Information & Ethics Committee on May 12th, 2016

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Good morning, colleagues.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(i), we're continuing with the study of our Access to Information Act. This is the 14th meeting of this committee.

Today we are pleased to have witnesses with us: from the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, Mr. Vincent Gogolek; from Democracy Watch, Duff Conacher; and, as an individual, Ezra Levant.

Gentlemen, I'll ask each of you to give us 10-minute opening remarks, and then we'll proceed to rounds of questioning. We'll hear from you in the order in which I announced you.

Mr. Gogolek, please, for up to 10 minutes.

[Vincent Gogolek, Executive Director, B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's a pleasure to be here. It's not the first time. Actually, when we appeared in 2009, in a previous demand for changes to the act, we mentioned that the act had been around since the Chrysler minivan was a new thing. I know the Treasury Board president was talking about the K-car earlier, so we have some things we agree with and a number of things we don't. Hopefully this committee will look at the recommendations as something that will be as long-lived as the minivan rather than as short-lived as the K-car.

There has been a crisis in terms of access to information for some time. The act has not been changed, as everybody knows, since 1983, not in any substantive way. You heard from a number of witnesses, including the commissioner, that a number of amendments need to be made.

The Treasury Board president talked about bringing forward a limited number of amendments this fall. He used the term “quick wins”, which in British Columbia has a rather unfortunate connotation. Be that as it may, we understand that what the government is looking at doing is a small number of amendments now, and then the comprehensive review in 2018.

Given the seriousness of the problems, we think this is very unfortunate. We would have preferred to see the major review happen sooner—at this time—to deal with the many, many required amendments. We have proposed a number. We've set them out in our written submission to you and in earlier submissions, which are referenced in that report. I'll just touch on some of the main points and try to reinforce some things that need to be dealt with.

We draw some comfort from the fact that the government proposals, which were released earlier, go beyond a simple restatement of what the Liberal Party promised during the election campaign. Hopefully the government will be as quick to adopt a number of vital changes that have already been proposed by a number of witnesses before this committee, particularly the elimination of the cabinet exclusion and the creation of a legislative duty to document.

We are much less pleased to see that a number of the additional changes set out in the proposals could have the effect of reducing or negating promised improvements. These include a possible ministerial override of the Information Commissioner's order-making power and handing government departments the power to ignore requests, or bar requesters, on the grounds that they are frivolous or vexatious.

I'll just quickly run through some of these things. I've organized them, just for simplicity, in accordance with what the government has proposed, but I would again draw your attention to the fact that there is a very long list of proposed amendments. We are not backing away from those. We are just dealing with these, if the government is proposing to bring in matters of priority, as some things that absolutely must be done.

First of all, we applaud the government for carrying through on its commitment to eliminate fees. We do find it a little puzzling, though, that a government that is having financial problems is insisting on maintaining the $5 fee for applicants to exercise their right to information. As the government's own materials point out, the cost for processing each and every one of those $5 cheques or $5 in cash is between $50 and $55. This is a net loss, a very large net loss, to the Treasury of Canada. We don't know why the government just doesn't bite the bullet, get rid of the $5 fee, and save the money. Even with electronic processing, where the cost is considerably reduced, if even 10% of requests come in with cash or cheques, the government is losing money. We urge you to save the taxpayers money and get rid of the $5 fee.

It also has the happy consequence of improving access.

We also look forward to appearing regularly on a five-year review. This is a very good idea, long overdue, and the B.C. Legislative Committee just reported yesterday after their review so I urge that to you.

We have been calling for order-making power for some time, and we look forward to seeing the commissioner being given full order-making powers. We are not in favour of half measures. The government's own studies have supported this for many years. It has been recommended for decades now, and we urge this on you.

We have a commissioner with order-making power in British Columbia as do a number of other provinces. The system has worked well. It provides more immediate relief and direct access for requesters, and we feel that is a much better way.

An item we are concerned about in the government's proposals is the inclusion of the possibility that the government may bring in a system similar to what they have in the U.K. with ministerial override of orders of the commissioner. We think this is a bad idea. In fact, the U.K. Supreme Court thinks it's a bad idea.

