Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 8th, 2017

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Okay.

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

Just to get some clarity, LIB-8 creates clause 30.1, as I understand it. Did we then approve clause 30.1?

[Olivier Champagne]

With LIB-7.

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

Okay, it's assumed to be approved as a clause. So we are now on clause 31.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Go ahead.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I have something to say.

This amendment clarifies an issue relating to confidentiality. When information is public and the request is legitimate, the request cannot be denied. However, if the information is public and information is requested to support this public information, the request can be made and the information can be disclosed. We are talking about documents that support information that is already public.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

To be clear, I want to confirm that we're on LIB-8.1.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

LIB-8.1?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

We're on clause 31.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Yes, it's a matter of amending section 31.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I heard the argument, but I haven't heard the rationale. Was this based on testimony where information was given over to the public in an inappropriate way? I guess I'm looking back to LIB-8 and seeing some of the rationale in your amendment.... Forgive me, Chair, but these are connected and I'll bounce a little bit, but “the Information Commissioner and any person acting on behalf or under the direction of the Information Commissioner shall take every reasonable precaution to avoid the disclosure of, and shall not disclose”.... I'm trying to recall. Was there some—

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Let me give you the example of some public information that was disclosed proactively, but about which a reader has doubts. The reader then requests documents that support what has been proactively disclosed. The request cannot be denied. The information was public, but as with any public information, there is a certain screening and a certain format to comply with. If a doubt is expressed and you want to know what supports the information that has been disclosed proactively, the request makes the information accessible.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I understand, but this happened before. There is no indication that the information publicly disclosed had a negative impact on anyone's privacy.

That's all. If there isn't one, that's fine if it's just a precaution. My curiosity was, has this happened, is this a concern, and why are we putting it in the legislation if we don't have any experience with it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Would you like to respond?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

That's one of the concerns raised by the Commissioner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

If there is no further debate, we will vote on LIB-8.1

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 31 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 32 to 36 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 37)

We have PV-15.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, this is advice from the Information Commissioner. I do want to say that I think the practice the Prime Minister has adopted of publishing mandate letters is really a positive step forward. I'll note that it was without any legislation required. It set a good example, and the new Premier of British Columbia, John Horgan, published all the mandate letters. It's beginning to catch on as a practice, and that's great. I'm glad to see legislated here that we will continue to see that from future prime ministers.

The Information Commissioner noted that there's no time limit attached to this, and that this might be a good idea, so that's my amendment here, and I do appreciate the gender neutrality with which we refer to a prime minister, whether “he or she establishes the mandate of any other minister within 30 days after the issuance of the letter.”

I think it's quite likely that, in the normal course of things, with a requirement like this, a prime minister would make the mandate letter public, but there's nothing that would cause the prime minister under this legislation, imagining a future prime minister who didn't want to publish a mandate letter, to do so when there's no time limit.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you.

If this is adopted, NDP-33 cannot be moved as there's a line conflict.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That's too bad, because the NDP agrees in a hurry. We wanted to do it in 15 days, but, you know, 30 or 15....

I thought we could have moved a friendly amendment to suggest that they also have to follow their mandate letters, but that's maybe too much to ask in one piece of legislation, so maybe next time around.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

It's outside the scope.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Outside the scope.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

You can publish it, but you don't have to do it, or you can change it with a new mandate letter. That's a good trick.

This is clear that, if you had this Prime Minister or a future prime minister issue a mandate letter that had no time on it, they could simply never publish it, so why not put a date on it? Thirty days, while a little long, is reasonable, so we'll support this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

If there is no further debate, we'll vote on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)