct cost spending?

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

The direct cost, the $67 million.... Could we receive a full breakdown at this committee?

[Jennifer Dawson]

I will see what I can provide, yes.

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

Thanks very much.

With respect to the timeline, I understand we have an interim directive as of today. We are looking at a first phase of review, and the ministry has identified certain changes within your mandate letter, but you are open to other changes. Then, in 2018, there is going to be a larger consultation process that comes to fruition.

I am a backbencher, and I am very happy to see this government empower committees. I share Mr. Blaikie's concern about acting as quickly as possible on the duty to document and some other items that are in Ms. Legault's report. We are going to get a report from this committee out in June. Ideally, we are going to talk about the duty to document, extension rules requested by departments, and extending the Access to Information Act to other bodies, not just the ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's office, but also to publicly funded bodies. Ms. Legault has proposed changes in that regard, with a threshold of $5 million of funding or over 50% of funding. We will also make proposals with respect to exclusions or exemptions, sanctions, and the duty to report destruction.

The more we put into that June report, the more I would like to see in that initial phase of changes. I wonder if you could comment on that. Are you looking for around-the-edges changes in proposals to the first phase that you have identified, the changes you have already identified? How much can we pack into that first phase to actually get this done within our mandate?

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

First of all, starting immediately, we are making some changes. I am open to.... I have laid out what our platform commitments are and what our mandate commitments are. If you have just suggested ways we can strengthen those, that's fine. If there are some other things we can move forward that could be part of the first phase of legislation, we would be interested in that.

Part of issuing the directive today was that we wanted to have some early deliverables to get some things done in the short term as we are working to ensure that through the first phase of the legislative changes, late 2016 and early 2017, we do the others. Those will be focused on what we have already proposed that can be strengthened and improved by the work of this committee, and if there are some other areas.

For instance, in terms of the policy of information management within government now, that information is available to the committee. There may be things we can strengthen in terms of that practice now. It is something we would be interested in.

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

I appreciate wanting to do a full consultation in 2018. I would just note that the Office of the Information Commissioner, obviously, did a fulsome consultation in advance of her recommendations. We are doing a consultation here, and Newfoundland, I would add, did a fulsome consultation before making their changes. I spoke to the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, and they claim that is the gold standard in Canada. I think we can already look to consultations that have occurred to make our changes.

Thanks very much, Minister.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you.

We have Mr. Blaikie left on our official rounds of questioning. If any other colleagues would like to be put on the list, we will simply move to ensure that all members of Parliament's privileges are respected and they have an opportunity to ask questions.

Mr. Blaikie, you are up for three minutes, please.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

Through my communications with the Information Commissioner, I understand that the commissioner's office had a backlog of 3,000 complaints and that it receives about 2,000 complaints per year.

Does Budget 2016 provide additional resources to the commissioner's office, failing which the complaints of thousands of Canadians will not be processed?

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

I met with the commissioner recently and we agreed to continue discussing important aspects of her work and the work done by her office. Resources are an important issue and I take it seriously. We will ensure that the commissioner has the necessary resources to do her work. Discussions are ongoing because it is very important for the commissioner's office to have the necessary resources to carry out its very important work.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

We've heard about the importance of the work of the Information Commissioner, and there are some other examples with the government. For instance, a lot of members express concern and support for expanded palliative care in Canada, but it's hard to square the idea that something is a priority of the government when it doesn't appear in the budget.

How do you square those things? When you were in opposition, and you saw the previous government doing something like that, would you not have said at that time that if it doesn't appear in the budget, and if there isn't money attached to commitments that require money in order to implement, that it's not a priority of government?

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

I was darn good in opposition, so I understand the role you're playing. It's an important one as a challenge function to the government, and we want you to hold us to account. When you talk about palliative care, our health minister is working closely with provincial governments. One of the things with health care is that it's a shared responsibility. We transfer funds, but we also want to work closely with the provincial governments.

My understanding is that Manitoba has quite a strong home care policy for instance and quite a well-developed palliative care policy.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

We also have a history of NDP governments.

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

Until recently.

One of the things I learned over a long time here is that no party has a monopoly on values or the desire to serve Canadians well. There have been good governments of all stripes, both provincially and federally, although there is one that hasn't yet had an opportunity federally. The point is there are good ideas, and I cited some: Manitoba for instance, with what you've done on immigration over the years. You have a great model for immigration. It's something that we can learn from in Atlantic Canada. I cite the Manitoba model. I just want good ideas, I don't care what party they come from. You might even have a good idea for us. I'm looking forward to it. I bet you do.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

If that's not the most optimistic thing I've heard all day at committee, then I don't know what is.

Colleagues, we now are just going to move in the order in which people indicated to me.

I have Mr. Kelly, then Mr. Patina, and then Mr. Long. Let's keep it all at about five minutes, and then we'll see what time we have left, and we'll go from there.

Mr. Kelly.

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

Thank you.

We don't want to be bogged down in partisanship, and I completely agree the issues that are before us are not partisan. I frequently find myself agreeing with and enjoying the thoughtful questions my Liberal colleagues and Mr. Blaikie ask. I also noticed sometimes in these matters when a member of the government is confronted with either a question or facts that make them uncomfortable, they mention partisanship and talk about the need for evidence-based decision-making.

Minister, can you address a question that Mr. Jeneroux asked and talk about the evidence that has guided these interim decisions? Also, can you make a commitment, if you're able to, that if this committee makes recommendations based on much of the evidence we've collected from other provincial commissioners—for example who think that privacy and access to information should be combined or to reject the order-making model—you will reverse the decisions you've already made?

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

We will consider the recommendations you're making.

Keep in mind, any changes we make will only be in the application and the evaluation of the implementation, and the results of those that we'll be able to fully evaluate. We will be taking seriously all the recommendations of this committee. If there are some recommendations that are not just based on the recommendations, but on the testimony that contributed to those recommendations, maybe that approach is better.

We also have a reality that I have a mandate letter where there are certain key commitments we've made that have been based on a significant amount of research and work in building a platform and a mandate letter. I can tell you, if there was something I felt was compelling and changed my mind on some of this, I would certainly talk to our government, and our Prime Minister, and I'd say this is something.... Politicians are sometimes attacked for changing their mind. They're always saying they flip-flopped or whatever. The politicians who worry me are the ones who don't change their mind when they're faced with new facts or evidence. They're the scary ones. There should be nothing wrong with politicians who when faced with the facts change their minds. When the facts change, I change my mind.

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

That would be refreshing. Perhaps many politicians lack the courage to admit that they've changed their minds, and they try to deny that they've flip-flopped.

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

Hell, I even changed my parties.