Information & Ethics Committee on May 5th, 2016

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

This is a very seductive place, Mr. Long. When you get up here, you—

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

We'll see. It's different from hockey, I see that.

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

I can tell you and some of your new members: as exciting as Ottawa is, make sure you spend lots of time in your constituencies. I wouldn't be here, elected seven times, if I had been seduced totally by Ottawa. The people of Kings—Hants know my commitment there. Work hard in your constituencies, particularly in the first six months, the first year. Work your butt off in your constituencies; it's really important stuff.

That's gratuitous advice from somebody who's been around, some would say, too long.

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

Thanks for the advice. I appreciate it.

You've been up here for quite a while and have been through different governments and different parties. One prevailing thing we've talked about, no matter what witness has been in, is the culture—the culture of delay and the culture of secrecy. We, this government, have been called laggards, and so on and so forth. Recognizing that culture doesn't happen immediately but happens over time, and that culture certainly is something that can change with the proper leadership, how in your opinion has the culture of secrecy, the culture of delay developed, why has it developed, what have you seen, and when did it really take a sharp turn?

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

I think every government gets elected with the best of intentions. The test of a government is to remain true to those values.

My view of committees and the work of committees has been formed as somebody who served on committees for a long time and who took the work seriously and became frustrated sometimes. This is the fifth committee, of both Senate and House, that I've appeared before since becoming Treasury Board president.

Some of the toughest questions are actually asked sometimes by Liberal members, and I think that's a good thing. We don't as a government provide questions to government members to ask us. We want to hear from them, because you're legislators; you all have a responsibility. This is something that's in our Parliament. It's not just opposition members who have a responsibility to hold the government and the cabinet to account, but government members, and not just in a caucus room, but at a committee. This is valuable.

I don't want to be partisan; I just want us to do the kinds of things that are consistent with what we've committed to, both in terms of specific commitments but also broadly in terms of an open and transparent government and trusting people, trusting Parliament, and trusting citizens to help us inform the decisions we take as a government. I think we'll get better decisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you very much, Mr. Long. That's about five minutes. I'm trying to keep it to that, in fairness.

Every member of Parliament now has had an opportunity to ask questions. I still have Mr. Massé, who I think wanted one more follow-up question, and then I have Mr. Blaikie—if you can keep it brief, because you've had well over 10 minutes already—and then we'll go back to Mr. Jeneroux for the same reason.

Oh, Ms. Murray, if it's the will of the committee, I think there's nothing wrong with that.

I have something anecdotally to add to the conversation that you and Mr. Long were having. I had a mayor of a small village in my constituency whom I was very fond of. I found out that he wasn't running again. I asked him why, and he said, “Politicians are like diapers: they should be changed regularly, and often for the same reason.”

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

Mr. Calkins, if I could respond to that, I have twin daughters two years old, and my day begins with doing exactly that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Some of us end up stuck here, and that seems to be the way it goes.

Mr. Massé, go ahead, please.

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

I have another question for you, and I think it follows from what my colleague Mr. Long raised earlier. There has been a lot of talk about the culture that makes it difficult to access information. The government is the largest employer in Canada. There are so many departments and programs. As a result, there is a tremendous amount of information and documentation.

Access to information is a great idea, but people must truly have access and be able to publish it. I would like to hear your thoughts on information management and how access to this information can be facilitated.

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

Thanks once again for your question.

It is not simply a question of changing culture; we must also take action. To some extent, it depends on technology, information technology and human resources.

It is always difficult to change, to implement changes throughout government. Shared Services Canada, for instance, was a big challenge for the previous government and it remains a challenge for the current government.

For us going forward, you've been a public servant.

Our public service in Canada is outstanding. For a government such as ours, which has an ambitious and progressive agenda, these are very important issues. To implement another program, we will have to work very closely with the public service. To this end, we have to restore respect for the public service.

This will require a change in culture, in approach, in information technology, and in human resources. We must restore openness, along with respect for the public service and for Parliament. This is all important.

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

In discussions with various witnesses, there was reference to a portal to improve access to information.

In this regard, I would like to hear about the open by default model.

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

This is a good question. It goes back to my earlier conversation with Mr. Calkins briefly this week in terms of this, and Mr. Bratina mentioned this as well. The more information we actually put out there that is open by default, the lower the administrative burden in terms of ongoing.... Right now the onus is on citizens to prove why they deserve to have the information. With open by default, the onus is on government to say why the citizens don't deserve that information. That's where we have to evaluate the reasons why something can't be out there.

I find it compelling, and again I ask the committee to understand that as we move in this direction, it will take time and we will err sometimes as we're doing this. You can't make significant changes in government, or business, or any organization without sometimes making mistakes. I would rather us make mistakes and move forward with an agenda that is moving towards progressive and open and transparent government than to sit still.