You may or may not be familiar with the Prince Charles's black spider letters where The Guardian fought a very long battle to get copies of Prince Charles's letters to a number of cabinet ministers. The government overrode this, and The Guardian took it all the way to the top court in the U.K., which said that the idea of a ministerial override of a quasi-judicial tribunal is contrary to a number of principles of the rule of law, and they struck it down.

Rather than heading down that road, we would urge you to follow what has been tried and true in a number of Canadian jurisdictions and give the commissioner full order-making powers.

We also congratulate the government in bringing ministers' offices and the PMO under the scope of the act. This is a good idea. It's something that has been called for for a while, and it's necessary in light of the 2011 case involving the Information Commissioner and National Defence.

However, we are concerned about a qualification that was not in the Liberal Party platform. The proposals say that the Access to Information Act applies appropriately to the Prime Minister's and ministers' offices. We don't know what the word “appropriately” adds or subtracts, but we don't get a good feeling about this. It should apply, and the commissioner with her order-making power or the courts will decide what is or is not appropriate. We don't see any need for this qualification.

B.C. ministers' offices have been covered since the beginning of the act in British Columbia back in the 1990s, and we have had no problems with this. There are existing models in Canada for this, and we look forward to seeing this coming about.

A very large problem, and a problem that overrides probably everything else if it's not dealt with, is the exclusion of cabinet documents. Every witness before you has recommended this be changed, or if they haven't, they certainly have not recommended that the cabinet exclusion be maintained.

We would like to see all the exclusions removed, as does the commissioner, as do a number of other witnesses. However, the exclusion means it ousts any possibility that the commissioner or even the Federal Court can look at records and review them if the government says they are confidences of cabinet, which means there is no third-party review.

This is not just a theoretical possibility. In her latest annual report Commissioner Legault found that, “Institutions invoked section 69 more than 3,100 times in 2013-2014. This is a 49-percent increase from 2012-2013, which followed a 15-percent jump the previous year.”

Clearly, this is being used more and more. There is no way to tell whether or not in good faith that this exclusion is being properly invoked. In B.C. and other jurisdictions our commissioners have been examining cabinet documents for decades. There has been no problem. We have not seen the collapse of responsible government or anything close to it. I would urge you that if any of the other reforms that are being proposed are to have any real effect, this loophole must be closed.

You've also heard from a number of witnesses, including the commissioner, calling for a legislative duty to document. This was not part of the government's proposal. It has been a matter of some controversy in British Columbia and in Ontario where documents have disappeared or documents have not been created. Our commissioner in British Columbia brought a report in October 2015, which I would urge upon you, outlining the circumstances of how documents are either not created or, in some cases, are destroyed even in response to an access request.

The British Columbia committee—your equivalent, the special legislative committee reviewing the B.C. act—made a number of recommendations in a report they released yesterday. One of them was the creation of a legislative duty to document. All of the commissioners in this country have called for this and we urge this upon you.

Something else that was not included in the Liberal Party program, which was part of this, is frivolous and vexatious requests. This problem is actually very rare. In British Columbia between 2010 and 2014 we've had 20,000 requests and we've had 20 applications—that's applications—not granted, not imposed, but 20 requests.

This is a very rare problem. We're not opposed to having this brought in but we do think that this must be done by the commissioner. This should not be done by the public bodies.

I believe my time is up. I thank you and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gogolek.

I'm sure any other items that you have to discuss will be brought up through questioning.

We now move to Mr. Conacher, please, for up to 10 minutes.

[Duff Conacher, Coordinator, Chairperson of Open Government Coalition, Democracy Watch]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

Thank you to the committee for this opportunity to testify—I'm tempted to say “yet again”—on the Access to Information Act. I was here in 2000, in 2006 with the Federal Accountability Act review, in 2009 with the committee review, again in 2011, and twice in 2013. Just over a year ago we saw the release of the Information Commissioner's report, and then finally we saw a statement in December 2014 by the Treasury Board President, Conservative Minister Clement at the time, acknowledging that the act needs to be changed.

So we've had all these consultations now going back 15 years and then back before that to July 11, 1994, when then Justice Minister for the Liberal government, Allan Rock, said the act was out of date and needed an overhaul.

