Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 18th, 2017

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I'm rather new to the committee, so my questions may be a little more general and less detailed.

I was curious to understand whether what is being proposed had been compared against best practices, say, in foreign jurisdictions, or what various provinces are doing. Has that work been done?

[Jennifer Dawson]

Much of the work of thinking about declining to process requests has been based on taking a look at what is done in provinces and territories and talking to our colleagues in those jurisdictions—

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

—and pulling on their expertise to see what has worked and what doesn't work?

[Jennifer Dawson]

—yes, and having a look at how their legislation is framed as well.

What's different for the provinces and territories is that they typically have a single commissioner who is responsible for both access to information and privacy.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

That person is naturally, inside himself or herself, making that balance, then.

[Jennifer Dawson]

That's right. What we're also trying to ensure in the proposal that we have is that there.... For example, in the order-making power, what we have proposed is that the Information Commissioner have an order-making power, but the Privacy Commissioner could in appropriate circumstances be involved to ensure that the appropriate views of both commissioners are brought to bear.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

It's always the question of whether you over-divulge or under-divulge and how you find the medium. You're saying that the provinces, because it's all within one person's department, can themselves more easily adjudicate that, as opposed to having to....

[Jennifer Dawson]

It's a different model from the federal model, but it brings together very closely considerations of both access to information and protection of privacy.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

In the case of a minister's office, or specifically the Prime Minister's Office, much of what is going to be discussed there is clearly not meant for general consumption. Even if people think they have a right to know, there are things that they just can't or shouldn't know.

Is any of that happening at the provincial level, such that there's access to information within the premier's office?

[Jennifer Dawson]

In some jurisdictions, the records within ministers' offices are considered to be departmental records. In other jurisdictions, that's not the case.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

It depends on the jurisdiction, then.

[Jennifer Dawson]

Yes, it does.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

What would be the dangers or consequences of, say, looking at something like this and trying to arrive at a balance between access to information and privacy? We have to get the right balance. There's always the concern about whether we over-divulge or under-divulge. When these things happen, I always like to err on the side of caution; that is to say, we've never done this, and we're going to start doing something.

If I understand correctly, this is the first time anything is going to be happening coming from the federal government, from the minister's or the Prime Minister's Office, in effect, this proactive disclosure. Is that correct?

[Jennifer Dawson]

That's right, and it's a pretty significant change.

Earlier, Minister Gould was speaking to the publication of mandate letters, and she described a situation in which bureaucrats previously working within the departments were affected by those mandate letters but really did not have exposure to them. Today there's public access. There is, then, a significant change here, and it's—

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

These are pretty significant changes, then. I understand that some people might argue that it's not enough, but what is enough? It's always difficult to find, when you've never been there, the right balance. If I understand correctly, however, these are fairly major changes, although arguments could be made that even more should be done.

[Jennifer Dawson]

Yes. It's the first time that the act is applying to ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office as well as to the institutions that support the courts and Parliament—and the Senate.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Yes. As I said, I am normally of the belief that there's no exact right or wrong. Who knows what is right or wrong in this area when we're trying to find the balance?

My personal feeling would be, if we're going to make an error, let's under-divulge, let's err on the side of caution. It would always be caution, and then we can always add to it later. Is that correct?

[Jennifer Dawson]

The first full review of the act, which would take place within a year of royal assent, would provide, in shorter than the normal five-year cycle, an opportunity to see what is working, what has begun working, or what is maybe not working as well as it needs to.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

So it's a good step, and we can go in a certain direction and come back and look at it again.

[Jennifer Dawson]

That's why the approach that we've been taking is to bring forward a bill that focuses very specifically on some important commitments that were made and to support the government in advancing those, but to ensure that also in the bill there is an ability for a full review in short order to go further.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

It also gives you a chance to look at those, the law, from a—

Am I done?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Go ahead and finish what you were—

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I was just saying there is always the law of unintended consequences, so we end up trying to do something, but pretty quickly we'll have a look at it and say, “Hey, this is working the way we expected” or “Maybe it's not working”, and you'll be able to catch this at that time. Is that correct?

[Jennifer Dawson]

The intent is for the ongoing reviews to allow parliamentarians to have that discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you.

The chair is going to take some discretion and ask you a question, Ms. Naylor, if you're ready to answer. It is with regard to the firearms registry and the earlier copy that was requested by a certain Bill Clennett. It was concerns about what was in that information.

There was a copy of 120,000-plus pages of Canadians' information given to one individual because he simply requested it. It goes to what has been asked on both sides about who decides on what's redacted, who decides in your office who gets what. The concern is I've tried to obtain a copy of what was given to Mr. Clennett and was told I would not be able to get a copy of what he received. The nearest I could find is that the information was redacted, but he was able to obtain postal codes of firearms owners across this country. The concern is with the private information, even as a state actor, on that level, to know where everybody's personal property exists in different neighbourhoods around our country. I think it is alarming, to say the least, that one individual would obtain this information.

Getting back to the original question, who decides on what level of redaction, or who in your office decides what level of information is actually given out to the public?

Thank you.