Evidence of meeting #71 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commissioner.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
In your mandate letter you say you will go forward and present a bill that will open up the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices to access to information, and you're not.
Liberal
Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON
And it is because for the first time in legislation we are legislating proactive disclosure for many different items that are there, making information—
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
No, no. Hold on. You say that you will ensure that the Access to Information Act applies to the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices. Are you doing that?
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
We are actually proposing a modern Access to Information Act that actually combines proactive disclosure and a request-based system to ministers' offices.
Mr. Cullen, I know why you're uncomfortable with proactive disclosure.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
You were uncomfortable with proactive disclosure when you were in the NDP at a time when the Liberal Party was in opposition, and our Prime Minister made our party the first to proactively disclose expenses, and it was the NDP—
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
—and were dragged kicking and screaming to actually proactively disclose their expenses.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Why I would suggest caution on this, Mr. Brison, is I have an access to information request into the finance minister's department that was rejected this summer, July 10 in fact, where an access to information request was made of Mr. Morneau's personal holdings. That would not change under any of the changes you've made here today. His department not only denied the access to information request, it also said that there were no records whatsoever of even the request of access to information. This is going into the dark dark ages, where his department sees no access to information request existing at all. That's a new one for me, where you not only deny the access to information, but you also deny the request even exists, even though it was filed with his department.
So my question is this—
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I have a question and limited time. You refer to if something's deemed in bad faith, but who decides what's bad faith?
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Ultimately, the Information Commissioner can actually act as per this legislation—
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
—and there's an appeal process whereby she can actually have a role.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Not initially. I'm asking for the initial determination. If I write into the Department of Finance and to your department and ask for access to information, who is it that decides that access to information request is bad faith or vexatious? Is it the Information Commissioner?
October 18th, 2017 / 4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Ultimately a decision can be appealed to the Information Commissioner.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Come on, Scott. Answer the question.
If I ask your department for access to information, and it is denied and it is deemed bad faith, vexatious, any of those things, I'm asking a simple question, who makes the determination?
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
There is a role for the Information Commissioner through an appeal process. If this committee believes that role ought to be at the front end—
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I asked you three times now for a very specific example. You keep referring to the ultimate appeal process, which sometimes might lead to court.