Through all these reviews, thankfully, I have not been holding my breath. Otherwise, I would not only be greyer than I was back when the reviews started, but also dead. I'm hoping there's going to be action this time. I am greyer. I am also getting a bit tired of coming before the committee and having the committee recommend if not unanimously then almost unanimously significant changes and the government promising those changes as the Conservatives did in 2006, and yet nothing happens, over and over again.

What we have currently, if it were accurately titled, is a “guide to keeping secrets” act. We do not have an “access to information” act, and we haven't since 1983. Some argue that it was actually better before 1983 because there wasn't a guide that was so clear about rubber-stamping what was unethical and secretive as legal. I don't agree with that entirely but definitely the exemptions in the act are so broad that we have essentially what amounts to a guide to keeping secrets act, not an access to information act, and definitely not an open government act.

I echo very much what my colleague Vince has set out. Those recommendations and a couple of others that I'll highlight are endorsed not only by Democracy Watch, the group that I coordinate, but also by the Open Government Coalition, which is made up of groups with a total membership of more than two and a half million Canadians.

Let me just go through a few of these recommendations. They are all recognizable because they are essentially the same recommendations and promises that the Conservatives made in the 2006 election campaign, in terms of strengthening the act and the overall access to information system. Unfortunately, only one of the promises was partially kept and that was the extension of the act to dozens more institutions that were not covered before 2007 when the Federal Accountability Act came into force.

The Access to Information Act should cover all federal public and public function and publicly funded institutions automatically. They should not have to be added to a schedule by anyone. If an institution wanted to be exempt after it had been created, it would apply and the commissioner would decide whether that definition applied or not with an appeal to the courts. Having to add more and more institutions means creating new institutions that are not going to be subject to the act for years and years.

The Information Commissioner must be given the power to order the disclosure of any record and with that power, of course, comes the right to see any record. No exemptions should override the Information Commissioner's power to review a record and decide whether the act applies and the record has to be released.

The duty to document, as was mentioned, is very important. There should be a record of every decision and action and if the Liberal government is going to actually follow through on its promise to be open by default, that would mean that those records would be proactively uploaded onto a searchable Internet website system and therefore almost everything would just be available online and no request would have to be filed. That kind of an information management system would solve a lot of problems that are caused by the current guide to keeping secrets act.

Proactive disclosure beyond that, of course, would also have to mean closing a lot of the loopholes and exemptions, which are very excessive, that exist in the act. As the Conservatives promised in 2006, there should be a public interest override that covers all exemptions and even overrides all secrecy acts, the only exception being that disclosure could be refused under a “proof of harm” test.

The big, difficult areas, which almost everyone acknowledges are difficult, are the areas of disclosures that could harm relations with other countries, international relations overall, the defence of Canada, law enforcement, including national security, and also someone's personal safety or sensitive personal information. In those areas, yes, there will need to be exemptions, but give the commissioner the right to make the decision as to whether an exemption applies in every single case, with an appeal to the courts. That's the way the system would work most effectively and would ensure openness by default.

As well, in particular, as has been highlighted by my colleague, the act must cover the information and the options provided to cabinet ministers' offices and Parliament and also be extended to the Ethics Commissioner and the Senate ethics officer, who are currently exempt.

Finally, concerning information management systems, all information should be disclosed in a usable format for free, without unjustifiable delay. The public already pays for the creation of this information and its maintenance; they shouldn't have to pay to also get disclosure of it.

The Information Commissioner should be given the power to impose fines for violations and increase the fines for convictions. Convictions under the act should be faced with a more severe penalty than just things such as delay.

In terms of the Information Commissioner's being an independent watchdog, currently the commissioner is selected solely by the ruling party; yes, in consultation with the opposition party leaders, but the opposition party leaders don't actually have a say. It should be at least either all the opposition leaders, or a majority of them, approving the appointment—of all officers of Parliament, not just the Information Commissioner but anyone who is watching over, mainly, the ruling party in government.

The commissioner herself recommended that two-thirds of MPs approve the appointment. I don't like that method myself, because one party could hold two-thirds of the seats in the House, so then it's still the ruling party approving it only.

Beyond the act and the information management system, and changing it from a “how to keep secrets” act to an actual open government act, I urge the committee to continue, as it does, examining the overall open government system at the federal level.

