Evidence of meeting #47 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lapointe.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you Mr. LaPointe and Ms. Khalid.
Mr. Simard, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Thank you very much.
Mr. LaPointe, you said something earlier that got me wondering. Over the past 12 years, in connection with your teaching, you assigned an exercise for your students, which was to submit applications, none of which ever received an answer within the specified 90 days
Is that right?
4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Editorial, Glacier Media; Publisher and Editor-in-Chief, Business in Vancouver
Yes. With the students I teach, we have an exercise where we provide about three or four of those requests in the course of the three hours that I'll teach them.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
I find the government's success rate over 12 years to be pretty slim. It's unbelievable.
Have you found that it's more difficult to get information from some departments than others? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but, to use the example of the fight against climate change, have you found that it's difficult to get information from the Department of Natural Resources on oil, for example? I could ask similar questions about immigration.
Based on your experience, are some departments more impenetrable than others?
4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Editorial, Glacier Media; Publisher and Editor-in-Chief, Business in Vancouver
Well, in my experience, the people who are in ATIP branches are there for one of two reasons. They're tremendous advocates for the public and disclosure, or the other side is that it's a bit of a weigh station for them to move on to something else.
The changeover in those branches is often very high, and as a result the continuity in those organizations can be lacking. I don't have any specific ones. Because I've dealt with a variety of agencies over a 30-year period, I can't attest to one being so well and one being so poor. I would say that one of the challenges we face is that we're often dealing six months later with a whole other batch of people than we were earlier when we were doing some research at my organization.
4:55 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I don't know if the practice has changed, but I certainly remember the commissioner used to issue report cards giving people an A, B or F.
4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Editorial, Glacier Media; Publisher and Editor-in-Chief, Business in Vancouver
That's right.
4:55 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That certainly created feedback. You did not want to get an F. You wanted to get a gentleman's C, at least, or something like that.
I think that is a role the commissioner can play—giving them that kind of evaluation and feedback. That would put pressure on agencies to perform better.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
I have a brief final question, Mr. LaPointe. I don't want to lead you into a polarizing area, but you mentioned the objective method you had tried to develop with your students. I would agree with you that it's impossible to be completely objective.
I am increasingly noticing a nascent confrontational approach between journalism and activism. I don't know whether you've been monitoring that, particularly on the CBC. I'd like to hear what you have to say about the kind of links that are being established between journalism and activism.
4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Editorial, Glacier Media; Publisher and Editor-in-Chief, Business in Vancouver
Again, it's a long answer, but I'll shorten it as much as I can, here.
The academy, in particular, now speaks of the activist journalist as an element of information provision. As long as you declare conflicts and let the audience know where you're coming from on a particular issue, you can, in fact, have a more activist role in society than the traditional journalist might have had. It's not my favourite ilk of the business, but I recognize it exists.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Simard.
Mr. Julian, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
5 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to come back to both of you. You're very compelling witnesses.
The United Kingdom's Freedom of Information Act identifies the proceedings of cabinet and its committees as falling under qualified exemptions. The public interest has to be considered in each case.
Should Canada follow a similar model, one that would allow for information to be disclosed if there is a public interest in having the proceedings of cabinet or committees publicized? How do you each feel about that?
5 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think it raises the question as to who decides what's in the public interest.
5 p.m.
Vice-President, Editorial, Glacier Media; Publisher and Editor-in-Chief, Business in Vancouver
I would agree with that.
I think the only onus I would put.... Legislation has, in the past, at least at the provincial level, compelled disclosure of matters that are a threat to public safety. In certain environmental cases and other cases, that becomes the default position. However, I agree with Mr. Wernick. That is one of the great quandaries of all time: Who decides?
5 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Ultimately, in our system of government, you have to rely on the courts. If matters are arbitrated, the Federal Court can decide whether withholding a redaction was unreasonable. The Federal Court can weigh the various interests, including national security, and so on.
What's in the public interest is very subjective. There are other mechanisms for feedback on government, such as the judicial inquiry unfolding before our eyes this week, or people litigating and taking the government to court. All those officers of Parliament—Auditor General, Privacy Commissioner, Commissioner of Lobbying, accessibility commissioner, Integrity Commissioner—get access to various forms of government information and provide valuable feedback on how government is serving Canadians.
5 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I have a follow-up question for both of you. It's around the issue of records management.
Putting aside the issue of funding, what are other recommendations you might have in regard to records management and institutional oversight of the whole access to information regime, so we can improve access to information for Canadians?
5 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
My whole argument is not to put aside the issue of funding, not to put aside the issue of training, not to put aside the issue of managing information in the digital age. How would we apply artificial intelligence and learning software to do document retrieval, and so on? It requires a considerable investment, not just in information technology, but also in people and training. I think it requires a feedback loop, so it doesn't automatically drift down towards the bottom of the priority pile of government or Parliament.
5 p.m.
Vice-President, Editorial, Glacier Media; Publisher and Editor-in-Chief, Business in Vancouver
My concern is that too many horses have left too many stables when it comes to the way that information can now be transmitted.
I would say again that I don't think it's in the remit of this committee to take a look at wider public service and political aide behaviour, but I believe that there has to be some teeth put in somehow in order to make sure that the provision of information and the record-keeping of the important footprints of our history are not in the smart phones of political aides and public servants.
5 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think that is possible. You saw the U.K. example of Suella Braverman and using unauthorized software and so on.
You could hardwire into legislation a power by the chief information officer to sign off on the choice of software and devices used for government business. You could put in sanctions for communicating government business on unapproved software and devices. That's something the Americans do. You may recall the Hillary Clinton affair. That could be imported into Canadian law so that, if you are communicating off book on apps like Signal, WhatsApp, and so on, you would know that you were breaking the law.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Wernick.
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
Just ahead of our concluding here today, I've been advised by the clerk that the document Mr. Wernick sent in has been translated, and I believe it has been shared with the committee.
I want to thank you for that, Mr. Wernick.
Seeing no other discussion or questions, I just want to say thank you to both of our witnesses today, Mr. Wernick and Mr. LaPointe, for providing the committee with valuable information.
I want to thank committee members for their questions.
We are going to resume study of this issue on Wednesday of this week. We're just confirming our witnesses, but I want to say thank you to all of our committee members and particularly our witnesses for being here today.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being in front of the access to information, privacy and ethics committee.
5:05 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you for the invitation and for the flexibility of doing it online.
5:05 p.m.
Vice-President, Editorial, Glacier Media; Publisher and Editor-in-Chief, Business in Vancouver
It's been a real privilege.
Thank you so much.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative