Evidence of meeting #12 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was changes.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jennifer Dawson  Deputy Chief Information Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins

Thank you. This is a great conversation we're having here.

Mr. Jeneroux, we go to you for up to five minutes, please.

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB

Yes.

Thank you, Minister, Ms. Dawson, and Ms. Murray, for joining us here today and taking the time, and your staff as well, to come to committee.

You spoke in the beginning, Minister, about your fondness for committees and the work of committees, particularly when you were in opposition. I hope we can send you back there in about three and half years and that you can continue your opposition work on committees.

9:30 a.m.

Voices

Oh! Oh!

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB

However, that being said, I have a duty on my end, and I have about four and half minutes to ask you questions. I'll interrupt you, if that's all right. It doesn't mean I don't like you; it's just because I have to get a through a number of questions here.

That being said, the question that Mr. Lightbound referred to and you've touched on somewhat concerns the budget, at page 208. You mentioned “...informed by consultations with the Information Commissioner, stakeholders and...Parliamentarians....”

That was March 27. I wasn't consulted. Being a parliamentarian, I wasn't consulted, though perhaps the members on the other side of the table were consulted. We weren't. That leads me to think that this was a plan going ahead all along.

You then made comments on April 6, I believe, when you were speaking to the Canadian Open Dialogue Forum 2016, that you would be appearing before this committee in the process, because:

I believe the parliamentarians who were elected to speak for Canadians should have a say in this. ... Once we're informed by our consultations and the committee's advice, we'll move forward to amend the Act.

We've seen, as just highlighted in the budget, that you're moving towards an order-making model without the advice of the committee, to date. Then, as shown in your comments—again not yet with the advice of the committee—you've now made some changes to the fees.

It's curious. You referenced your platform, which I happen to have in front of me. There's one sentence, and nowhere does it indicate that we're going to an order-making process. And you say there are no fees, not just a $5 fee.

Could you perhaps elaborate some of this advice that you've received from stakeholders and from parliamentarians to date?

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Thank you very much. I appreciate it, and I can tell you that if you did send me back to the opposition at some point in the future, I enjoyed my work on these committees, and I considered it valuable. I hope you enjoy your time and view it as valuable as well.

This is not a new issue around access to information. In Parliament, particularly for those of us who've been around—Mr. Calkins has been around a while, I've been around a while—these are long-standing issues. The Information Commissioner has over a period of time made her and her office's views clear. There is a body of information to feed into this.

That doesn't obviate the need for and the importance of the work being done by this committee. This is early in the process. We will be taking seriously the work of this committee, the report, and also other evidence or testimony to this committee, as we shape this. But let's be clear, there are commitments we've made, both to Canadians but also in terms of my mandate letters, that we take seriously. There's an overriding commitment in terms of evidence-based decision-making, and if you have some thoughts—

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB

You can say, Minister, that there are commitments made to Canadians, but nowhere is it indicated that the order-making model is where we were planning to move to. Quite frankly, we were working rather diligently here on the committee to determine if that was the right model, yet in the budget it came forward saying that's what we plan to do.

That's essentially my point: where was this made public to Canadians that this is what you were planning to do?

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

What model would you prefer to the order-making model?

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB

Well, that's exactly why we're at this committee. That's exactly why we're sitting here studying it. We're bringing in experts from across the world, really, to come and provide that advice. To think that the Prime Minister has gone and decided this is the model that he prefers seems to have completely trumped a lot of the work we're doing here on the committee.

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Please don't assume that at all. We are intelligent enough to listen. Your thoughts, shaped by the testimony you hear at this committee, will be helpful. If there are better models and if there are things we can do to strengthen our approach, I assure you, Mr. Jeneroux, we will take that advice seriously.

I'd be interested in your thoughts in terms of what some of the other models are. There are best practices, potentially, within Canada and other countries from which we can learn. The overriding approach of our government is to listen and to take this into account. We want to be guided by evidence, not ideology. We would really appreciate the input of the committee and the people you're hearing from.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins

That uses up that particular round of time.

I would remind colleagues that we are in the five-minute round.

Mr. Massé, you have five minutes.

9:40 a.m.

Liberal

Rémi Massé Liberal Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here today. Your presence is greatly appreciated.

I have no doubt that your staff worked very hard to provide you with all the necessary information. I would like to thank them for being here and for supporting you in this process.

Unlike Mr. Généreux, I would say the platform was clear; it did indeed mention the order-making process. I can read out what the platform says.

It said that we would expand the role of the Information Commissioner, giving them the power to issue binding orders for disclosure. This was public. It was there. So I have no concerns. Canadians read our platform, and they made a clear decision on October 19.