There are still outstanding, serious issues with muzzling government scientists—the policy has not been changed concerning their being able to speak freely to the public and the media about their research—and with the Lobbying Act, or as it accurately should be called, the “only some lobbying” act, as it has massive loopholes that allow for secret and therefore unethical lobbying; and the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which if it were accurately titled would be called the “public sector lack of disclosure protection” act and which also has enormous problems. Also, there are MPs' expenses.

The parliamentary budget officer lacks independence and powers that really echo what I'm saying about the Information Commissioner, and all the officers involved in disclosure should be given these powers to penalize and to oversee anything they want to with again an appeal to the courts, if the government feels they're acting unjustifiably.

I'll leave it at that. I look forward to coming back to the committee to talk about the “only some lobbying” act and the “public sector lack of disclosure protection” act, and hopefully on the “how to keep secrets” act.

Hopefully we'll get change sooner than that, so that I won't have to come back, because once again, I'm getting tired. But I welcome again this opportunity, and I'm not too tired to answer a few more of your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you very much, Mr. Conacher.

Now we move to our last witness for today, Mr. Levant, for up to ten minutes, please.

[Ezra Levant, President, TheRebel.media, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for the invitation to be here. I'm grateful to be asked for my point of view on access to information. Unlike Vincent and Duff, I am not a subject matter expert, and my history on the file is not long.

For the past 15 months, I've run a small alternative news web site, TheRebel.media, and by nature we are contrarian, so access to information is important to us. First of all, we don't have a large enough staff to cover all the news events we would like in real time, especially in Ottawa, so access to information is important to us. I think it's going to be more important to other media whose staffs are shrinking.

But more importantly, even if we had a large staff, the news—at least critical, skeptical news—is not always found at official public events chosen and scripted by the powers that be. Even question period, although it can sometimes uncover some facts, is not called answer period for a reason. Again, there are some issues that even opposition parties don't want to talk about.

That's my motivation and my background.

In the past 15 months, our little news outlet has filed hundreds of access to information requests at all levels of government and institutions. But the most troubling case comes from Ottawa, and that's why I accepted the invitation to come here. I don't have the background of my friends, but I have a story I'd like to share with you. The documents I'm referring to are posted on a website called stonewalling.ca, if you want to examine them at your leisure.

Let me give you an example of a contrarian story that doesn't fit into photo-op journalism and frankly doesn't fit into the kind of journalism that risk-averse opposition parties might ask about. It's the kind of thing that only a cranky, independent news outlet might do. I refer to, for example—my one example today—the great immigration project of bringing 25,000 or 50,000 Syrian migrants to Canada in short order.

There were crafted photo-op opportunities even in Amman, Jordan watching migrants fill out questions on a questionnaire, being processed. There was the official news that was available to everyone. We asked one simple question in an access to information request. We said, “We saw the images of the questions being asked. Can we please have a copy of the questionnaire?”

That was a little bit contrarian; it wasn't photo-op journalism. Frankly, I don't think it's an issue that even the opposition parties want to talk about, because they want there to be a little more “sunny ways”.

We got a response on January 5 from the Immigration Department, from Audrey White, who said no such questionnaire existed. But I saw with my own eyes Minister Sajjan and Minister McCallum watching in a room as would-be migrants to Canada were asked questions.

So we wrote back and we said maybe there's a word game going on here. So we asked for “the list of questions, list of topics, checklist, form, screening criteria, or however it is being referred to internally”. Could we just see the questions? It's a real journalistic ask.

We were replied to again on January 27 and told that no such documents exist. That can't be, so we wrote back a third time quoting and citing a link to a news story in which the minister himself talks about the questionnaire. Finally, we got a letter back on March 9, and you can see all of these documents at stonewalling.ca. On March 9, finally they discovered that they did in fact have a questionnaire, which we knew because we saw the questions being asked, admitting that they had them but saying that they couldn't give those questions to us for various reasons, including national security reasons.

I guess anyone who walks in from Syria could get those questions; they could hear them themselves. They're not a security risk, but I'm a security risk for asking them. That doesn't make sense.

Let me give you another example from the same department. You can see this document on stonewalling.ca also. We asked a simple question, because we understood from press reports that the Turkish government was helping to provide the list of names that were being brought over. We asked if there were any issues or concerns regarding the Turkish government being delegated that list-building activity.

