Information & Ethics Committee on March 22nd, 2016

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Saini.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Surtees, you raised a very intriguing point. I just wanted to get some clarity. You said that whenever there's a discussion about redaction that it escalates up until there's a resolution. Can that process itself be subject to an access to information request?

[Larry Surtees]

We do get access requests asking us to describe the process and to list all the emails and everything around a specific determination that was made. We do, and they are subject to it.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

So there would be a redaction within a redaction then?

[Larry Surtees]

There can be redactions on that information if there's a need. If we went to the lawyers to seek legal advice on it, there would be solicitor-client privilege, so that information would be redacted.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Do you ever have a situation in which you've redacted material and the requester is not happy and a complaint is made and the Information Commissioner gets involved? Has there ever been that kind of issue that has gone to court?

[Larry Surtees]

There have been a number of issues that have gone to court. Specifically around our engagement in Afghanistan, there are a number of cases that deal with the detainee issue. There was an applicant who was trying to get specific information regarding who the detainees were. We contended that was not releasable information because it infringed on the privacy of the individuals and in fact potentially put them at risk. If memory serves me correctly, we were successful in that court challenge and it went forward. So in answer to your question, yes, and there are examples in the case law.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

As my colleague Mr. Lightbound mentioned at the outset, there is the difference between an order-making model and an ombudsman model. One of the issues the Information Commissioner had highlighted was the fact that when it goes to Federal Court, the process has to start de novo, meaning it has to start from the beginning, and there's a lack of efficiency with that because you're reintroducing the same material. Do you think that process should change? I'm asking because if you reintroduce the same thing, there's a time lag and then the requester is waiting for the information. I think the point he tried to make earlier was on that being one of the efficiencies or one of the benefits of using the order-making model as compared to the ombudsman model.

[Larry Surtees]

All I can say is that the Information Commissioner has her position with respect to that, and the department working with Treasury Board will come up with the application of whatever decision we make on that.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Do you have a personal position on that?

[Larry Surtees]

I'm not really in a position to answer that question from a personal perspective, because I'm here as an official representing the department.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I wish to thank our witnesses today, Madame Beck, Mr. Olsen, Mr. Surtees, and Madame Empey. Thank you for being here and answering our questions.

We will suspend the debate and after our witnesses have left, we will reconvene in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Order, please. We are continuing the public meeting.

Have all the committee members received the motion in question?

Mr. Dusseault, go ahead.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would now like to put forward the following motion:

That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics invite the National Revenue Minister, the Honourable Diane Lebouthillier, the Access to Information and Privacy Coordinator for the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), Marie-Claude Juneau, and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Daniel Therrien, to appear before the Committee to brief it and respond to questions regarding the CRA's transfer of 155 000 files of Canadians citizens to the Internal Revenue Service of the United States of America on September 30th 2015.

I will explain why I am moving this motion.

Thanks to an answer I received as part of a question on the Order Paper, the public learned that the Canada Revenue Agency had asked the Privacy Commissioner for an opinion on the transfer of information planned under the U.S. legislation, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.

The agency asked for the Privacy Commissioner's opinion on August 27, 2015. It received the commissioner's response on January 4, 2016. In the meantime, on September 30, 2015—so before receiving the commissioner's recommendations—the Canada Revenue Agency still transferred 155,000 files to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

I propose to the committee that we hold a meeting on the matter to obtain more details on the privacy-related processes at the Canada Revenue Agency.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

As far as I know, the transfer was done on that date because it was the deadline under the agreement with the U.S. to transfer the files. However, those are questions we could put to the minister when she appears before the committee.

Do the committee members give their consent for the moving and adoption of Mr. Blaikie's motion put forward today by Mr. Dusseault?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

We have unanimous consent.

Thank you.

I now suggest that we go back in camera to discuss committee business.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I have no major objection to going back in camera for discussions on the number of meetings and the witnesses. I see no issue with that.

[Proceedings continue in camera]