You announced a very clear direction this morning, and we appreciate that, of course. I would like to hear more about this direction and the extent to which it will support quick access to information.

9:40 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Thank you very much for your question.

I know you have a lot of experience as a public servant. Your perspective is valuable for the committee and for our work.

As of tomorrow, we will be moving toward a more open model.

That model will be “open by default“.

This will require a change in culture in government. Policies have to be changed. This morning, I announced immediate changes to our policies. We have to listen to Canadians and work very closely with the committee. We will table a bill in late 2016 or early 2017 that will reflect these changes.

As we present those changes, starting off the changes will immediately help, but the first round of legislative changes that will make the Access to Information Act apply appropriately to ministers' offices and prime ministers' offices, that's a significant step. Increased powers for the Information Commissioner is a significant step.

Other changes that you identify as a committee, based on your work, can help inform that first round, but keep in mind that legislation will be back here in Parliament after it's introduced for legislative review, and you're going to have another go at it. There's an opportunity to do that work, but these are significant changes, and again, since 1983. This is a significant step forward.

This is not a partisan issue, by the way. One of the things that I always enjoyed about committees is that when they work well, they're inherently less partisan than what goes on in the chamber of the House of Commons.

Keep in mind there will be governments of different stripes in the future, and some of you in opposition now may be part of government in the future, and it's with that perspective that this is an issue that's too important for partisan division. This is something that is really important to get right for all of us.

I think this committee is a good place to conduct that evaluation.

9:40 a.m.

Liberal

Rémi Massé Liberal Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Thank you.

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins

Mr. Massé, I'm sorry we're at the five minutes, but I'm sure we're going to have more time. If you have more questions I'm sure we can come back.

Mr. Jeneroux.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB

Thank you.

I guess something that Mr. Lightbound might remember is that in 1990 and 2000 there were changes made to the Access to Information Act. It's not all dated pre-Lightbound. That's just a point of clarification.

Hoping to get a yes or no answer from you, Minister, do you support giving the commissioners access to the cabinet confidential documents?

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

As we've said, the Access to Information Act for ministers' offices and prime ministers' offices will apply appropriately.

In terms of cabinet confidences, matters of national security, as an example, may be discussed within a cabinet around, for instance, a terrorist threat or classified information that is deemed top security clearance information. Personal information on Canadians, this is something the Privacy Commissioner has some views on, as an example. Information that can move markets and some types of financial information and changes—

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB

Certain ones you would be open to and certain ones you wouldn't. Is that your position?

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

The discussion between exclusion and exemption is one in which I am open to your input. You have judgment on both. You have been a provincial legislator as well. This is something where there are different models.

Even in Sweden, which has been cited to me as having a very well-evolved and comprehensive access to information regime, there are restrictions in place. These include, for instance, documents related to national security, central financial policy, supervisory activities of public authorities, and personal information. That's in Sweden.

I think you can see that there are reasonable limitations that people would understand.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB

You're a very experienced politician so it was a very long yes or no answer, minister.

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

You're pretty experienced too.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB

Thank you.

In the budget, you indicate $11.5 million over five years will be going to two departments for these changes. One of the major changes in front of us, which one of my colleagues on the other side indicated, is that it would be open to international customers.

We had immigration here in front of us. We had a defence deputy in front of us. Both of them said that this would be huge, that this would be difficult to manage under their current budget. I'm curious as to the indication that only $11.5 million is there. Are international requests now off the table?

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Well, of the $11.5 million, a significant part—I'm informed about $9 million—will be on website development, and $2 million to develop capacity. There are also privacy issues to address as part of that, from an IT perspective.

We don't underestimate it, and I take your point very seriously. Enterprise-wide IT-type solutions are tough for a company. They're tough for government. We know the challenges. In the Auditor General's report on Shared Services Canada under the previous government there were real challenges. I'm not being partisan when I say, “under the previous government” because there has not been a government that has not had challenges with enterprise-wide IT solutions.

I still have some level of PTSD from my experience with IT procurement from way back when I was Minister of Public Works. This is a tough area.

I agree with you that these investments are quite modest. We will use them prudently and respect taxpayers and tax dollars. We will also evaluate whether it's the right quantum of resources, both in terms of technology and people to do what we're committing to.

9:50 a.m.

Conservative

Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB

I have one final comment. You mentioned partisanship.

It won't be a question. I promise, Chair.

In terms of the partisanship of the committee, we were working in a non-partisan way until the budget came out. When the budget came out I think it surprised a lot of us on this side of the table.

That's just a comment.

9:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins

Fair enough. Your time is up, Mr. Jeneroux.

9:50 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

I want to give him every reassurance that we're open to your ideas and suggestions. If that helps to get rid of any unnecessary partisanship, I'm glad I was able to help.