Hélène Bertrand wrote back and demanded a 300-day extension—300 days. I've never heard of that before. I guess it was too much to ask for more than 365.

There was a line in there that I want to especially bring to the attention of the governing party MPs, because I don't think this is in tune with the Prime Minister's statements on transparency. This morning I watched the Prime Minister's video, and I went through the Liberal Party website about transparency, with the default being to have openness. I watched that, and I know that especially new MPs for the government must still be enthusiastic and idealistic. I ask—especially the government MPs—if this line is appropriate, coming from a civil servant in the Trudeau administration.

Let me quote from Hélène Bertrand, explaining the 300-day exemption, which is another way of saying, “We won't tell you the answer until any news value is gone here and any chance to raise public policy concerns are gone.” This is what Hélène Bertrand wrote to us, “It is to be noted that, at this point of the process, the department is working to meet the mandate on Syrian refugees set by the Prime Minister of Canada.”

Okay, that's great, but what does that have to do with someone whose job is access to information? She's not flying to Amman, Jordan to intake refugees. She's not affecting the project. Her job is to get the emails and run the photocopier. I don't know if that was her way of deflecting blame onto the Prime Minister's Office, but she named him, in particular, and said that he said they have to be all hands on deck. What does that have to do with someone whose particular job is to furnish documents? I don't believe she left the photocopier and got on a plane to Amman to help with the work.

Ms. Bertrand said the same thing, and asked for a 300-day extension when we asked a question about media reports of migrants who were detained at Pearson airport when the Prime Minister himself went to meet them. I was concerned. Why were they detained at Pearson? Were they detained? Were press reports accurate? Hélène Bertrand said, “We can't tell you that urgent public policy answer for 300 days, because the PM says we all have to work together.” That doesn't sound in keeping with the spirit of what I watched the Prime Minister say about transparency.

We asked about how the religious needs of migrants were being met. On January 6 we were told that answer would take 275 days. I hope this is not the spirit of the new government, a government that won in part, in my observation, by promising more transparency and openness, and with the default setting to be open.

All these documents you can review with your own eyes at stonewalling.ca. Frankly if you could light a fire under the department to help us get those answers, I'd be grateful.

Let me turn the clock back a few years. Imagine if it was the old administration and former prime minister Stephen Harper was the PM. During the extreme situation of the war in Afghanistan, imagine if someone at the Department of National Defence's access to information office wrote back and said, “Well, yes, you have a simple and precise question, but the Prime Minister has said that we're in a war and that all efforts must be put towards prosecuting that, and so because the Prime Minister says that, we cannot give you answer for 300 days, because we're too busy.” The importance of the Afghan war itself means access to information is even more important.

The importance of this central project of bringing in 25,000 to 50,000 migrants means public scrutiny and accountability is all the more important. It's not an excuse for not complying. I don't know if that was a bureaucrat passing the blame to the big boss, or if she was honestly saying this was why she couldn't answer it, but a 275-day...a 300-day.... I think we even have a 330-day extension. That is the same as a stonewall. What's the point in telling me the news about a questionnaire being used in 2016, if I don't get the answers until 2017?

I have come here not as expert, as my friends are, and not as someone with a deep history here, but as someone who, over the last 15 months, has done hundreds of access to information requests at many levels of government and to some non-governmental institutions, like schools and hospitals. It is my candid report that I have not seen any response from any institution as resistant as those I've just described.

I've never seen anyone else ask for a one-year extension and I've never seen anyone else fudge that there's no questionnaire. I saw it with my own eyes. The minister referred to it.

I've never had anyone else say a questionnaire that the public has asked for is a national security secret to you. That's why I'm here. That's why I accepted the invitation to raise a particular issue that may be a symptom of a larger problem.

Thanks for letting me have my minute or 10 or 20.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

That's no problem.

Thank you very much to our witnesses. You made excellent presentations.

We're now going to proceed to the rounds of questioning. The first round will be four questioners for seven minutes, and we'll start with Mr. Long, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to our three presenters. I think you have a lot of great information and opinions that we can certainly use.

Mr. Levant, did you have the same frustrations with access to information from the previous government?

[Ezra Levant]

Our little shop started in February. We did an enormous number of access to information requests to the federal government under the last administration. We did not receive any responses of this order of magnitude, 300-day extensions. We did not have an example like this.

