Information & Ethics Committee on April 11th, 2017

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

Sure. I can understand, especially with that court decision in the interim, that it changes the negotiating playing field, as it were.

Mr. Cossette, I think you rightly pointed this out when you spoke about the public's expectations regarding transparency and why you want to engage in a general review of the disclosure policy. When you take a step back, from the public's points of view, it strikes me that the public ought to have a right to know if their financial institutions have been penalized for non-compliance.

There are worries with respect to the application of discretion. My colleagues, Mr. Ehsassi and Mr. Blaikie, have indicated that there may be, by virtue of the ability to pay for high-powered lawyers, a disparity in the application of this discretion as it relates to small players and big players. Mr. James Cohen, from Transparency International Canada, says we should remove that discretion and clearly lay out the criteria for naming financial institutions so that it is publicly available.

Do you think that would be a fair way of approaching it, given your history of the exercise of this discretion and the policy since 2013?

[Gérald Cossette]

Well, as I've said before, Mr. Chair, we're in a conversation with the Department of Finance as to what pieces of the compliance program and the penalty program need to be reviewed.

What would it mean to name at the beginning of the process? We need to assess that from a legal standpoint, as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

To be fair, I think this is a conversation about the effectiveness of the legislation, which should actually be discussed either at the finance committee or the public safety committee.

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

No, it's an access to information when it comes to the public's right to know the institutions that have been fined.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I don't know if that was necessarily the answer that I got from your question, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

Anyway, please continue.

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

I have one or two more questions. We'll get right to the access to information.

An access to information request was made in 2016. A number of bases were invoked to refuse to disclose that information.

Can you summarize why that information was refused under the Access to Information Act?

[Gérald Cossette]

Well, I don't know specifically. Paul may know specifically which information you're referring to.

The issue we had with this case was very different from the issues we face normally. Normally, of course, we redact according to the legislation. In this case, there were several factors that explain why it took so long. There was the confidential agreement that we had with Manulife, which explains.... For instance, we knew that the name was known by somebody. Therefore, in the way we redacted documents, we had to redact information that normally would not be of concern to us. For instance, a phone number might confirm the name of the entity.

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

It was due to that confidential agreement that was made. That's the source ultimately of refusing to disclose the name under ATIP, correct?

[Paul Dubrule]

Of refusing to disclose the name of the bank, yes.

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

Under the Access to Information Act.

[Paul Dubrule]

As a result of not disclosing the name in those initial access to information requests, other information that normally would have been exempt, had it gone with a name, was released.

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

Sure. Okay.

My last question gets to that balance that the chair pointed out between compliance, which is a different question, and the public interest in transparency and accountability. I understand they're at odds sometimes. Between 2008 and 2013 names were routinely disclosed, and the policy has shifted since 2013.

Has compliance increased since 2013 when you look at that balance?

[Gérald Cossette]

I think the entities are doing much better than they were doing before, yes.

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

Do we have numbers to back that up?

[Gérald Cossette]

We can look at the kind of deficiencies and the number of reports we see now that we didn't see before. With the interface we have with them from an interrelationship standpoint, their commitment and engagement is very different today from what we had in 2008.

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

My final comment would be that I very much encourage you to assess whether there has been a significant increase in compliance, because I think there is a significant public interest in transparency and accountability with respect to naming financial institutions, particularly to know whether there has been non-compliance. I certainly would want to know if my bank had been non-compliant with the act.

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

That's something, colleagues, we can all consider when it comes to legislative changes and reports that we issue as a committee as recommendations to the government.

I want to thank our witnesses for coming today. I appreciate it. We had a good and frank discussion. It's not a normal thing that we do here at the committee, but certainly, I think it's a valuable one.

I thank you very much for your patience and understanding and answering the questions as frankly as you could.

Colleagues, we are going to take a break. We are going to suspend and go in camera for a minute to consider some committee business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]