We will try to make major changes in order to make government more open and more transparent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Blaikie.

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

I'll start by reassuring the minister it's not my intention to be inappropriately partisan on committee and humbly submit that sometimes when an exposition of fact is characterized as or feels partisan, it can have as much to do with the partisan loyalties of those hearing those facts as it does with the partisan loyalties of those presenting them.

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

That's right.

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

Given that, I would say—just to put into historical context the sense of urgency I feel about getting a duty to document within the interim directive—that in 2006 a new government had been elected and had made a lot of noise about accountability and transparency in government. They had proposed at that time, or undertook once they were elected, to carry out that reform in a two-step process. They were going to bring in certain measures and did, and there were some independent officers of Parliament created, and there was some activity. Then the second step never came. In fact, things got significantly worse.

You're a non-partisan champion of access to information and someone with great knowledge of the kind of institutional inertia of government. Given that historical example, would you not say it is important, on some of these things that have been well researched and consulted on at various levels within Canada and internationally, that we get a number of those important changes done as soon as possible, so we don't end up in a situation such as I mentioned where the follow-through on the larger reform doesn't happen because the culture of government either takes over or changes, depending on how you want to characterize it?

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

Thank you very much. Let me be clear. I am a partisan. I just suggested that the work of the committees can be less partisan. I know you understand that, and I also know the role partisanship plays in this, and that's not an entirely destructive one. There's a reason for that.

You're suggesting we're not moving fast enough. Mr. Kelly is suggesting we're moving too fast. It's like the three bears thing. We're trying to get it just right.

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

You're not Goldilocks in that analogy, are you?

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

Not yet.

The fact is we have made specific commitments. We're making some changes now. We've laid out a time frame within which we will implement specific and important changes. When I was in opposition, leading up to the 2011 election, it was my motion that led to the government of the day ultimately being found in contempt of Parliament by the speaker for not providing information on costing of legislation at that time. I'm not saying that to be partisan, but I'm saying I have some history on this in terms of understanding, and it's not just that specific government. Governments tend to be covetous about information and that's why we have to not just seek to change a culture, but also change the legislative framework and the rules, and update the legislation so there's some hard ground from which all governments will operate.

This should not be partisan, and I go back to my example. What frustrated me at the time was that some of the members of Parliament, the members of committee, who were part of the governing party, didn't seem to realize that when the government's not providing information to Parliament, it's denying not just opposition members, it's also denying governing members the information they need to do their jobs. There's a basic constitutional and fiduciary responsibility for members of Parliament to hold government to account, particularly around budget measures and spending.

One broader discussion we were having...we were reforming the estimates and budget processes to make them more transparent and you've participated in an opening briefing on that. As we move forward this is going to be important work as well, in order to hold governments to account on that.

Time will tell. We're committed to implementing this agenda, and there will be challenges to it, but we're committed to implementing the agenda and moving forward with a more open and transparent approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you very much.

We have three more colleagues—Mr. Jeneroux, Ms. Murray, and I think Mr. Saini had one quick question.

Just as a reminder to everybody, we actually have an adversarial system. It purposely is designed that way.

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

That's right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

We have the cut and thrust of debate, and the good ideas bubble to the top, to the benefit of all. Sometimes we get bogged down in the first one, and we forget a little bit about the second one. That's when things get partisan.

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

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

But this committee's not working that way, I can assure you, Mr. Minister. We're working on the second. We're still focused on that.

Mr. Jeneroux, you have up to five minutes, please.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks again, Minister. Although I appreciate a lot of the storytelling and reminiscing around here, I'd like to get back to some of the task at hand. Hopefully you're not seeing it in a too partisan way, but if you were able to answer the questions a bit more directly, it would be appreciated.

As one final comment, with regard to your comments about moving too fast being our criticism of the process, I just want to be clear that it's not necessarily our criticism of the process; it's moving unilaterally, not necessarily too fast. I'm just clarifying the record there.

I want to get back to my previous question on the cabinet documents and then being open to the commissioners. You seemed to be open to the idea of certain ones, but when it came to public safety, I think you indicated a number of times that of course that would be kept confidential. However, there are certain things we've seen recently that aren't necessarily open and where it would be beneficial to certain commissioners to be able to access that.

I will use the example of the Minister of Justice. Her husband works for an organization that lobbies her department. Currently there is nothing the Ethics Commissioner can do, in terms of the cabinet documents, to ensure that's not being abided to....

I'm hoping that you're open to removing some of these types of ethical screens in the cabinet documents so that it's not just based on the public safety and privacy, which we're aware of, but also so that we can have more understanding, as can the Ethics Commissioner, that this is not affecting her job or compromising her department.