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

We all talk about the culture of delay, but you would agree that this is long standing. You seem a little targeted toward the last 80 days, but there's been an ongoing problem here for many years.

[Ezra Levant]

I accept that, and I'm not here to defend another government. I'm here to bring to the attention of the new government something being done under the new government. I do not take away from any criticisms of the previous government.

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

Thanks for that.

I totally respect that you're very passionate about it. I think we can all agree that this isn't a political issue. It's an issue that's been going on and on.

With respect, you're a national figure. You've been characterized as a big mouth without a blow horn and I don't think it's any secret to any of us that your reputation at times precedes you. You have to carry that with you. Do you acknowledge that, because of who you are, some of your opinions fall on deaf ears?

[Ezra Levant]

I have a lifelong track record of Conservative activism, and I'm appearing before a committee under a Liberal majority government. I accepted the invitation in the hopes that, instead of just being a Liberal-Tory back and forth, we could talk about the specifics. I lead with the fact that I'm not a subject matter expert, but I do have a story that I have outlined that I think should be of concern to your own standards. I'm not asking you to live up to my standards.

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

That's fair.

[Ezra Levant]

I'm asking you to live up to your own standards.

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

You're very opinionated, and I respect some of your opinions on things. Say you're the new access to information commissioner. What would you do in your first 30 days? Here's your chance to tell us in a proactive way what you would do.

[Ezra Levant]

As I say, I'm not here with a large prescription like my friends. I think that sometimes cost issues are put up as a barrier. That should be looked at, and I know the Prime Minister has said it should be five loonies, and you should get them back if it's not on time. I support the Prime Minister on that.

We are appealing the egregious cases I bring to your attention, but there are certain things you can't appeal. That goes to culture and that's the excuse used by Hélène Bertrand; the whole shop here has to focus on the important work of business, they don't have time for troubling inquiries.

I'll yield to my two friends here for specific or comprehensive advice.

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

What's the first thing you would do to make a cultural shift?

[Ezra Levant]

You know what? Leading by example from the top is always the best way.

I want to give you an example that I did not raise because I didn't want to be overly partisan.

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

That's fair.

[Ezra Levant]

I chose one issue and I chose the egregious issues that I would hope that even the most partisan Liberal would say that this is not us.

Because I'm a political fella, we put in an access to information request of email communications between the Prime Minister's principal secretary, Gerald Butts, and the public service. Not exempt communications within the political staff, but communications to the public service. We were given a blanket zero, none exists.

That could be an example from the top of leading by example. My prime minister's office is being run in such an open way that we will show you the communications to the public service—not to the exempt staff—from the principal secretary. That could be an example.

Everyone would say, whoa, if the boss is doing that, maybe I won't delay for 300 days.

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

I would agree. Cultural shifts have to happen from the top. Cultural shifts take time. We have discussed that.

Mr. Conacher, it is quite clear that you are frustrated. As you said, you have been here again and again, and you certainly have a name for every report and committee. I don't know what you are calling our committee, but I guess we will probably find that out at some point.

Do you have any hope?

[Duff Conacher]

I always have hope. Otherwise I wouldn't be doing what I do. I would be home watching Oprah.

No, I haven't become cynical after all these years—always skeptical, but not cynical—and I always have hope that there will be some changes made.

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

Tell me what you have seen in the first, say, 80 days, or however long it has been, that gives you hope.

[Duff Conacher]

Disclosure of the mandate letters to the cabinet ministers was a good first step. The rhetoric has been great, and rhetoric from leaders is important. It is not enough to change culture. It is important to start with that, but changing culture actually means changing rules, and then training people as to what the rules mean and getting them to commit to a new culture.

Those have all been proven to be very important, not only in terms of organizational development change, but also in terms of psychological mindset change, having people make written commitments to change.

There have been a few signing ceremonies, with ministers making written commitments beyond the oath, which are also giving me hope for change because people tend to feel very guilty about signing off on something and then not doing it, as opposed to just saying it.

Other than that, there are steps forward and backwards. There have been a few changes made on fees. The major changes, though, are the eight things I have set out, and they have been there since 1994. Allan Rock talked about some of them in a July 11, 1994, interview, and here we are in 2016. Because it is 2016, real change is needed.